Kitchen telephone

[Caroline]

Have you changed your stance on the case Reader? Do you believe JB is guilty?

I was thinking the same thing!

[Adam]

Reader may be agreeing with the trial judge, who said it could only be Sheila or Bamber.  With all the forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila,  stance changes have to be made. 

There have been post trial suggestions that RB, AE, a random stranger, a hit man or SAS style hit man team committed the massacre. These are unproven. 

TomG said his 27th May post was his 'last hoot' after his innocence posts were taken apart & Sherlock said this month 'it was not possible for Sheila to have shot herself'. 

But not everyone will change stance. JackieD bases her support on Julie's actions rather than forensic evidence, while Roch constantly & Bill once a year saying they have undisclosed evidence is very persuasive to Susan.
 

[maggie]

Reader may be agreeing with the trial judge, who said it could only be Sheila or Bamber.  With all the forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila,  stance changes have to be made. 

There have been post trial suggestions from supporters of RB, AE, a random stranger, a hit man or SAS style hit man team committing the massacre. These suggestions are unlikely to have any impact if the CCRC ever look at the case again.

TomG said his 27th May post was his 'last hoot' after his innocence posts were taken apart & Sherlock agreed this month that Sheila 'couldn't have killed herself'.

Some supporters base their guilt/innocence stance on Julie's actions rather than forensic evidence, which again would not  influence the CCRC. While Roch constantly & Bill once a year saying they have undisclosed evidence is very persuasive to Susan.

Does it never occur to you that Roch just MIGHT have undisclosed evidence which cannot be denied/disproved? 
It is always wise to hedge your bets Adam, you can never be totally sure you have backed the right horse.   

[Steve_uk]

Does it never occur to you that Roch just MIGHT have undisclosed evidence which cannot be denied/disproved? 
It is always wise to hedge your bets Adam, you can never be totally sure you have backed the right horse.   

Well I'm getting sick and tired of undisclosed evidence from whatever quarter it may emanate. Since this is Bill Robertson's thread I'll recall his recent comment and give those concerned until Christmas to put the material in the public domain and let us all make up our own minds.

[maggie]

Well I'm getting sick and tired of undisclosed evidence from whatever quarter it may emanate. Since this is Bill Robertson's thread I'll recall his recent comment and give those concerned until Christmas to put the material in the public domain and let us all make up our own minds.

It's not really about 'us making up our own minds' is it Steve?  Surely it's about whether someone who has been in prison for 53 years actually deserves to be there or not. 

If he shouldn't be there I hope justice takes it course but of course like the wheels of hell, justice also grinds extremely slow.

[David1819]

Reader may be agreeing with the trial judge, who said it could only be Sheila or Bamber.  With all the forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila,  stance changes have to be made. 

There have been post trial suggestions that RB, AE, a random stranger, a hit man or SAS style hit man team committed the massacre. These are unproven. 

TomG said his 27th May post was his 'last hoot' after his innocence posts were taken apart & Sherlock said this month 'it was not possible for Sheila to have shot herself'. 

But not everyone will change stance. JackieD bases her support on Julie's actions rather than forensic evidence, while Roch constantly & Bill once a year saying they have undisclosed evidence is very persuasive to Susan.

 

"Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."

[guest2181]

Does it never occur to you that Roch just MIGHT have undisclosed evidence which cannot be denied/disproved? 
It is always wise to hedge your bets Adam, you can never be totally sure you have backed the right horse.   

I think people should be wary of having the wool pulled over their eyes, by either argument.

As we can't even agree on an interpretation of the information which IS available, it's really quite difficult to have any faith in a person's interpretation of something which isn't available.

[mike tesko]

At best, that would merely show that the officer who wrote that in the log thought that reference was correct. Or to put it in the simplest way possible, what the officer wrote was correct..We know, however, that the BT operator isn't allowed to use the 999 system in that way, and she stated that she didn't. She did not make her own witness statement about this, it was prepared for her by a police officer who had a mindset to try and conceal the truth about the phone changing status whilst armed police officers surounded the farm, changing from being off the hook, into it becoming engaged, then becoming a 999 call, which the police logs clear state was patched through to the police at 6.08am, and closed down at 7.47am...
At about 3:42 am, she was specifically asked why the line was engaged.No, she was asked to check the phone and she reported back that the phone was off the hook.. She informed Pc West that the handset was off-hook. Because it was off the hook it wasn't engaged.. Hence the line was both off-hook and engaged at that time. No, thats just your assumption, if the phone had been engaged when the operator was asked to check the line, she would have told PC West that the phone was engaged, and the operator would have been able to obtain the telephone number of the phone it was engaged with, or to. When the phone is off the hook it is not engaged to an operator, it is simply off the hook with its own dialling tone! If anyone elsewhere tries to phone the phone which has its hanset off the hook, of course the caller will receive an engaged tone!She didn't at that time mention hearing a dog barking. She did not hear the dog barking because the phone was not engaged with another line, it was just off the hook with its own dialling tone! By 3.42am, after Neville Bamber had made his call to PC West (3.26am, or shortly beforehand the exchange line call either remained open and was engaged with the police until for whatever reason it got terminated. If it got terminated somewhere inbetween say around 3.26am and 3.42am when the operator checked the phone, this would fit in snugly with the phone being off the hook by 3.42am, but the dialing tone would have automatically kicked in after a few minutes, leaving the phone at the farm off its cradle, or off the hook, with a dialling tone sounding in the handset! Yes, the operator back in the mid 1980's would have been able to check the line and confirm the phone was off the hook, but she would not be able to eavesdrop the background beyond the handset once the dialing tone was operating in the handset of the phone. An operator couldn't do this back in the mid 1980's because of the old exchange system in use in that era! That's why she didn't report hearing a dog barking by that stage! She only reported hearing a dog barking in the background once the status of the phone altered, into it becoming engaged! It became engaged because someone who was still very much alive inside the farmhouse depressed the cradle on the phone which dismissed the dialling tone and the caller was able to make a call, the caller was in the process of calling someone, or trying to call someone when at 5.47am, the operator was asked to check the phone again and she found it to be engaged, and thats what she reported to the police at the time of that check! What becomes apparent is that the operator has used different jargon at different stages of her involvement in checking the farmhouse phone, initially she uses the jargon, phone is off the hook, which changes at 5.47am, when she uses the jargon that the phone is engaged - both of these states of the phone do not relate to one condition in the state of a phone! Since, a phone can be off the hook with its dialing tone sounding and the phone not be engaged with any other phone! You can't say the phone is engaged in those circumstances because it isn't, its just off the hook! Admittedly, should any outsider try to ring that phone with its handset off its cradle sounding its dialing tone, any such outside caller would be greeted by an engaged tone but that would only be to the caller, since the phone off the hook would still be chiming out its dialling tone! This was what Jeremy was met with when he tried to phone Neville Bamber back after the call was cut short, Jeremy quite correctly states that he kept getting a constant engaged tone! Same thing happened when PC West tried ringing the farmhouse he got the same engaged tone, whilst back at the farm the phone was simply off the hook blurting out its dialing tone! The operator then checked the phone and she was able to say with a degree of certainty that the phone in question was off the hook! She knew this because when she checked the phone she did not get an engaged tone like Jeremy and then PC West had both done beforehand, she was able to tell the phone was off the hook because by that stage (3.42am, or thereabouts) she knew that the phone was in a state where its dialling tone was operating, and no new telephone number had been dialled, by that stage, so she called it as it was, the phone was simply off the hook! But things changed later, because by 5.47am the same phone was checked by the operator and by then it was reportedly now engaged! This is a different state in the phone than the handset simply being off the hook with its dialing tone sounding! When a phone is engaged, and there is an obvious difference between a laymen trying to ring a phone with its handset off the hook sounding its dialling tone, and an operator checking the line of such a phone in such a state! The layman will get an engaged tone and may presume the phone is engaged, whereas the operator can tell the phone in question is not engaged, but simply has its handset off the hook..
You've provided no proof of that - it's just your assertion Well, what I can say is that when Nevilles call to Jeremy was cut short and Jeremy tried to recontact Neville and he kept getting an engaged tone, and similarly when PC West also checked the same phone and he got the same engaged tone, that neither Jeremy, nor PC West could have known that back at the farmhouse Neville was talking to somone on the farm phone, or whether the phone back at the farm was simply off the hook with its dialling tone sounding - but the operator could.., apparently based on mistakenly taking some log entries as being accurate in every particular Recorded in real time as things were happening and unfolding, with no time to edit or to try and exclude features of the truth, by way of paraphrasing for the sake of trying to hide the truth, as happened much later once the mindset of police altered..., even though the relevant detail was explicitly denied by the BT operator.The operator never testified during the trial or the appeal as far as I know. How do you know she made that witness statement herself?
The BT operator explicitly stated that she set up the connection to police HQ to let them listen in by using a normal line, Yes, and I think you have misinterpreted what is put in that particular statement! She is saying that she could not patch through the line she was eavesdropping on, through to the police because the line she was eavesdropping on was a 999 call, and she could not patch an extension of that line through to the police directly without the connection she had control over becoming disabled, so she patched the 999 call through to the police using a normal line! Just like a receptionist does in an office complex!as she wasn't allowed to use the 999 system for that purpose. But then again, maybe she did! Maybe she did patch the line through using the 999 system she was not supposed to use!The police might have suggested using the 999 system, Because she did use the 999 system. If she couldn't do that, for whatever reason, she would have told the police that, and that woulld have been noted in the log.. but she was careful to state that she didn't do that. It's not entirely clear what she stated, it depends how you treat what is said in the witness statement, and whether or not its her words or the paraphrased words of a police officer with a mindset who intends to conceal the fact that the call was patched through using the 999 system from 6.08am all the way through to 7.47am, all being recorded on audio tape! The officer who made the request might have assumed that she used the 999 system, He would have known that the line was switched using the 999 system because the call would be being recorded on the audio tapes which record all 999 calls1 These audio recordings would have had reference numbers, or serial numbers... but she didn't. I believe that she did, whats more the police know she did, and they know why a decision was taken to send two ambulances to the scene, one to go straight to the farmhouse and the other on standby...Thus when the police wanted the link to be closed down, the way they described what happened could well have referred to the 999 system, Because the 999 system was used, and it recorded the two bodies being reportedly found upon entry to the kitchen, it recorded the sound of the shot being discharged in the kitchen, to which an officers report (1612) refers... even though the operator hadn't used it.I don't believe it means what you are trying to imply...
The operator stated at 3:42am that the line was off-hook, Because it was.. but didn't mention hearing a dog barking until later.The dog was heard barking once the operator reported that the line had become engaged (5.47am)..
That's incorrect. At that time, the operator could eavesdrop on a line while it was off-hook, whether or not it was in use to make a call.Not if the phone was off the hook and it was sounding its own dialling tone, not back then in the mid 1980's with the old exchange system they had back then in that region...
The handset was known to be off-hook, please, include that its dialling tone was sounding... and the handset being off-hook is sufficient to ensure that the line is engaged when anyone tries to dial it. Only to the layman, but to an operator she could tell whether somebody was calling somebody else (in which case the line was engaged), or if the dialling tone was working Only operator-connected eavesdroppers (or BT technicians) can listen in on the line. Yes, but an operator could not patch through a normal line call to the police using the 999 system, since for that to happen the originall call being patched through would need to have been a 999 call..The line status was still off-hook but only in that state for a limited period of time (3.42am to 4.46am)and engaged yes, from 5.47am, onwards).., even when the line was eavesdropped it was eavesdropped using the 999 system from 6.08am to 7.47am that morning! From the operators point of view, she knew that the phone back at the farmhouse was linked to the police! Once she arranged that she never referred to the phone at the farm being off the hook, or engaged, but to the layman who might have been trying to get in touch with those inside the house they would keep getting the intermittent engaged tone. Once the operator switched the call from the house to the police using the 999 system which was documented and is there for all to see, it depends what state the phone back at the farm was in at the time the operator linked the house and the police together, as to what state the phone was in back at the house! The phone was either engaged, or it was off the hook displaying a dialling tone after it had ceased being engaged! Once the operator patched the house phone through to the police the phone back at the house would no longer be displaying a dialling tone, or an engaged tone, because the line between the house and the police remained open in its 999 state from 6.08am all the way through to just beyond the time of the shooting in the kitchen, the 999 open line was effectively closed down thereafter at 7.47am.., and regardless of what was written in the logs, Whats the point of keeping logs if your going to ignore them? until the eavesdropping ceased (7.47am).. and the handset was replaced on-hook Who replaced the kitchen phone back on its receiver?, allowing the line to be used normally again Used normally again? Who used it and what was the purpose of using such a significant piece of evidence? What did whoever talk about? Why is it that once the eavesdrop by way of the 999 open line was closed off, that we never got to hear what happened downstairs in the kitchen (after 7.47am) covering how Sheila regained consciousness and fled upstairs, and the commotion that occurred when Harris, Gibbons, and Montgomery entered the kitchen via the same route the raid team had entered!. The police could then have taken the handset off its rest again to make a call or to restage the scene (or both).
It's possible, and the handset being off-hook ensures that the line is engaged (or disconnected altogether). displaying its dialing tone, unless somebody unplgged the lead to the socket!
It's technically impossible for the handset to be taken off-hook without the line immediately becoming engaged Not necessarily, since when the handset is lifted from its cradle or receiver, the phone displays a dialling tone to the person in possession of the handset.Once that person dials a number to some other phone, the caller hears a ringing tone! To anybody else trying to ring that number they would get an engaged tone and would not be able to know whether the person at the other end of the line was talking to someone else on another line, or if the phone was off the hook, or if the phone off the hook was displaying a dialling tone, whereas an operator would be able to tell that difference.., unless the line was disconnected (but it wasn't). Being engaged doesn't mean that an engaged tone is placed on the line.No, it doesn't because what is happening with a phone subject of this issue, is different to how a layman might perceive that same phone, and this might be different to what the operator might know is happening with that phone - its not the same interpretation for everybody.. The engaged tone is instead placed on the line of anyone who attempts to make a call to the engaged number or, to the phone which is simply off the hook, displaying a dialling tone... The only exception is when BT eavesdrops on the line. Back in the mid 1980's the operator could not patch through a normal call line to the police, they could only patch through 999 calls using the open line 999 system, this was because of the old type of exchanges in use in that region at the time of this tragedy at whf...
The engaged tone is intermittent, so it wouldn't prevent the operator from listening. but any lay person ringing that number would not be able to hear a dog barking However, it is probably the case that the operator could choose to terminate the engaged tone she heard, and eavesdrop on the line instead. Ok, I can go along with that..Anyone else who dialled the WHF number would still receive the engaged tone in those circumstances. I've just said this..
The only change was the creation of an eavesdrop, No, the state of the phone changed from the operators perspective, from being off the hook at 3.42am, into an engaged call at 5.47am, into the line being switched by the operator from the house to the police using the 999 system, it remained in that state until 7.47am at which time the 999 open line was closed down, thats what did happen. Around the time the line from the farmhouse was switched to the police using the 999 system, ambulances were summoned for, two ambulances in fact, one to go to the farmhouse immediately, the other to be placed on standby parked up in Pages Lane! This request for ambulances to be brought to the scene coincided with the changes I have drawn attention to, in the state of the farmhouse phone, which went from being off the hook at 3.42 am, onwards, to becoming engaged at 5.47am, and then being switched by the operator via the 999 system at 6.08am so that police had a direct line into the heart of the farmhouse!but the handset remained off-hook As I have already explained, with the phone off the hook, it could be displaying a dialling tone, which to a person would mean they would get an engaged tone if they tried to ring the farmhouse phone with it in that state! But if an operator checked the line, the operator would be able to tell if the phone was off the hook because it was in use, or if the handset was off its cradle with its dialling tone sounding off. People in different places might get a different response and presume something which might not ordinarily be true insofar as the beliefs of other people in the same equation might apply. The person who left the phone off the hook, a lay person trying to ring that number, and the operator who knows why the lay person is getting an engaged tone, is the correct intepretation...and the line remained engaged due to the handset being off-hook. Not to an operator who would be able to tell that the phone was simply off the hook, not engaged in calling anyone at all.. That didn't change until the eavesdropping ended It did, because its recorded in the police message logs, phone off hook at 3.42am, onwards, phone engaged at 5.47am, phone switched using 999 system at 6.08am, 999 open line from kitchen to police closed down at 7.47am, with only two bodies reportedly found by that stage... and the handset was replaced. Who replaced it?
Attempting to make any outgoing call from WHF would have failed unless the handset was first replaced and then lifted again so that a dial tone could be obtained.So, when Harris entered the kitchen with Gibbopns and Montgomery, Harris used the kitchen phone to call ACC Simpson! We know he was on that phone with Simpson until around 8.30am, once Sheila had been relocated on the bed upstairs. Officially that was the time when the body count of two bodies downstars, and three bodies upstairs by 8.10am, altered into the body count downstairs (1) and upstairs (4) occurring! Harris spoke to Simpson regarding this in the presence of Gibbons and Montgomery! At that stage (8.30am) Montgomery assumed Commandership of the firearm operation from PS Adams, the reason for this was because the operation headed by PS Adams until 8.10am, had gone dramatically wrong and pearshaped!
That's incorrect, as the operator explicitly stated that the eavesdrop she set up didn't use the 999 system. The operator would not have been able to patch a normal call that had its handset off its cradle for so long that the exchange did an automatic reset and produced a dialling tone in the handset off the hook, through to the police using the 999 system, or by any other means because when the old exchange reset the dialling tone with the phone at the farm, any connection was forever lost and could not be retrieved... The log's mention of 999 was therefore just an incorrect assumption by the officer who made the log entry. No, it was accurately recorded!
The operator confirmed that it was still engaged,The operator said at first the phone was off the hook (3.42am), then it was engaged (5.47am, and at 6.08am she switched the line from the house to the police using the 999 system - use of the 999 system is restricted to 999 calls only, at least it was back in that part of Essex in the mid 1980's... not that it had just become engaged thats what is recorded in the contemporaneously recorded message logs!. Off-hook is not a line status It is, hence why when a phone was left off the hook the exchange system reset the dialing tone automatically after a few minutes. One the dialing tone was set it sure has to be termed as a state of the line!, just an explanation of why the line is engaged.It depends whose saying the phone is engaged, the caller, or the operator, the former might use that to described their attempt to ring a number, but the operator would know if the line was being used and therefore engaged, or if the phone was off the hook displaying a dialling tone!
That's definitely incorrect. It's important that BT can eavesdrop on a line with a handset off-hook, especially when asked to do so by the police. This is independent of the 999 system. Not back in that neck of the woods in the mid 1980's, and there was no way an operator could switch a normal line call that had already reverted to its dialing tone hours beforehand, to the police using the 999 system - it had to0 be a 999 call in the first instance for an operator to do that or this then...

[Adam]

"Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."

Yes TomG did say my 8 facts why Bamber chose the rifle he did were 'straw man' reasons.

When I asked him what weapon Bamber should have used instead, he denied saying Bamber "used a totally inappropriate weapon" & asked me to find proof he did say it.

After I quoted his post he still wouldn't answer & then left the forum.

[Adam]

"Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."

Anyway how are  you getting on with the 20 pieces of forensic evidence from the COA. Showing Sheila did not fire a rifle ?

Oh yes. You have posted a picture of a clean, bloodless, undamaged foot.

Then again, Julie did identify the twins. 

[Caroline]

I think people should be wary of having the wool pulled over their eyes, by either argument.

As we can't even agree on an interpretation of the information which IS available, it's really quite difficult to have any faith in a person's interpretation of something which isn't available.

Seeing is believing and Bill couldn't even decide if he knew Taff Jones or not. Alarm bells!

[JackieD]

No, but I'm less confident that the statement made by Pc Cracknell is reliable in all of its details. If it is, Bill Robertson's points are supported. Of course, Bill also asserted he has found more that goes beyond what's available on this site.

Thank you for making that clear Reader. I always look forward to readin your posts

[JackieD]

Well I'm getting sick and tired of undisclosed evidence from whatever quarter it may emanate. Since this is Bill Robertson's thread I'll recall his recent comment and give those concerned until Christmas to put the material in the public domain and let us all make up our own minds.

I would like to say when Mark Williams Thomas was in touch with me on a regular basis re the TV documentary he often sent me stuff and asked me not to post certain stuff on the open forum

I would never have gone against his wishes

[JackieD]

It's not really about 'us making up our own minds' is it Steve?  Surely it's about whether someone who has been in prison for 53 years actually deserves to be there or not. 

If he shouldn't be there I hope justice takes it course but of course like the wheels of hell, justice also grinds extremely slow.

Maggie I can wait, I am just excited that Roch is confirming what I always believed. Roch is the last person who would make something up

[JackieD]

Seeing is believing and Bill couldn't even decide if he knew Taff Jones or not. Alarm bells!

That's not true
Again!!!