Update on the telephone engineers testimony

[grahameb]

I have been researching the telephone systems of the 1980. I am not doing this to prove any point, since whatever I say is not believed anyway by certain impenetrable individuals. I did find this short promotional film which I found quite informative for my own use though.
Although I believe the Maldon exchange at the the time was still using the old strowger type, this is about the new system X and early form of digital exchange that eventually the whole country would be converted to.

What I have found out so far concerning the ringing cut off is that the strowger type of exchange had a cut of point of 5 minutes. With other mechanical systems the times varied somewhat. And with some there was no cut off time. It would just ring and ring. Whether this was the type that was installed in Maldon I don't know? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy_6DL4haJA

[lookout]

 Bro.worked at Strowger in Edge lane,Liverpool before it became Plessey,,then other firms took over.

[Caroline]

to be fair the whole statement does not appear to be there - I  am not sure if it is available anywhere -I don't think we can come to a conclusion until we see the rest of it.

I think it's pretty clear that if data could be stored, we would have heard about it by now. Grahame's info matches what I was told by an old BT engineer and the statement says the same thing.

[grahameb]

Who is they?  There was an engineer from the phone company who testified that such a call was made.  He lied to help the defense by claiming there definitely was a call made? 

If I didn't care about accuracy and only about claiming Jeremy was guilty no matter what I would say great then there is no evidence of a call was made at all.  That actually hurts Jeremy's defense.  But I do care about accuracy so is there actual documentary evidence that proves there would have been no way to tell if a call had actually been made?

If we are going to discount trial testimony we need a pretty solid basis to do so.

What that actually proves is our honesty in reporting the facts whether it hurts Jeremy's defence or not. We don't hold on to our views for dear life. Believe it we are interested in truth and not in our our own pathetic scenarios as some on here do whilst stopping their ears and singing lalalala if there is something they don't agree with.

[Caroline]

What that actually proves is our honesty in reporting the facts whether it hurts Jeremy's defence or not. We don't hold on to our views for dear life. Believe it we are interested in truth and not in our our own pathetic scenarios as some on here do whilst stopping their ears and singing lalalala if there is something they don't agree with.

I agree 100%, it's pointless hanging onto myths simply to bolster our opinion. That won't find the truth.

[wilf]

What that actually proves is our honesty in reporting the facts whether it hurts Jeremy's defence or not. We don't hold on to our views for dear life. Believe it we are interested in truth and not in our our own pathetic scenarios as some on here do whilst stopping their ears and singing lalalala if there is something they don't agree with.

so it doesnt prove a call was made ....or not made !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mike tesko]

A neighbour of Jeremys spotted cannabis plants being cultured in his rear garden at Head Street. The neighbour took several photographs showing a view of the cache of crops from the vantage point of the neighbours upstairs rear window, photographs which were given to the police, before the shootings occurred. JEREMY was therefore under surveillance by the drugs squad acquired a 28 day warrant for telephone interception of Jeremys landline, and all other landlines he had access to, or from which he received calls. This explains how the police knew that Ralph had made the call to Jeremy, and then a call to the police. It explains how Jerem6 received the call from his father, how the call was terminated, how Jeremy tried to ring him back but got an engaged tone, then calling Mugford and the police...

[mike tesko]

Undercover drug squad officers followed Jeremy home on evening of 6th August 1985, and did not see him leave his cottage...

[Alias]

Undercover drug squad officers followed Jeremy home on evening of 6th August 1985, and did not see him leave his cottage...

Why wouldn´t his defence team have used this in court?

[scipio_usmc]

What that actually proves is our honesty in reporting the facts whether it hurts Jeremy's defence or not. We don't hold on to our views for dear life. Believe it we are interested in truth and not in our our own pathetic scenarios as some on here do whilst stopping their ears and singing lalalala if there is something they don't agree with.

I do not see the same vigor with regard to other myths being told about the case though.

Moreover, I don't see anyone willing to go through the questions that one has to go through to try to assess whether Nevill would have been likely to make the call.

As I said before he could have simply called his own answering machine had the cordless phone been present to record the call and that would give the impression a call had been made. He could have thought the phone company would likewise keep evidence of this.  We don't know what were his beliefs in regard to the phone company retaining evidence of calls. If he knew they would not be able to tell then ther ewould be no need to bother faking a call he coudl just make it up.  If he didn't know he could have simply have mad ehis answering machine answer which would be  a call though not one where any speaking occurred just from the sense of being answered.

Unless he talks we will never know in full what he was thinking and how far he went in staging things. I don't think that he would remember every detail given the passage of time anyway though he would never tell all now anyway.

 

[grahameb]

I do not see the same vigor with regard to other myths being told about the case though.

Moreover, I don't see anyone willing to go through the questions that one has to go through to try to assess whether Nevill would have been likely to make the call.

As I said before he could have simply called his own answering machine had the cordless phone been present to record the call and that would give the impression a call had been made. He could have thought the phone company would likewise keep evidence of this.  We don't know what were his beliefs in regard to the phone company retaining evidence of calls. If he knew they would not be able to tell then ther ewould be no need to bother faking a call he coudl just make it up.  If he didn't know he could have simply have mad ehis answering machine answer which would be  a call though not one where any speaking occurred just from the sense of being answered.

Unless he talks we will never know in full what he was thinking and how far he went in staging things. I don't think that he would remember every detail given the passage of time anyway though he would never tell all now anyway.

 

All supposition and poppycock mate. It all comes from the cynical depths of your own perverted imagination.

[lookout]

 Pity Jeremy hadn't added,to his fathers' call,that the plants were ready. You can bet your life that would have been recorded,separately,,no problem.

[Jan]

well if it is only to establish whether its likely or not then there is not a lot of point - does not prove whether it actually happened or not .

Anyway Adam has  started more than one thread just specifically on this question so if you use the search button it is the 19 reasons Neville would not have made the call . We all gave him the courtesy of answering

[wilf]

A neighbour of Jeremys spotted cannabis plants being cultured in his rear garden at Head Street. The neighbour took several photographs showing a view of the cache of crops from the vantage point of the neighbours upstairs rear window, photographs which were given to the police, before the shootings occurred. JEREMY was therefore under surveillance by the drugs squad acquired a 28 day warrant for telephone interception of Jeremys landline, and all other landlines he had access to, or from which he received calls. This explains how the police knew that Ralph had made the call to Jeremy, and then a call to the police. It explains how Jerem6 received the call from his father, how the call was terminated, how Jeremy tried to ring him back but got an engaged tone, then calling Mugford and the police...

mike thankyou for replying to my questions I left yesterday. I must say it does seem a bit extreme for a back gardens worth of class c was there more to it? why not let the drug squad pull him? and where does a panic button at WHF fit in?

[Adam]

Whether Jeremy could have answered his own call or not does not does not show guilt or innocence.

The prosecution did not say he answered his own call.

He may have answered his own call. He may have left his answering machine to answer it, which is the phone being answered. Or he may not have got back in time to answer his call.