In Conversation .......

[David1819]

And Jeremy was FROM the farm. But it's the distinction between FARM and HOUSE that is the key!

Jeremy is already identified in the same log sheet as 'Mr Bamber'. If they were in conversation with 'Mr Bamber' it would say such. 'Mr Bamber' is not 'a person'. 'a person' is yet to be identified.

[Jane]

Jeremy is already identified in the same log sheet as 'Mr Bamber'. If they were in conversation with 'Mr Bamber' it would say such. 'Mr Bamber' is not 'a person'. 'a person' is yet to be identified.

But they would have known the difference between a male and female voice.

[Caroline]

Jeremy is already identified in the same log sheet as 'Mr Bamber'. If they were in conversation with 'Mr Bamber' it would say such. 'Mr Bamber' is not 'a person'. 'a person' is yet to be identified.

Different people are providing the information and Bonnett and West were not there to see who was being referred to. The only times he would have been referred to as Mr Bamber was if the person relaying the info, notified them of such. 

[lebaleb]

And Jeremy was FROM the farm. But it's the distinction between FARM and HOUSE that is the key!

Jeremy was from the farm but don't you thing saying 'someone from inside the farm' is a strange way of putting it.

[Jane]

Jeremy was from the farm but don't you thing saying 'someone from inside the farm' is a strange way of putting it.

If you were speaking to someone in the house, you'd say that you "were in conversation with someone in the house"

[JackiePreece]

FFS this old chesnut again zzzz

[David1819]

But they would have known the difference between a male and female voice.

Not if it was a one way conversation.

[Caroline]

Jeremy was from the farm but don't you thing saying 'someone from inside the farm' is a strange way of putting it.

It's not how you or I might have said it BUT they made a clear distinction between farm and house.

[Caroline]

FFS this old chesnut again zzzz

Nothing t all constructive to add yet again zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Jane]

Not if it was a one way conversation.

This has been done to death. It isn't a conversation unless it involves two or more people. That part of a conversation used to resolve problems is dialogue.

[Jane]

FFS this old chesnut again zzzz

Feel free to leave. Any time soon will do.

[David1819]

This has been done to death. It isn't a conversation unless it involves two or more people. That part of a conversation used to resolve problems is dialogue.

The communication can still be one way.

[Jane]

<a href="http://" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://</a>

The communication can still be one way.

It's possible to communicate something without knowing if there is anyone there to receive it -we can open a door/window.stand on top of a building and yell- but to be "in communication WITH" requires that another person is responding.

[David1819]

It's possible to communicate something without knowing if there is anyone there to receive it -we can open a door/window.stand on top of a building and yell- but to be "in communication WITH" requires that another person is responding.

If you're going to take what is written that literally. Then either they spoke to Sheila or an accomplice employed by Jeremy.

[Jane]

If you're going to take what is written that literally. Then either they spoke to Sheila or an accomplice employed by Jeremy.

OR they didn't have a grammatical handle on the English language?