Update on the telephone engineers testimony

[grahameb]

From the 2002 appeal:


vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:

a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;

b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;

c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;

d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and

e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.

With due respect Adam the phone call, which apparently has been proved to have taken place backs up Jeremy's claim that he did in fact receive a call from his father.
The court's claim that it could not have happened because of the reasons you stated are false, as they were not in possession of whay actually did happen in WHF that morning.
An investigator, if they are to reach the true conclusion must always start at the beginning and work outwards.
In other words because Jeremy claimed to have received a call from his father that morning and such a call did take place that morning and someone from WHF phoned his phone. This established the fact that what Bamber claimed was true. If it was in fact true, then Bamber cannot be placed at WHF that morning.
So you are now compelled to rethink your scenario as to what actually DID happen at WHF that morning? Because it could not have happened as you guessed it happened.

[grahameb]

Since it wasn't manned how can they tell a call was made at all?  The equipment does have some way of recording data or they would not be able to tell a call was even made.  The engineer says they could determine the call was made and not ended at WHF it remained off the hook because no signal was sent to end the call.

If you want to argue they had no ability to tell anything be my guest because that means they would not be able to tell the call was made either.

Did he say how long it remained off the hook?

[grahameb]

Question. If a call was definately made to Bamber from WHF on that morning of the 7th and Jeremy testified that he did indeed receive such a call. Why then did the judge apparently call it "MYSTERIOUS" ?

[Caroline]

Since it wasn't manned how can they tell a call was made at all?  The equipment does have some way of recording data or they would not be able to tell a call was even made.  The engineer says they could determine the call was made and not ended at WHF it remained off the hook because no signal was sent to end the call.

If you want to argue they had no ability to tell anything be my guest because that means they would not be able to tell the call was made either.

The highlighted section is utter rubbish! And the second part of your post is exactly what I am saying 'there is NO WAY to tell the call was made or wasn't made and certainly no way to tell who hung up first' if there was, we wouldn't be arguing about it now - it would have been settled at the time. You can keep stating the above but it is completely wrong, there was nothing in the old exchanges that recorded data, and Maldon was one of the last to be updated.

[Adam]

I have seen no proof that the prosecution claimed Jeremy picked up his own call.

I have also seen no proof that this could not be done, if Jeremy so wish.

The jury were given a straight choice. Were the moved phones and the kitchen phone off the hook, down to Jeremy, or not ?

[Adam]

Question. If a call was definately made to Bamber from WHF on that morning of the 7th and Jeremy testified that he did indeed receive such a call. Why then did the judge apparently call it "MYSTERIOUS" ?

I created a thread on the judges use of the word mysterious.

It is a damning word. Not far from unbelievable.

Oxford dictionary definition - 'Difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.

The judge simply did not believe Neville phoned Jeremy. Even Jeremy's supporters cannot explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. You're explanation was Neville ran downstairs and phoned Jeremy after the shooting started.  :D

[lookout]

 This case has focussed on ONE man only.

 There were Three adults in that farmhouse !

 Two psychotic women------------with issues ! Both on a short fuse. This,,to my mind,is the beginning of the case and should have been studied in-depth,and at length, as to the situation and atmosphere of that night. Sheila and her mother argued as soon as Sheila stepped foot inside the farmhouse.

Everything else follows,,investigations,etc.

[grahameb]

The highlighted section is utter rubbish! And the second part of your post is exactly what I am saying 'there is NO WAY to tell the call was made or wasn't made and certainly no way to tell who hung up first' if there was, we wouldn't be arguing about it now - it would have been settled at the time. You can keep stating the above but it is completely wrong, there was nothing in the old exchanges that recorded data, and Maldon was one of the last to be updated.

That is why I asked why the judge called it a "mysterious" phone call. If it could be proved that a phone call actually took place on that morning the judge would rather have been convinced that Jeremy was the obvious one to have received that call. But he didn't say that. He called it Jeremy's "mysterious" phone call.
So is scipio making all this up I wonder in order to fit into his theory that Jeremy phoned from WHF to his own phone in Goldhanger and then peddled like a maniac to try and beat the 6 minute time limit? Also when I asked that he posted the engineers testimony he said that it was not available online. Well what's to prevent scipio from photocopying the statement from what was obviously a book or something similar and posting it on here?
I rather think it is a big wind up on his part?

[grahameb]

I have seen no proof that the prosecution claimed Jeremy picked up his own call.

I have also seen no proof that this could not be done, if Jeremy so wish.

The jury were given a straight choice. Were the moved phones and the kitchen phone off the hook, down to Jeremy, or not ?

Well this is an indication that scipio's post about the phone call is one big hoax?

[grahameb]

I created a thread on the judges use of the word mysterious.

It is a damning word. Not far from unbelievable.

Oxford dictionary definition - 'Difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.

The judge simply did not believe Neville phoned Jeremy. Even Jeremy's supporters cannot explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. You're explanation was Neville ran downstairs and phoned Jeremy after the shooting started.  :D

If it didn't happen it would have been unbelievable. But if such a call could be proved to have taken place then the judge would have been compelled to take the most logical and obvious step of mentioning that (1) Such a callk did take place and (2) That if such a call took place then this would automatically back-up Jeremy's story. It isn't a question of the judge not believing Jeremy. He was bound by the facts of the case. But no phone call has every been mentioned until scipio came on the scene.

Shall I tell you the initial reaction of the telephone engineers was? They thought I was writing a novel and immediately told me that such a plot involving the use of a telephone in such a way was rather a silly plot because it simply would not work. Now that was the voice of real experts.

[wilf]

Telephone was subject of a warrant in force at the time of the shootings involving special branch officers, this is how police know that Ralph called Jeremy from the scene, and that Ralph then called the police before activating the panic alarm at 3.29am sharp...

what warrant? why? and what panic alarm?

[Jan]

The highlighted section is utter rubbish! And the second part of your post is exactly what I am saying 'there is NO WAY to tell the call was made or wasn't made and certainly no way to tell who hung up first' if there was, we wouldn't be arguing about it now - it would have been settled at the time. You can keep stating the above but it is completely wrong, there was nothing in the old exchanges that recorded data, and Maldon was one of the last to be updated.

apologies for being stupid here - but how did the telephone bills get worked out ? I know they were not itemised but what would someone do if they had a query on a  phone bill - say length of time or the amount on the bill?

[nugnug]

one thing i think weve established is jeremy couldent of phoned himself from whf if the phone call happened he must be innocent.

[grahameb]

apologies for being stupid here - but how did the telephone bills get worked out ? I know they were not itemised but what would someone do if they had a query on a  phone bill - say length of time or the amount on the bill?

I am currently looking into that Jan. I'm not sure if they were all charged as trunk calls, or if they were charged by the timing of the call? I have an idea that such a call would be charged at a standard rate of a trunk call? Not absolutely sure though?

[Jan]

I am sure on the list of what the police took away there were telephone bills listed.