Kitchen telephone

[mike tesko]

During Jeremy's trial the prosecution dishonestly tried to make out that if he had received a call from Neville Bamber, that because the phone was off the hook back in the kitchen, that Jeremy would not have been able to dial his father's number back and get an engaged tone because they argued the phone at the farm was left off the hook and if Jeremy had tried to ring Neville back the line would still be open, and he Jeremy would not be able to make another call out from his cottage until several minutes elapsed, yet if Neville deliberately depressed the receiver to get a. Dialling tone, then he Jeremy would have been able to get a dialling tone on his own phone much more quickly! When all along cops and their CpS counterparts have known that somebody who was still alive inside the farmhouse at 5.47am caused the phone to become mysteriously engaged, and at 6.08am the operator switched this engaged line from the farmhouse to let's say xyz, to the police!

Xyz being as I understand it was a 999 call for ambulances to be brought immediately to the scene for the wounded, and dying victims who had been shot by that stage (6.08am)!

Phone condition / State

Off the hook = OTH
Engaged = E
Exchange line call = ELC
Normal Line call = NLC
999 call = XYZ
999 system = XYZS
Operator = O
Caller = C
Third party Caller = TPC

With the phone being said to be OTH by the O, it could mean that the handset was simply off its cradle, and sounding a dialing tone, or if a number had been dialled the line might be still open with the number dialled. The caller C responsible for such a phone having its handset off the cradle, might have called a number and be getting a ringing tone! Or C might have been placed on hold by the person they called, or C might simply not have dialled any number and the phone is just chiming out a dialling tone! On the other hand, any TPC trying to contact C would be greeted with an engaged tone! The point being that the O would be able to tell which state the phone of C was in at the time O made a check, whereas TPC would not! There would be no reason for an O to mix up jargon and confuse everybody by declaring that the phone was OTH one minute, and E on the next minute, and suggest that both of these expressions amount to the same thing because as we have seen, they may not relate to the same condition or state, it depends who's using the phone, who the C is, whether an O takes a particular interest in a call for whatever reason, and any involvement from TPC trying to contact C - different participants in such an arrangement might see or hear or interpret things differently!

[mike tesko]

The main gist of what I have been stating is that there was a 999 open line call from the phone at the farmhouse, and the police at the control room in Chelmsford, which  goes a long way to establishing that Jeremy Bamber is not a killer, he was wrongly convicted of the killings, because cops and their CPS counterparts know with 100% certainty that there was clearly someone still alive inside the farmhouse after 5.47am when the farm phone mysteriously became engaged at around the same time that according to one message in one of the logs police were engaged in a conversation with a person from inside the farm, engaged being the keyword! By 6.08am the line which had become engaged from its previous state of being off the hook was switched to the police in the control room!

[Caroline]

That's not true
Again!!!

yes it is!

[Bill Robertson]

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

Cobblers. Not what I said at all.
It was 40 years ago. I knew Taff, I met him at least once for a chat, I may have met him more often than that, I can't remember. Not that it is really relevant or of any importance anyway.
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
Over and out.

[Jane]

Cobblers. Not what I said at all.
It was 40 years ago. I knew Taff, I met him at least once for a chat, I may have met him more often than that, I can't remember. Not that it is really relevant or of any importance anyway.
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
Over and out.

A view held by both sides of the divide!

[guest2181]

This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.

So it would appear. 

[susan]

Cobblers. Not what I said at all.
It was 40 years ago. I knew Taff, I met him at least once for a chat, I may have met him more often than that, I can't remember. Not that it is really relevant or of any importance anyway.
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
Over and out.

Hello Bill

I met people forty years ago on a casual basis and it would be difficult to say whether I met them once or maybe twice so I understand where you are coming from and heck what is all the fuss about just trying to catch you out methinks 

[guest7363]

Cobblers. Not what I said at all.
It was 40 years ago. I knew Taff, I met him at least once for a chat, I may have met him more often than that, I can't remember. Not that it is really relevant or of any importance anyway.
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
Over and out.

No one is trying to catch you out Bill as been suggested by posters, but it's nice to see you have edited your foyer post from,

Apologies, I didn't know I was meant to log in here first.

I have studied the first 2 hours of the case for the past 3 years; just the first 2 hours!
Finding out everything possible about what happened, particularly in relation to the police and trying to figure out which of my ex-colleagues have been economical with the truth, or supremely inventive.

I got interested because casting a professional eye over the case it was obvious where the lies were. Proving that they are lies takes a bit more effort.

Jeremy Bamber is innocent.

To this?


Apologies, I didn't know I was meant to log in here first.

I started life as a Media Distribution Officer for Don Smith's newsagents. Then I worked for many years in a local café as a Gastronomical Hygiene Technician before leaving to join the local council as a Highway Environmental Hygienist Technician. I still enjoy pushing my broom around the streets picking up litter, gives me lots of time for thinking about Jeremy's case. Never had any dealings with the police, never worked for them, don't know anything about police procedures.

So please just judge anything I write on the merits of the information posted. My background has no bearing on the accuracy or quality of the information..

I do believe that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.

[guest7363]

Cobblers. Not what I said at all.
It was 40 years ago. I knew Taff, I met him at least once for a chat, I may have met him more often than that, I can't remember. Not that it is really relevant or of any importance anyway.
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
Over and out.

I think you will find Bill that most of the mud slinging and offensive language mainly comes from people who think Bamber innocent, this would be proved by past posts and posters, myself and people who think Bamber guilty just want the truth Bill.

[lookout]

I think you will find Bill that most of the mud slinging and offensive language mainly comes from people who think Bamber innocent, this would be proved by past posts and posters, myself and people who think Bamber guilty just want the truth Bill.

This is because the guilters are always winding people up. My own language leaves a lot to be desired but somehow I've managed to hold back.
BTW,I have seen language used by a guilter/s in the past,but it was deleted. It was the ****off one !!

[guest7363]

This is because the guilters are always winding people up. My own language leaves a lot to be desired but somehow I've managed to hold back.
BTW,I have seen language used by a guilter/s in the past,but it was deleted. It was the ****off one !!

Sorry Lookout, I did say mainly, meaning not all x

[susan]

This is because the guilters are always winding people up. My own language leaves a lot to be desired but somehow I've managed to hold back.
BTW,I have seen language used by a guilter/s in the past,but it was deleted. It was the ****off one !!

Morning lookout

Just read the post from Bill and he did not indicate whether he was referring to Jeremy guilty or Jeremy innocent supporters he probably meant the lot of us hehehehe Next time you are in London and you see a man on a broomstick shout Hi to Bill

[guest7363]

Morning lookout

Just read the post from Bill and he did not indicate whether he was referring to Jeremy guilty or Jeremy innocent supporters he probably meant the lot of us hehehehe Next time you are in London and you see a man on a broomstick shout Hi to Bill

You mean you have just re read the post from Bill, you first read it and responded at 9.28am?

[lookout]

Morning lookout

Just read the post from Bill and he did not indicate whether he was referring to Jeremy guilty or Jeremy innocent supporters he probably meant the lot of us hehehehe Next time you are in London and you see a man on a broomstick shout Hi to Bill

Hi Susan,just read it myself. Bill is in the innocent camp and always has been. He just wasn't used to how some would react--------but he knows now  That's what you get when you're a supporter,which goes to show that the guilters are more paranoid about the case and more deeply supportive of their cause. I don't think it matters,myself,to be that carried away to be honest as there are more pressing issues in this world. Such as 3,000 potential killers in our midst that are KNOWN of.

[Caroline]

Cobblers. Not what I said at all.
It was 40 years ago. I knew Taff, I met him at least once for a chat, I may have met him more often than that, I can't remember. Not that it is really relevant or of any importance anyway.
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
Over and out.

I agree and claim to have evidence of Jeremy innocence - but never come out and post it.

Actually, this is what you said "Grahame, I like your ability to step back from the fray; a cool head. In relation to Taff Jones, I knew him and it is distinctly possible he would have testified in Jeremy's favour. In fact, I would have bet that he would have done." You would have to know someone pretty well to claim they would do that. Taff Jones NEVER mentioned to anyone that he had PROOF of Jeremy's innocence and was the first officer to interrogate him once arrested. You later said you met him once. 50, 50, 60 years - you would remember if you KNEW someone  well enough to make the above claim.