Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: vidvic on June 28, 2011, 01:54:AM
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
-
I would also add, that this claim has comeabout because of the now notorious 'logs'.
This subject was covered in the original trial and it was agreed by both sides that these logs related to one call from JB to Police at 3.26.
It is surely dangerous to devise entire theories around these logs which were being compiled third hand back at Chelmsford.
Did the Police not admit that on first glimpse through the kitchen window, with his pushed forward grey hair, that they originally thought Nevill to be a woman? Are we honestly expected to believe that SC was originally lying on the Kitchen floor and unseen by anyone, got up, went upstairs to shoot herself for the second time? Or was shot by the Police? And all this from logs, which as I've demonstrated above, are giving you very misleading info.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
-
The original version of Police Sergeant Woodcocks, witness statement, contained no fewer than 13 pages at its inception, which became transformed into 10 pages, by the time significant information, and evidence, which related to the first moments that armed police, entered the kitchen at whf, and discovered two bodies there - the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female...
(Mike Tesko).
I think what we are being asked to believe is that the body of a male was mistaken as the body of a female, from looking through the window (hair flopped etc).
That this female body was jotted down in rough somewhere along the chain of communication...and then added on to the body of the male 'found on entry' in error. (Nobody using radio communications has asked any clarification / confirmation questions, which seems odd given the brevity of the situation).
And not only that... but also in this chain of communication somebody, somewhere has took it upon themselves to describe one of these bodies as a suicide when contacting SOCO Neil Davidson.
Furthermore, there exisits a non-disclosed report about a shooting incident in the kitchen.
Then, photographs of photographs of Sheila Caffell have been examined by professors... and they have given a time of death not superior to two hours prior to photography.
-
As for the phonecalls I am really unsure. But if the message passed over from Jeremy is referring to Jeremy's alleged phonecall from Nevill to himself... It cannot have been recorded as verbatim by police. Because Nevill would not describe Sheila as his 'daughter' to Jeremy....
He would however, describe Sheila as his 'daughter' if he was communicating with a stranger.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Really smiffy? You might want to tell the defence team at trial and at appeal, as they have worked very hard to show the phone call was AFTER he called the police.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
Hi Mike,
10/11 minutes from 3.36 IS NOT 3.45/3.46, it is 3.46/3.47. 7 Minutes to drive equals 3.54 and that's without getting dressed. JB's own website makes great play of him being with Police from 3.48. It's simply NOT possible!
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
Hi Mike,
10/11 minutes from 3.36 IS NOT 3.45/3.46, it is 3.46/3.47. 7 Minutes to drive equals 3.54 and that's without getting dressed. JB's own website makes great play of him being with Police from 3.48. It's simply NOT possible!
Vidvic... Are the points you are trying to state:
Only one call from Jeremy at 3.26 which is recorded on Bonnet's other log at 3.36? And that this 3.26 call from Jeremy would fit in with him being with police at 3.48? No call from Nevill. Then the defence are only left with an allegation that Nevill called Jeremy. A claim which is all the weaker for him not having phoned the police?
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
Hi Mike,
10/11 minutes from 3.36 IS NOT 3.45/3.46, it is 3.46/3.47. 7 Minutes to drive equals 3.54 and that's without getting dressed. JB's own website makes great play of him being with Police from 3.48. It's simply NOT possible!
Vidvic... Are the points you are trying to state:
Only one call from Jeremy at 3.26 which is recorded on Bonnet's other log at 3.36? And that this 3.26 call from Jeremy would fit in with him being with police at 3.48? No call from Nevill. Then the defence are only left with an allegation that Nevill called Jeremy. A claim which is all the weaker for him not having phoned the police?
Hi Rochford,
Yes, only a call from Jeremy to the Police at 3.26 gave him time to get to the farm.
My secondary point is that this theory of a Nevill to Police call, only came from reading logs, claimed as 'new evidence' which not only were entered into evidence at the original trail but were discussed as well. They have now resurfaced after 26 years and given a new twist, which on further inspection don't stack up.
-
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.
In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?
One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.
-
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.
In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?
One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.
As for the reason of the speed of JB when the police overtook him, is it not reasonable that JB would have slowed down to "allow" the police to pass him.
I assume the police had blue lights flashing
-
good point CLIFF
hmm those phone logs...
The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?
she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!
-
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.
In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?
One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.
As for the reason of the speed of JB when the police overtook him, is it not reasonable that JB would have slowed down to "allow" the police to pass him.
I assume the police had blue lights flashing
Yes it's possible he slowed down (I don't think we should assume anything, we don't know if the police had their blues on), however he still arrived a few minutes after police unit CA07 did, so he wasn't driving like Nigel Mansell, which he would have had to have done to make the journey in the time Mike suggests. I'm sorry but this theory is a dead end, it's just another twist to try and fit in a call from Ralph to the police.
Let us also not forget that Ralph could only have made the alleged call after Jeremy's call to the police, otherwise he would surely have mentioned it to Jeremy and as Jeremy has stated that he tried to call back but alleges that the phone was engaged.
Couple that with the advanced rigor mortis present in Ralphs body at the time of entry by the firearms unit, the theory and timings as put across in this instance do not add up.
I would suggest that a better theory would be to look at the apparent lack of rigor mortis in Sheila's body at the time she was photographed by Bird.
-
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.
In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?
One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.
The 3 minutes to get to the car is rather ridiculous,,,
remember the call from Ralph to JB was a while before JB decided to call the police...JB had plenty of time to get dressed , collect his car keys etc so could well have been ready to go as soon as the call to the police was ended.
Less than a minute seems far more credible.
This 10 or 11 minutes in which JB is allegedly in contact with the police on the phone...do we have phone logs from the police stating this time or is it just an estimate that may be far longer than the time the real call duration actually was? From JB's perspective...I dont believe he was observing a clock at the time..and any waiting on the phone at a time of high anxiety would seem a lot longer than it really was.
-
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.
In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?
One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.
As for the reason of the speed of JB when the police overtook him, is it not reasonable that JB would have slowed down to "allow" the police to pass him.
I assume the police had blue lights flashing
Yes it's possible he slowed down (I don't think we should assume anything, we don't know if the police had their blues on), however he still arrived a few minutes after police unit CA07 did, so he wasn't driving like Nigel Mansell, which he would have had to have done to make the journey in the time Mike suggests. I'm sorry but this theory is a dead end, it's just another twist to try and fit in a call from Ralph to the police.
Let us also not forget that Ralph could only have made the alleged call after Jeremy's call to the police, otherwise he would surely have mentioned it to Jeremy and as Jeremy has stated that he tried to call back but alleges that the phone was engaged.
Couple that with the advanced rigor mortis present in Ralphs body at the time of entry by the firearms unit, the theory and timings as put across in this instance do not add up.
I would suggest that a better theory would be to look at the apparent lack of rigor mortis in Sheila's body at the time she was photographed by Bird.
I agree it is an assumption Harters, but I think a fair one, they were on an emergency call after all.
I do not think it would have been likely they had sirens blaring, due to the time of day.
The police are trained to drive at high speeds, so it is likely they would have caught up withJB
-
good point CLIFF
hmm those phone logs...
The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?
she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!
Or JB simply told the police during his call that his sister was "26 or 27", and West and Bonnett recorded the age differently selecting from the "26 or 27".
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
Hi Vic,
another one bites the dust!
See Mikes's reply.
-
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.
In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?
One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.
The 3 minutes to get to the car is rather ridiculous,,,
remember the call from Ralph to JB was a while before JB decided to call the police...JB had plenty of time to get dressed , collect his car keys etc so could well have been ready to go as soon as the call to the police was ended.
Less than a minute seems far more credible.
This 10 or 11 minutes in which JB is allegedly in contact with the police on the phone...do we have phone logs from the police stating this time or is it just an estimate that may be far longer than the time the real call duration actually was? From JB's perspective...I dont believe he was observing a clock at the time..and any waiting on the phone at a time of high anxiety would seem a lot longer than it really was.
Well I disagree. ;)
Even after Ralphs alleged call to Jeremy, he certainly wasn't in a panic or rush, hence he found the time to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, he also initially appeared calm when he made the call to West (according to witness statements and the 2002 Appeal Judgement).
What is ridiculous, is the suggestion that he could have got to whf in 7 minutes from the end of the call to West.
-
I would also add, that this claim has comeabout because of the now notorious 'logs'.
This subject was covered in the original trial and it was agreed by both sides that these logs related to one call from JB to Police at 3.26.
It is surely dangerous to devise entire theories around these logs which were being compiled third hand back at Chelmsford.
Did the Police not admit that on first glimpse through the kitchen window, with his pushed forward grey hair, that they originally thought Nevill to be a woman? Are we honestly expected to believe that SC was originally lying on the Kitchen floor and unseen by anyone, got up, went upstairs to shoot herself for the second time? Or was shot by the Police? And all this from logs, which as I've demonstrated above, are giving you very misleading info.
Hi again,
The various logs which suggest that Sheila was doing just what you claim she couldn't have done are clearly most inconvenient for all of you JB Dun Its. They are not, however, going to go away on account of wishful thinking.
Far better to address this issue as jerry does.
Unless of course, you can't....
-
The original version of Police Sergeant Woodcocks, witness statement, contained no fewer than 13 pages at its inception, which became transformed into 10 pages, by the time significant information, and evidence, which related to the first moments that armed police, entered the kitchen at whf, and discovered two bodies there - the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female...
(Mike Tesko).
I think what we are being asked to believe is that the body of a male was mistaken as the body of a female, from looking through the window (hair flopped etc).
That this female body was jotted down in rough somewhere along the chain of communication...and then added on to the body of the male 'found on entry' in error. (Nobody using radio communications has asked any clarification / confirmation questions, which seems odd given the brevity of the situation).
And not only that... but also in this chain of communication somebody, somewhere has took it upon themselves to describe one of these bodies as a suicide when contacting SOCO Neil Davidson.
Furthermore, there exisits a non-disclosed report about a shooting incident in the kitchen.
Then, photographs of photographs of Sheila Caffell have been examined by professors... and they have given a time of death not superior to two hours prior to photography.
Good points, well made, Rocky! +1
-
I would also add, that this claim has comeabout because of the now notorious 'logs'.
This subject was covered in the original trial and it was agreed by both sides that these logs related to one call from JB to Police at 3.26.
It is surely dangerous to devise entire theories around these logs which were being compiled third hand back at Chelmsford.
Did the Police not admit that on first glimpse through the kitchen window, with his pushed forward grey hair, that they originally thought Nevill to be a woman? Are we honestly expected to believe that SC was originally lying on the Kitchen floor and unseen by anyone, got up, went upstairs to shoot herself for the second time? Or was shot by the Police? And all this from logs, which as I've demonstrated above, are giving you very misleading info.
Hi again,
The various logs which suggest that Sheila was doing just what you claim she couldn't have done are clearly most inconvenient for all of you JB Dun Its. They are not, however, going to go away on account of wishful thinking.
Far better to address this issue as jerry does.
Unless of course, you can't....
Not really Choc, it's explained very clearly in the witness statements. To discard the various witness statements as inaccurate in favour of a completely different version of events simply because that's what the 'JB is Innocent' crowd would prefer is somewhat convenient.
But in any event, it doesn't really matter on here, it can be bounced back and forth forever and neither party will agree. The CCRC have access to the documents and will either accept it or dismiss it.
-
good point CLIFF
hmm those phone logs...
The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?
she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!
Or JB simply told the police during his call that his sister was "26 or 27", and West and Bonnett recorded the age differently selecting from the "26 or 27".
If actual age was uncertain then it would be indicated on the logs as " age approx 26" or "about 26" or 26/27 or similar ..IT IS NOT..
THE POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO RECORD ACCURATELY ...OH DEAR MISTAKES...ETC
IF WE DOUBT EVERY ENTRY THE POLICE MAKE AND WISH TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING OR ALLOW THIS APPROACH THEN NOT A JOT OF POLICE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
So if they cant write someones age as reported to them clearly...then who is to say even the times of the logs are correct or anything reported on them.
The age being given differently is significant and cannot easily be explained away as yet another police cock up.
hmm the suggestion of the police choosing from whatever options are available for them to record is rather a wild claim.
hi pc x...how many bodies do you want to write down as being in the kitchen... 1 or 2 ...
what happened to recording what was observed or heard correctly?
for "hartley"s claim to stand then evidence of this giving age 26 or 27 must be produced and also evidence of the discussion between West and Bonnet..
I dont buy hartleys explanation one bit.
-
good point CLIFF
hmm those phone logs...
The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?
she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!
Or JB simply told the police during his call that his sister was "26 or 27", and West and Bonnett recorded the age differently selecting from the "26 or 27".
If actual age was uncertain then it would be indicated on the logs as " age approx 26" or "about 26" or 26/27 or similar ..IT IS NOT..
THE POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO RECORD ACCURATELY ...OH DEAR MISTAKES...ETC
IF WE DOUBT EVERY ENTRY THE POLICE MAKE AND WISH TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING OR ALLOW THIS APPROACH THEN NOT A JOT OF POLICE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
So if they cant write someones age as reported to them clearly...then who is to say even the times of the logs are correct or anything reported on them.
The age being given differently is significant and cannot easily be explained away as yet another police cock up.
hmm the suggestion of the police choosing from whatever options are available for them to record is rather a wild claim.
hi pc x...how many bodies do you want to write down as being in the kitchen... 1 or 2 ...
what happened to recording what was observed or heard correctly?
for "hartley"s claim to stand then evidence of this giving age 26 or 27 must be produced and also evidence of the discussion between West and Bonnet..
I dont buy hartleys explanation one bit.
Not at all Smiffy. If the defence want to suggest that the two ages noted somehow imply a second call to the police from Ralph, then the defence would need to show evidence.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
Hi Vic,
another one bites the dust!
See Mikes's reply.
err....quite the opposite Keira. I think these timings show the call was impossible.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
I think you need to read JB's statements. Maybe Mike is nearer to putting them up on site?
-
good point CLIFF
hmm those phone logs...
The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?
she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!
Or JB simply told the police during his call that his sister was "26 or 27", and West and Bonnett recorded the age differently selecting from the "26 or 27".
If actual age was uncertain then it would be indicated on the logs as " age approx 26" or "about 26" or 26/27 or similar ..IT IS NOT..
THE POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO RECORD ACCURATELY ...OH DEAR MISTAKES...ETC
IF WE DOUBT EVERY ENTRY THE POLICE MAKE AND WISH TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING OR ALLOW THIS APPROACH THEN NOT A JOT OF POLICE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
So if they cant write someones age as reported to them clearly...then who is to say even the times of the logs are correct or anything reported on them.
The age being given differently is significant and cannot easily be explained away as yet another police cock up.
hmm the suggestion of the police choosing from whatever options are available for them to record is rather a wild claim.
hi pc x...how many bodies do you want to write down as being in the kitchen... 1 or 2 ...
what happened to recording what was observed or heard correctly?
for "hartley"s claim to stand then evidence of this giving age 26 or 27 must be produced and also evidence of the discussion between West and Bonnet..
I dont buy hartleys explanation one bit.
Not at all Smiffy. If the defence want to suggest that the two ages noted somehow imply a second call to the police from Ralph, then the defence would need to show evidence.
not at all..
hmm a little phrase normally delivered by those delivering a falsehood...
do you think the police invite legal representatives or accused persons full access to all information they hold in regards to a case....
the defence can suggest what they like and if 2 different ages are given by the prosecution in documents they are using...then its for the prosecution to explain and provide evidence as to why this discrepancy exists for the case they are making.
until otherwise the defence suggestion holds...and this may be that 2 different callers made calls and one gave the wrong age....oddly the rest of those logs also supports such a contention as being viable and credible.
-
good point CLIFF
hmm those phone logs...
The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?
she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!
Or JB simply told the police during his call that his sister was "26 or 27", and West and Bonnett recorded the age differently selecting from the "26 or 27".
If actual age was uncertain then it would be indicated on the logs as " age approx 26" or "about 26" or 26/27 or similar ..IT IS NOT..
THE POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO RECORD ACCURATELY ...OH DEAR MISTAKES...ETC
IF WE DOUBT EVERY ENTRY THE POLICE MAKE AND WISH TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING OR ALLOW THIS APPROACH THEN NOT A JOT OF POLICE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
So if they cant write someones age as reported to them clearly...then who is to say even the times of the logs are correct or anything reported on them.
The age being given differently is significant and cannot easily be explained away as yet another police cock up.
hmm the suggestion of the police choosing from whatever options are available for them to record is rather a wild claim.
hi pc x...how many bodies do you want to write down as being in the kitchen... 1 or 2 ...
what happened to recording what was observed or heard correctly?
for "hartley"s claim to stand then evidence of this giving age 26 or 27 must be produced and also evidence of the discussion between West and Bonnet..
I dont buy hartleys explanation one bit.
Not at all Smiffy. If the defence want to suggest that the two ages noted somehow imply a second call to the police from Ralph, then the defence would need to show evidence.
not at all..
hmm a little phrase normally delivered by those delivering a falsehood...
do you think the police invite legal representatives or accused persons full access to all information they hold in regards to a case....
the defence can suggest what they like and if 2 different ages are given by the prosecution in documents they are using...then its for the prosecution to explain and provide evidence as to why this discrepancy exists for the case they are making.
until otherwise the defence suggestion holds...and this may be that 2 different callers made calls and one gave the wrong age....oddly the rest of those logs also supports such a contention as being viable and credible.
The fact that JB's current address is not of his own choosing then I would indeed suggest that it is the defence who need to provide evidence of their theories.
-
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.
In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?
One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.
Hi Harters,
Have you ever slowed down when a police car drives up behind your car, to allow it to pass, then speeded up again when it's passed? That's surely a normal human reaction? Jeremy had been caught speeding too, during the previous week, I believe. Paulg says the police vehicle would have been going like a bat out of hell, so once that had passed Jeremy could revert to his normal speed.
-
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.
In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?
One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.
Hi Harters,
Have you ever slowed down when a police car drives up behind your car, to allow it to pass, then speeded up again when it's passed? That's surely a normal human reaction? Jeremy had been caught speeding too, during the previous week, I believe. Paulg says the police vehicle would have been going like a bat out of hell, so once that had passed Jeremy could revert to his normal speed.
Keira, it's irrelevant wether JB slowed to allow the police car to pass him. From the 3.36 call time the defence are claiming, and according to JB's own statements he called JM AFTER the call to Police, he simply could not have arrived at WHF when he did. Not possible.
-
... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...
Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.
In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?
One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.
Hi Harters,
Have you ever slowed down when a police car drives up behind your car, to allow it to pass, then speeded up again when it's passed? That's surely a normal human reaction? Jeremy had been caught speeding too, during the previous week, I believe. Paulg says the police vehicle would have been going like a bat out of hell, so once that had passed Jeremy could revert to his normal speed.
It doesn't matter, there is not enough time to fit in what is being suggested.
-
I also find it slightly amusing that for years we've heard team JB dismiss JB's SLOW driving that morning as irrelevant and now we hear he must have driven like a maniac to make these times fit.....
-
Can I also add that when Jeremy arrived at whf, he was specifically asked why his father had not called the police himself.
Taken from the 2002 Appeal Judgement.
When asked why his father had called him and not the police, he said that his father was not the sort of person to get “organisations” involved, preferring to keep things within the family.
-
Also according to the 2002 Appeal Judgement, Jeremy himself said that he drove slowly to the farmhouse.
Taken from the 2002 Appeal Judgement
The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.
-
good point CLIFF
hmm those phone logs...
The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?
she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!
Or JB simply told the police during his call that his sister was "26 or 27", and West and Bonnett recorded the age differently selecting from the "26 or 27".
If actual age was uncertain then it would be indicated on the logs as " age approx 26" or "about 26" or 26/27 or similar ..IT IS NOT..
THE POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO RECORD ACCURATELY ...OH DEAR MISTAKES...ETC
IF WE DOUBT EVERY ENTRY THE POLICE MAKE AND WISH TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING OR ALLOW THIS APPROACH THEN NOT A JOT OF POLICE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.
So if they cant write someones age as reported to them clearly...then who is to say even the times of the logs are correct or anything reported on them.
The age being given differently is significant and cannot easily be explained away as yet another police cock up.
hmm the suggestion of the police choosing from whatever options are available for them to record is rather a wild claim.
hi pc x...how many bodies do you want to write down as being in the kitchen... 1 or 2 ...
what happened to recording what was observed or heard correctly?
for "hartley"s claim to stand then evidence of this giving age 26 or 27 must be produced and also evidence of the discussion between West and Bonnet..
I dont buy hartleys explanation one bit.
Not at all Smiffy. If the defence want to suggest that the two ages noted somehow imply a second call to the police from Ralph, then the defence would need to show evidence.
not at all..
hmm a little phrase normally delivered by those delivering a falsehood...
do you think the police invite legal representatives or accused persons full access to all information they hold in regards to a case....
the defence can suggest what they like and if 2 different ages are given by the prosecution in documents they are using...then its for the prosecution to explain and provide evidence as to why this discrepancy exists for the case they are making.
until otherwise the defence suggestion holds...and this may be that 2 different callers made calls and one gave the wrong age....oddly the rest of those logs also supports such a contention as being viable and credible.
The fact that JB's current address is not of his own choosing then I would indeed suggest that it is the defence who need to provide evidence of their theories.
Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.
-
Also according to the 2002 Appeal Judgement, Jeremy himself said that he drove slowly to the farmhouse.
Taken from the 2002 Appeal Judgement
The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.
I've read that Jeremy was told not to wait for the police.
-
Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.
I'm not so sure "ironic" is the term I would use, particularly when we remember that five (or four if you're of the other view) people including children have been murdered in cold blood.
-
Also according to the 2002 Appeal Judgement, Jeremy himself said that he drove slowly to the farmhouse.
Taken from the 2002 Appeal Judgement
The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.
I've read that Jeremy was told not to wait for the police.
Sorry Choc, I don't think I understand what you mean. :-[
-
Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.
I'm not so sure "ironic" is the term I would use, particularly when we remember that five people including children have been murdered in cold blood.
That's one of the very reasons that there should have been a full and fair examination of all key evidence. Yet there has never been such an examination, not by the police, not by the defence and not at the trial.
Whatever reasons you give for accepting this gross injustice as fair, Harters, I am certain that this is not the sort of Kangaroo Court 'justice' you would want for yourself or for family were you ever wrongly accused of a crime.
-
Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.
I'm not so sure "ironic" is the term I would use, particularly when we remember that five people including children have been murdered in cold blood.
That's one of the very reasons that there should have been a full and fair examination of all key evidence. Yet there has never been such an examination, not by the police, not by the defence and not at the trial.
Whatever reasons you give for accepting this gross injustice as fair, Harters, I am certain that this is not the sort of Kangaroo Court 'justice' you would want for yourself or for family were you ever wrongly accused of a crime.
Well I'm not convinced the "withheld under PII" argument should be as prevalent as what is being made out, particularly when certain documents are being referred to as recently released yet they are referred to in the original trial and/or the 2002 Appeal.
In addition to which, there have been various appeals and internal and external investigations, which have all found the conviction to be sound, in fact the 1991 COLP investigation specifically highlighted Essex Police Force's mistakes and took them into consideration when stating that despite the errors they would have come to the same verdict, I very much doubt that their investigation was hampered by documents withheld under PII legislation.
-
still waiting for someone to provide evidence of the call from JB to the police taking 11 minutes...
Anne Eatons claims about 11 minutes are hearsay at best and have no foundation so are worthless.
Mike has mentioned things in previous threads that bring these phone logs credibility into question.
wasnt it claimed that Wests' log time was out by 10 minutes allegedly due to West misreading a digital clock... ?
then there is question marks about who dispatched CA5..
Then there is the "DUTY PS" insertion in one of the logs...and such "insertions" in police logs and notebooks etc are notorious as being possible alterations used to build cases against people!
was "DUTY PS" really car CA7 ?...and only later when realised was this addition made as seperate dispatching was done for what at the time were what may have been thought 2 seperate incidents...ie Bonnett and West not in communication very early on...but were communicating later after it was realised the calls received were about the same incident but reported by 2 different people.
-
In my opinion and I have always believed the answer to innocent or guilty lies in resolving the issue of the telephone calls.
The answers for timings needs to work backwards and forwards. With the end point being 3.48 where the defence state, according to websites, that Jeremy arrives at White House Farm.
The starting point being shortly after 3.00 am on the morning of 7th August. I state shortly after 3.00 am because this timing has been used by the defence in various forms and configurations in various websites and case synopsis.
In my opinion the biggest problem the defence has will be with the incorporation of an explanation for the testimony of Julie’s flatmates who are three in number and who testified that they heard the phone ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”. These times relating to a telephone call which Jeremy admits making. It must be remembered these witnesses are not the police, Julie Mugford or any family relative and thus will lie outside any defence allegation of evidence tampering or financial gain through selling a story or by inheritance.
On the subject of the 3.26 and 3.36 telephone logs both have similar content and clearly relate to an alleged firearms incident with someone reportedly going berserk whilst in possession of a firearm. Both logs refer to the telephone going ‘dead’.
On the PTO side of the 3.36 telephone log, as posted by Mike in the ‘Logs of Incident’ thread it is detailed – ‘Informant: Father sounded terrified on phone…. Keeps collection of guns inc 12 bore shotguns, 4/10 shotguns, and .22 rifles.’
This is a bit I also have trouble reconciling –
According to Jeremy
1 - he received a telephone call from his father.
2 – the telephone line goes dead
3 – he tries to call his father back but only gets the engaged tone.
4 – he later reports to the Police that his father sounded terrified
Yet between events 3 and 4 Jeremy does not immediately dial 999 instead he does two things in either order (a) looks up the telephone number for Chelmsford Police Station (b) makes a telephone call to Julie.
The telephone call to Julie (b) is the telephone call which her flatmates have testified they heard the telephone ringing ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”.
Something is not quite right…………….
-
and JM was initially claiming the call from JB was about 3.30 am and very brief...no more than a minute it seems.
-
and JM was initially claiming the call from JB was about 3.30 am and very brief...no more than a minute it seems.
The defence have constantly been trying to discredit Julie Mugford.
Hence the importance of the testimony of 3 independent witnesses.
-
Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.
I'm not so sure "ironic" is the term I would use, particularly when we remember that five people including children have been murdered in cold blood.
That's one of the very reasons that there should have been a full and fair examination of all key evidence. Yet there has never been such an examination, not by the police, not by the defence and not at the trial.
Whatever reasons you give for accepting this gross injustice as fair, Harters, I am certain that this is not the sort of Kangaroo Court 'justice' you would want for yourself or for family were you ever wrongly accused of a crime.
Well I'm not convinced the "withheld under PII" argument should be as prevalent as what is being made out, particularly when certain documents are being referred to as recently released yet they are referred to in the original trial and/or the 2002 Appeal.
In addition to which, there have been various appeals and internal and external investigations, which have all found the conviction to be sound, in fact the 1991 COLP investigation specifically highlighted Essex Police Force's mistakes and took them into consideration when stating that despite the errors they would have come to the same verdict,
I very much doubt that their investigation was hampered by documents withheld under PII legislation.
You have no grounds to make such a claim since none of us know the details of what exactly is being withheld. We can only know in general terms what this might state or show and that some of this withheld evidence is of the essence of this case. That is why the defence must see it. No conviction can ever be safe while key evidence is/ was withheld from the defence and jury and that is what has happened in this case. I would never accept that appalling situation for myself or my family and I am certain, neither would you, Harters.
-
and JM was initially claiming the call from JB was about 3.30 am and very brief...no more than a minute it seems.
The defence have constantly been trying to discredit Julie Mugford.
Hence the importance of the testimony of 3 independent witnesses.
Smiffy
Do you accept what Jeremy said in his 2002 Appeal ............
The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.
-
Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.
I'm not so sure "ironic" is the term I would use, particularly when we remember that five people including children have been murdered in cold blood.
That's one of the very reasons that there should have been a full and fair examination of all key evidence. Yet there has never been such an examination, not by the police, not by the defence and not at the trial.
Whatever reasons you give for accepting this gross injustice as fair, Harters, I am certain that this is not the sort of Kangaroo Court 'justice' you would want for yourself or for family were you ever wrongly accused of a crime.
Well I'm not convinced the "withheld under PII" argument should be as prevalent as what is being made out, particularly when certain documents are being referred to as recently released yet they are referred to in the original trial and/or the 2002 Appeal.
In addition to which, there have been various appeals and internal and external investigations, which have all found the conviction to be sound, in fact the 1991 COLP investigation specifically highlighted Essex Police Force's mistakes and took them into consideration when stating that despite the errors they would have come to the same verdict,
I very much doubt that their investigation was hampered by documents withheld under PII legislation.
You have no grounds to make such a claim since none of us know the details of what exactly is being withheld. We can only know in general terms what this might state or show and that some of this withheld evidence is of the essence of this case. That is why the defence must see it. No conviction can ever be safe while key evidence is/ was withheld from the defence and jury and that is what has happened in this case. I would never accept that appalling situation for myself or my family and I am certain, neither would you, Harters.
I can very easily make that claim on the grounds that the City of London Police are not affected by PII Legislation and therefore would not be required to apply to see withheld documents.
-
and JM was initially claiming the call from JB was about 3.30 am and very brief...no more than a minute it seems.
The defence have constantly been trying to discredit Julie Mugford.
Hence the importance of the testimony of 3 independent witnesses.
Smiffy
Do you accept what Jeremy said in his 2002 Appeal ............
The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.
ah the "bullshit" that appears in appeal court documents... it is summaries and various other bits and pieces and should not be taken at face value as it may mislead.
for example ...in the Luke Mitchell case..in the appeal notes it states the search party left from the victims home... which is completely contrary to what the 3 involved claimed to have done.
such a statement as that (in fact it may be true) completely undermines at least 4 key witnesses and likely many more to an extent in which those 4 have committed blatant perjury.
so going by the appeal version of events...the prosecution case is in tatters.....but is ignored ...wtf
it may have had something to do with the search partys stories being clearly false (impossible)as given in court...hence the prosecution abandoned it at the appeal... and big reason to quash the conviction in itself.
courts of justice....or courts of injustice !!!!
-
and JM was initially claiming the call from JB was about 3.30 am and very brief...no more than a minute it seems.
The defence have constantly been trying to discredit Julie Mugford.
Hence the importance of the testimony of 3 independent witnesses.
Smiffy
Do you accept what Jeremy said in his 2002 Appeal ............
The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.
ah the "bullshit" that appears in appeal court documents... it is summaries and various other bits and pieces and should not be taken at face value as it may mislead.
for example ...in the Luke Mitchell case..in the appeal notes it states the search party left from the victims home... which is completely contrary to what the 3 involved claimed to have done.
such a statement as that (in fact it may be true) completely undermines at least 4 key witnesses and likely many more to an extent in which those 4 have committed blatant perjury.
so going by the appeal version of events...the prosecution case is in tatters.....but is ignored ...wtf
it may have had something to do with the search partys stories being clearly false (impossible)as given in court...hence the prosecution abandoned it at the appeal... and big reason to quash the conviction in itself.
courts of justice....or courts of injustice !!!!
OK in your opinion when did Jeremy ring Julie?
-
and JM was initially claiming the call from JB was about 3.30 am and very brief...no more than a minute it seems.
The defence have constantly been trying to discredit Julie Mugford.
Hence the importance of the testimony of 3 independent witnesses.
Smiffy
Do you accept what Jeremy said in his 2002 Appeal ............
The appellant agreed that on his account, even though his father had asked him to come quickly, he had then telephoned Julie Mugford and then driven slowly to the farmhouse.
ah the "bullshit" that appears in appeal court documents... it is summaries and various other bits and pieces and should not be taken at face value as it may mislead.
for example ...in the Luke Mitchell case..in the appeal notes it states the search party left from the victims home... which is completely contrary to what the 3 involved claimed to have done.
such a statement as that (in fact it may be true) completely undermines at least 4 key witnesses and likely many more to an extent in which those 4 have committed blatant perjury.
so going by the appeal version of events...the prosecution case is in tatters.....but is ignored ...wtf
it may have had something to do with the search partys stories being clearly false (impossible)as given in court...hence the prosecution abandoned it at the appeal... and big reason to quash the conviction in itself.
courts of justice....or courts of injustice !!!!
In his statements, at original trail, he has constantly said the call to JM was AFTER his call to Police. At 2002 appeal the defence tried to pin this at 3.30. Sometimes you just have to admit you're wrong.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Really smiffy? You might want to tell the defence team at trial and at appeal, as they have worked very hard to show the phone call was AFTER he called the police.
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventuality is to be measured?
-
Hi Harters, ironic, isn't it, since EP never did provide adequate evidence of their case. Their case was manipulated by the use of various unjust devices, such as a PII secrecy order, used to withhold a huge amount of evidence which was vital to Bamber's defence and to allow Jeremy Bamber a just trial. Now, some 25 years after he was denied a fair trial by such devices, Bamber's defence is still fighting for access to evidence it should have been given quarter of a century ago.
I'm not so sure "ironic" is the term I would use, particularly when we remember that five people including children have been murdered in cold blood.
That's one of the very reasons that there should have been a full and fair examination of all key evidence. Yet there has never been such an examination, not by the police, not by the defence and not at the trial.
Whatever reasons you give for accepting this gross injustice as fair, Harters, I am certain that this is not the sort of Kangaroo Court 'justice' you would want for yourself or for family were you ever wrongly accused of a crime.
Well I'm not convinced the "withheld under PII" argument should be as prevalent as what is being made out, particularly when certain documents are being referred to as recently released yet they are referred to in the original trial and/or the 2002 Appeal.
In addition to which, there have been various appeals and internal and external investigations, which have all found the conviction to be sound, in fact the 1991 COLP investigation specifically highlighted Essex Police Force's mistakes and took them into consideration when stating that despite the errors they would have come to the same verdict,
I very much doubt that their investigation was hampered by documents withheld under PII legislation.
You have no grounds to make such a claim since none of us know the details of what exactly is being withheld. We can only know in general terms what this might state or show and that some of this withheld evidence is of the essence of this case. That is why the defence must see it. No conviction can ever be safe while key evidence is/ was withheld from the defence and jury and that is what has happened in this case. I would never accept that appalling situation for myself or my family and I am certain, neither would you, Harters.
I can very easily make that claim on the grounds that the City of London Police are not affected by PII Legislation and therefore would not be required to apply to see withheld documents.
Hi Harters,
Those grounds are inadequate, I'm afraid, to meet the test of a fair trial:
In criminal proceedings the right to a fair trial includes the following fair trial rights:[18]
the right to be notified of charges in a timely manner
the right to adequate time and means for the preparation of a defense
the right of the accused to defend him or herself, or the right to a counsel chosen by the accused and the right to communicate privately with the counsel
the right not to incriminate oneself
the right to appeal at first instance to a higher court
the prohibition on double jeopardy.[19]
-
The test of a fair trial inmy last post comes from Wikipedia, by the way
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
-
Hi Harters,
Those grounds are inadequate, I'm afraid, to meet the test of a fair trial:
In criminal proceedings the right to a fair trial includes the following fair trial rights:[18]
the right to be notified of charges in a timely manner
the right to adequate time and means for the preparation of a defense
the right of the accused to defend him or herself, or the right to a counsel chosen by the accused and the right to communicate privately with the counsel
the right not to incriminate oneself
the right to appeal at first instance to a higher court
the prohibition on double jeopardy.[19]
Your post does not relate to my post which you quoted, however which part of that wikipedia paste do you think has been breached?
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
Here you go:
Another flat mate, Sue Battersby, said that she was positive that when she was disturbed, she had looked at her clock and the time shown was 3.12 a.m. However, she pointed out that she was in the habit of keeping her clock about 10 minutes early and police checks made on the clock confirmed this to be the case. If her evidence was right and if the clock was, as the evidence suggested, ten minutes fast, the time was probably no more than a minute or two after 3 a.m.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Really smiffy? You might want to tell the defence team at trial and at appeal, as they have worked very hard to show the phone call was AFTER he called the police.
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Dear Mike,
Let me get this straight. You think that two calls were received simultaniously by Police?
You discount then the 'evidence' of the Nevill call, that JB called after CA7 was despatched.
I take it then that we can discount all timings on the subject of female found in the kitchen on those logs too? Are you not suggesting that any of these logs timings are subject to significant error as they are, in the main, third party notes?
Why did the PC at the scene ask JB why his Father had called JB and not the Police?
-
I faileld to highlight these general fair trial rights:
the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal
the right to a public hearing
the right to be heard within a reasonable time
the right to counsel
the right to interpretation[16]
You seem to suggest, Harters, that the COLP investigation was somehow equivalent to an Appeal for Jeremy. Yet nothing could be further form the truth. No investigation by COLP could ever replace Jeremy Bamber's right to a fair trial and the complex rights that entails.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Really smiffy? You might want to tell the defence team at trial and at appeal, as they have worked very hard to show the phone call was AFTER he called the police.
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventuality is to be measured?
Mike
There were 3 flatmates who testified that they heard the phone ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”.
Can you please reconcile the other flatmates testimony of times for the telephone ringing with the scenario you are asking people to consider.
Added........ It should be noted that there is clearly no universal clock associated with their testimony.
-
I faileld to highlight these general fair trial rights:
the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal
the right to a public hearing
the right to be heard within a reasonable time
the right to counsel
the right to interpretation[16]
You seem to suggest, Harters, that the COLP investigation was somehow equivalent to an Appeal for Jeremy. Yet nothing could be further form the truth. No investigation by COLP could ever replace Jeremy Bamber's right to a fair trial and the complex rights that entails.
I'm not suggesting any such thing.
Have a read of the 2002 Appeal Judgement regarding the alleged conspiracy that the prosecution conspired to falsely convict JB.
Of particular note are the opening text concerning the defences grounds of appeal and ground 16, although grounds 1-13 also follow this theme.
-
Mike
There were 3 flatmates who testified that they heard the phone ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”.
Can you please reconcile the other flatmates testimony of times for the telephone ringing with the scenario you are asking people to consider.
Added........ It should be noted that there is clearly no universal clock associated with their testimony.
This is the third witness (not a flat mate).
Douglas Dale was in the house at the time. He made a statement on 9 September saying that he had heard the phone at about 3 a.m. He also gave that evidence at trial. But when cross-examined he said that it could have been about 3.30 a.m. He said that he had never looked at the time and had probably been told the time the next morning by others.
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
... So, everybodies clocks, except the ones yot want to rely upon, is/was wrong? Consider the following - Mugford originally said Jeremy called her at 3.30am, now which clock is it, that you say she was relying upon, when she originally mentioned time of the call as being 3.3 am?
-
Mike
There were 3 flatmates who testified that they heard the phone ringing at ‘about 3.a.m.,’ ‘3.12 a.m.,’ and ‘two-something”.
Can you please reconcile the other flatmates testimony of times for the telephone ringing with the scenario you are asking people to consider.
Added........ It should be noted that there is clearly no universal clock associated with their testimony.
This is the third witness (not a flat mate).
Douglas Dale was in the house at the time. He made a statement on 9 September saying that he had heard the phone at about 3 a.m. He also gave that evidence at trial. But when cross-examined he said that it could have been about 3.30 a.m. He said that he had never looked at the time and had probably been told the time the next morning by others.
Hartley
Are you able to put a 'time of hearing the telphone ringing' against each person in the flat where Julie Mugford was residing on the morning of 7th August 1985.
Julie Mugford..... ????
Susan Battersby.....????
Douglas Dale..... ????
A.N.Other..... ????
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
... So, everybodies clocks, except the ones yot want to rely upon, is/was wrong? Consider the following - Mugford originally said Jeremy called her at 3.30am, now which clock is it, that you say she was relying upon, when she originally mentioned time of the call as being 3.3 am?
No Mike I am quoting from what witnesses have said (according to various sources).
If you post JM's statements I'll tell ya. ;D
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
... So, everybodies clocks, except the ones yot want to rely upon, is/was wrong? Consider the following - Mugford originally said Jeremy called her at 3.30am, now which clock is it, that you say she was relying upon, when she originally mentioned time of the call as being 3.3 am?
No Mike I am quoting from what witnesses have said (according to various sources).
If you post JM's statements I'll tell ya. ;D
Mike
Go for the complete set and post Jeremy's original witness statement and then we can all cross refer.
-
Hartley
Are you able to put a 'time of hearing the telphone ringing' against each person in the flat where Julie Mugford was residing on the morning of 7th August 1985.
Julie Mugford..... ????
Susan Battersby.....????
Douglas Dale..... ????
A.N.Other..... ????
Only as taken from the 2002 appeal:
Ground 4 – timing of telephone call to Julie Mugford
289. Ground 4 relates to the first telephone call made by the appellant to Julie Mugford on the night of the killing. The prosecution contended at trial that this preceded the telephone call to the police, whilst the appellant asserted that it was made after he had telephoned the police and before he left home to go to the farmhouse. It has to be said that whichever version is right, it was remarkable that the appellant made such a call. On his own version he had just received a dramatic plea for help from his father, he had rung the police and had
been asked to go to meet officers at the farm. Yet he delayed for long enough to make a telephone call to someone many miles away, who could not possibly help in the situation. However, it clearly was even less likely that he would have telephoned before he rang the police and if the call was shortly after 3 a.m. it was wholly inconsistent with his account and only consistent with the account of Julie Mugford as to the nature of that call. Thus timing of that call, if it could be determined by the jury was of importance.
290. Ground 4 alleges that evidence was withheld from the defence at trial which supports the assertion he made at trial that the call to Julie Mugford was at about 3.30 a.m. and no earlier. Alternatively it is suggested that there is now fresh evidence that supports that contention.
291. A further and related complaint is made that a document was not disclosed which revealed that Susan Battersby, one of Julie Mugford’s flatmates, who gave evidence that the call was at 3.12 a.m., had been less assertive in respect of the timing of the telephone call, indicating that it was either at 3.12 or 3.20 a.m. when she was seen by the police.
292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”
293. Later in the same statement Ann Eaton said that on reaching home, she had made notes on a card of the events of 8 August and that she had retained the card that was handed to the police and given a reference CAE/4. The card recorded the fact that Julie had given a statement and then apparently added in brackets alongside at some later stage was:
“There was trouble getting right time of 3.15 phone call. A London friend was phoned.”
294. No reference was made in that statement to any other notes made by Ann Eaton on 8 August. The document that those advising the appellant have now discovered came to light as a result of the City of London Police inquiry. Ann Eaton was seen as a part of that inquiry and made a statement. She described how her September 1985 statement had been taken by an officer DS Davis. She said that he had allowed her to have time to use her 1985 diary and “loose note cards” to put things in date order. She said that she had retained the documents and had handed them to the City of London police. One of the documents was a different set of notes made in pencil on a card which recorded the taking of the statement from Julie Mugford (it was given a reference in the inquiry of CAE/4A). It said about the timing of the telephone call:
“Stan Jones talked to Julie about the phone call. Julie said her flat mate said 3.30 a.m.”
295. The first complaint under this ground relates to the card CAE/4A. It is said that the prosecution failed to disclose this card or that in the alternative it is fresh evidence that the court should consider in determining the safety of the conviction.
296. There can be no doubt that the defence were unaware of this note at trial. We, therefore consider, whether it is a document that the prosecution were under a duty to disclose, whether there is any reason to think that the police or Ann Eaton may have deliberately concealed its existence, and whether in any event it could have been used by the defence in a way that would have had an impact on the jury’s verdicts.
297. We think that it is clear from the content of the two notes that the card CAE/4A was made first probably as the events were unfolding. The card CAE/4 was what appears to be an expanded version of those notes although not containing all the same detail made at some later stage, possibly that day when Ann Eaton got back home as she recalled in her September 1985 statement. At some later stage additions were clearly made to the second note and it seems likely that they included the reference to the “3.15 phone call”.
298. The first question that we must consider is whether the police were in possession of the card CAE/4A so that it could have formed a part of the disclosure. We conclude that it was not in their possession. The card CAE/4 had been taken from Ann Eaton and was treated as a potential exhibit at trial. It was undoubtedly in the possession of the police. The other card must have been in the possession of Ann Eaton after she had made her statement because she was able to produce it to the City of London Police.
299. Hence we are dealing with a case either of suppression by the police and/or Ann Eaton, or with a straightforward case of fresh evidence and not with a case of inadvertent non-disclosure by the police.
300. We have looked carefully to see whether any evidence exists that suggests that DS Davis was aware that there were two cards that gave potentially important conflicting information and we have found none. In a statement made by Ann Eaton in 2000, she referred (pages 36 and 37) to the note CAE/4A and said that she had made additions to CAE/4 at the time of making her statement or shortly before. That was a conclusion to which we had independently come.
301. The only evidence that suggests that the card CAE/4A was being used by Ann Eaton is the reference by her in her statement to the City of London Police made some years after the event. In that statement she referred to having retained the notes she had consulted in making her statement and she seems not to have recalled that the card CAE/4 had been taken from her by the police. Thus her recollection was at least in this regard faulty. There is, therefore, no evidence upon which we feel any reliance can be placed that she had both cards CAE/4 and CAE/4A with her when she made her statement. Equally there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that DS Davis inspected both sets of notes and decided only to
produce that which in this one respect fitted in with the emerging case against the appellant. Accordingly we find no evidence of any impropriety on the part of DS Davis.
302. So far as Ann Eaton is concerned, we can see nothing that would permit of a conclusion that she was behaving improperly. She is no lawyer or policeman. The significance of any conflicting rough notes would not be apparent to her in the same way that it would be for a person engaged professionally in police inquiries. These were no more than rough notes made by someone who not unnaturally must have been devastated by the events of 7 August and its aftermath. We can see no reason to believe that she was deliberately suppressing information that she realised might be of significance.
303. Thus on a realistic appraisal of the available evidence, this falls to be considered as an instance of fresh evidence that has emerged since trial and we must consider whether or not, if known by the defence at the time, it could have had any impact on the trial and the resulting convictions.
304. To consider this aspect of this ground, it is necessary to look at the available evidence at trial. The starting point has to be what Julie Mugford said at trial and in earlier statements. In the statement that she made to the police on the 8 August following a telephone call to one of her house mates, she said that the phone call had been at about 3.30 a.m. In a later statement she said that she had since learnt from Susan Battersby that it was at 3.15 a.m. In evidence she said that she had been woken by the telephone call between 3 a.m. and 3.30 a.m. She said that she had not looked at any watch or clock. In cross-examination, her first statement was put to her and the passage including the approximate time of 3.30 a.m. was read to the jury and she acknowledged that that was what she had said at the time. Mr Rivlin did not choose to establish that she had spoken to one of her flatmates before committing herself to the time of 3.30 a.m. although that fact was apparent from the evidence available to him. Doubtless this was because he thought it was of greater advantage that her independent recollection was 3.30 a.m. rather than establishing that it was or may have been somebody else’s recollection. In any event the evidence that she had given did not conflict as to timing with the defence case.
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
306. In evidence Helen Eaton again put the time at about 3 a.m. like Julie Mugford she accepted in cross-examination that it could have been at about 3.30 a.m. She told the jury that she had not looked at her watch at the time and that she could not be accurate as to time within half an hour.
307. Douglas Dale was in the house at the time. He made a statement on 9 September saying that he had heard the phone at about 3 a.m. He also gave that evidence at trial. But when cross-examined he said that it could have been about 3.30 a.m. He said that he had never looked at the time and had probably been told the time the next morning by others.
308. Since Julie Mugford and each of the last two witnesses had given evidence that they had not looked at any clock when the telephone rang, it followed that any estimation of the time that they made was of necessity either a guess or based upon information from someone else. The other two occupants of the flat each said that they had looked at the time when the telephone rang and they were able to remember to differing degrees what time was recorded.
309. Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m. On 3 October, she made a further statement in which she explained why she had said about 2 a.m. She said:
“In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as “2”. I do not remember noting the minute reading and therefore the time could have been anywhere between 2 a.m. and 2.59 a.m.”
310. In evidence Miss Woad gave precisely the same account and she would not accept in cross-examination that she was wrong.
311. The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:
“I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy’s house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton.”
312. In her evidence to the jury Susan Battersby was adamant that the time shown by her clock was 3.12 a.m. and that she had kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast. The prosecution supported her evidence about keeping the clock fast by calling evidence from her boyfriend and also by evidence from a police officer who had been to check the timing on her clock at a later date without forewarning her. In cross-examination the fact that she
had originally said that the time was 3.15 a.m. was put to her. She explained that she had been quite nervous when she made her first statement and had not then appreciated the importance of giving the time exactly. Later she had thought about it and she could picture in her mind the time as being 3.12 a.m. and she remained certain that that was the time shown on the clock.
313. If the jury were to disbelieve the appellant’s evidence as to the timing of the telephone call, it could only have been because they were sure about the evidence of one or other of Joanne Woad and Susan Battersby. They could have accepted both to be right because if Joanne Woad was right the time could have been 2.59 a.m. and no precise check had been made as to the accuracy of her clock. If Susan Battersby was right, it was at approximately 3.02 a.m. and whilst it was known that she kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast there was some room for some slight variation.
314. To detemine whether the document CAE/4A was capable of having an impact upon any conclusion that the jury might have reached, it is necessary to consider what use could have been made of it at trial and whether even if used it could have altered any conclusion that the jury might have reached about the evidence of Joanne Woad or Susuan Battersby either by demonstrating some weakness in their evidence or by supporting the evidence of the appellant.
315. The document did not purport to record anything observed or heard directly by Ann Eaton other than that after speaking to Helen Eaton, Julie Mugford had said that her flatmate said that it was 3.30 a.m. Such evidence is hearsay evidence as to what Helen Eaton herself said. Based upon this document, Helen Eaton could have been cross-examined about what time she had said to Julie Mugford but the document would not have been admissible to disprove any answer that she gave.
316. Even without knowledge of CAE/4A, Julie Mugford could have been asked questions about the conversation which she had had with Helen Eaton. If she said that Helen Eaton had given a time other than 3.30 a.m. she could have been asked why having said that she needed to telephone the flat before giving the time, she had still said 3.30 a.m. in her statement. All of this was possible without any need to know about, or to refer to, CAE/4A.
317. Thus it is very difficult to see how knowledge of CAE/4A could have altered the approach which Mr Rivilin chose to adopt. But even accepting in that some way it could have led to other cross-examination we have to consider whether that cross-examination could possibly have had any impact on the jury.
318. This evidence did not in any way reveal any defect in the evidence of the only two witnesses upon whom the jury would have had to have relied in reaching a conclusion adverse to the appellant. Neither Joanne Woad nor Susan Battersby was a party to the discussion on the telephone whilst Julie Mugford was making her statement. The evidence was clear on the point that each of them was out of the flat at that time. The most the evidence revealed was that Helen Eaton had thought the time was about 3.30 a.m. and that Julie Mugford having consulted her was prepared to adopt that time. However, crucially both Julie Mugford and Helen Eaton had said consistently that they themselves had never looked at the time when
the telephone call was received during the night. Each accepted that the time could have been as late as 3.30 a.m. in evidence and the jury knew that. We fail to see how the jury could have attached any further weight to their estimate of the time made on the 8 August when it was not said to be based upon them actually looking at a clock. In any event the jury knew that Julie Mugford gave that estimate in her statement made on that very day.
319. Thus we are satisfied that even if the jury were able to know of the existence of this document, it could not in any reasoned way have enabled them to have resolved the conflict between Joanne Woad and Susan Battersby on the one hand and the appellant on the other hand in a way different from any conclusion that they may have reached on the evidence which they heard. Accordingly this fresh evidence can form no basis for doubting the safeness of the conviction.
320. The other document referred to under this ground is a police action form. On 9 September 1985, Detective Superintendent Ainsley issued a written action requiring that Susan Battersby should been seen and a statement should be taken from her. The action recorded that the statement was required:
“Re knowledge of Jeremy Bamber and in particular relation to telephone calls received on 7 and 30 August 1985.”
321. This action was issued to DI Bright. The following day the first statement was taken from Susan Battersby. As we have already recorded in that statement she said that the telephone call was at 3.15 a.m.
322. The action record has on it under “result of the action”:
“10 p.m. tues?
3.12? 3.20? 7/8/85
Tues 27.8.85
Statement obtained
Statement under caution obtained
PDF attached”
323. Alongside the reference to statement obtained apparently in a different hand and at right angles to the writing there appears in a circle 3.15.
324. It is common ground that this police action was not seen by the defence. Mr Turner suggests that it was deliberately suppressed. We cannot accept that this is so. None of the police actions or police messages were disclosed to the defence. However, we are satisfied
that at the relevant time when this case was being prepared for trial, it was not routinely the case for such documents to be disclosed. Mr Edmund Lawson QC who acted as junior counsel for the appellant at trial gave evidence to us and in evidence said that he could never recall seeing such a police action in any case at or prior to that date. His experience corresponds entirely with that of each of the members of this court, all of whom were involved as counsel in major criminal cases in the mid-1980’s. We are thus entirely satisfied that the document was not disclosed because at that date it was not the practice for such documents to be disclosed.
325. However, even rejecting the suggestion of deliberate suppression of the document we have to consider whether the document reveals information which in itself ought to have been drawn to the attention of the defence.
326. Mr Turner’s submission is that the document gives rise to the inference that Susan Battersby gave at least two different times when she was seen by the police on that occasion, namely 3.12 a.m. and 3.20 a.m. and that this would have been further information that the defence could have utilised to show that she was not sure of the time in the way that she had purported to be before the jury.
327. We fail to see how anyone could draw from the document and the rest of the evidence on this matter, the inference suggested by Mr Turner. The action does not purport to be a record of anything said by the witness. It is an internal document for the use of DI Bright. That which was to be said by the witness was to be recorded in statement form and the statement recorded the time as being 3.15 a.m.
328. It seems to us that before taking the required statement DI Bright would inevitably inform himself of the evidence available and of the inferences that the police thought might be drawn from such evidence before going to see the witness. We think, examining just the document, that the most likely explanation for these notes that appear before the record of taking the statement are that they were jottings made by the officer pre-interview. Certainly nothing in the subsequent statement would in any way allow of an inference that the witness was saying anything other than that the time was 3.15 a.m. There is no mention in her statement of either 3.12 a.m. or 3.20 a.m. Each of those times are consistent with the case against the appellant and contradicted his account and there would be no reason why those times should not have been given if the witness was putting them forward. The action refers to the “27 August”. However examination of the statement shows that this specific date does not appear in the statement and the witness speaks of events happening on either 26 or 27 August. This does not seem consistent with her putting forward the 27 August in the course of any conversation as a precise date as would be suggested if Mr Turner’s inference as to the meaning of the notes that precede the record of the taking of the statement were correct.
329. We were aware that if we had taken a different view on looking at the document, the prosecution would have sought to call DI Bright who would have advanced exactly the explanation that seemed to us the only sensible one. We could see nothing that the defence could have put to that officer which in any way could have justified a different conclusion.
330. Thus we concluded that there was no information recorded on the police action form that required to be disclosed to the defence and that the action itself could not have had any impact upon the jury’s conclusions. For these reasons ground 4 is in our judgment wholly without merit.
-
I faileld to highlight these general fair trial rights:
the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal
the right to a public hearing
the right to be heard within a reasonable time
the right to counsel
the right to interpretation[16]
You seem to suggest, Harters, that the COLP investigation was somehow equivalent to an Appeal for Jeremy. Yet nothing could be further form the truth. No investigation by COLP could ever replace Jeremy Bamber's right to a fair trial and the complex rights that entails.
I'm not suggesting any such thing.
Have a read of the 2002 Appeal Judgement regarding the alleged conspiracy that the prosecution conspired to falsely convict JB.
Of particular note are the opening text concerning the defences grounds of appeal and ground 16, although grounds 1-13 also follow this theme.
Jeremy did not have a fair Appeal any more than he had a fair trial, Harters. I am sure you know that though you would never admit it. He cannot make a fair application to the CCRC for another Appeal either because key evidence is still being withheld from him and from his defence just as this was withheld 25 years ago. Jeremy is still denied "adequate means" "for the preparation of a defense", so he is still denied adequate means for a fair trial. No amount of ducking and diving will alter that.
-
Jeremy did not have a fair Appeal any more than he had a fair trial, Harters. I am sure you know that though you would never admit it. He cannot make a fair application to the CCRC for another Appeal either because key evidence is still being withheld from him and from his defence just as this was withheld 25 years ago. Jeremy is still denied "adequate means" "for the preparation of a defense", so he is still denied adequate means for a fair trial. No amount of ducking and diving will alter that.
I disagree with you Choc.
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
... So, everybodies clocks, except the ones yot want to rely upon, is/was wrong? Consider the following - Mugford originally said Jeremy called her at 3.30am, now which clock is it, that you say she was relying upon, when she originally mentioned time of the call as being 3.3 am?
No Mike I am quoting from what witnesses have said (according to various sources).
If you post JM's statements I'll tell ya. ;D
... I will post JM's statement in due course to facilitate debate, but for now - do you agree that there was only one call to JM before Jeremy left to go to the scene? Now the various flatmates of JM all give different and conflicting times about the time of the call, all I want to know from you, is which clock, in your opinion was telling the correct time, and why all the other clocks were/are wrong?
-
Jeremy did not have a fair Appeal any more than he had a fair trial, Harters. I am sure you know that though you would never admit it. He cannot make a fair application to the CCRC for another Appeal either because key evidence is still being withheld from him and from his defence just as this was withheld 25 years ago. Jeremy is still denied "adequate means" "for the preparation of a defense", so he is still denied adequate means for a fair trial. No amount of ducking and diving will alter that.
I disagree with you Choc.
That's quite clear, your personal preferences, however, aren't sufficient grounds to establish anything, Harters.
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
... So, everybodies clocks, except the ones yot want to rely upon, is/was wrong? Consider the following - Mugford originally said Jeremy called her at 3.30am, now which clock is it, that you say she was relying upon, when she originally mentioned time of the call as being 3.3 am?
No Mike I am quoting from what witnesses have said (according to various sources).
If you post JM's statements I'll tell ya. ;D
... I will post JM's statement in due course to facilitate debate, but for now - do you agree that there was only one call to JM before Jeremy left to go to the scene? Now the various flatmates of JM all give different and conflicting times about the time of the call, all I want to know from you, is which clock, in your opinion was telling the correct time, and why all the other clocks were/are wrong?
Good question, Mike +1
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
... So, everybodies clocks, except the ones yot want to rely upon, is/was wrong? Consider the following - Mugford originally said Jeremy called her at 3.30am, now which clock is it, that you say she was relying upon, when she originally mentioned time of the call as being 3.3 am?
No Mike I am quoting from what witnesses have said (according to various sources).
If you post JM's statements I'll tell ya. ;D
... I will post JM's statement in due course to facilitate debate, but for now - do you agree that there was only one call to JM before Jeremy left to go to the scene? Now the various flatmates of JM all give different and conflicting times about the time of the call, all I want to know from you, is which clock, in your opinion was telling the correct time, and why all the other clocks were/are wrong?
Well unfortunately all you can have from me is a repeat of what various witnesses have said in their statements. I think it would be a pretty sensible starting point to assume that all clocks and other time telling equipment were accurate to BST +/- say a couple of minutes or so, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
-
Jeremy did not have a fair Appeal any more than he had a fair trial, Harters. I am sure you know that though you would never admit it. He cannot make a fair application to the CCRC for another Appeal either because key evidence is still being withheld from him and from his defence just as this was withheld 25 years ago. Jeremy is still denied "adequate means" "for the preparation of a defense", so he is still denied adequate means for a fair trial. No amount of ducking and diving will alter that.
I disagree with you Choc.
That's quite clear, your personal preferences, however, aren't sufficient grounds to establish anything, Harters.
Likewise Choc. ;)
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
... So, everybodies clocks, except the ones yot want to rely upon, is/was wrong? Consider the following - Mugford originally said Jeremy called her at 3.30am, now which clock is it, that you say she was relying upon, when she originally mentioned time of the call as being 3.3 am?
No Mike I am quoting from what witnesses have said (according to various sources).
If you post JM's statements I'll tell ya. ;D
... I will post JM's statement in due course to facilitate debate, but for now - do you agree that there was only one call to JM before Jeremy left to go to the scene? Now the various flatmates of JM all give different and conflicting times about the time of the call, all I want to know from you, is which clock, in your opinion was telling the correct time, and why all the other clocks were/are wrong?
Well unfortunately all you can have from me is a repeat of what various witnesses have said in their statements. I think it would be a pretty sensible starting point to assume that all clocks and other time telling equipment were accurate to BST +/- say a couple of minutes or so, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
That assumption wouldn't get you anywhere in my house. I keep my kitchen clock 15 minutes fast to allow for extra traffic. My alarms are set 5 minutes and 10 minutes fast to confuse me into rising immediatly when I wake in order to check with my kitchen clock and always leave early. My watch always loses a few minutes.
-
Can we hold our horses for one moment.
EP were quite happy with the murder/suicide theory.
We are beating ourselves up with things like how fast was JB driving, did JB make a confession to JM.
How he got to the scene, and how he got away. [on a bike].
Who made what phone call, and when. Who moved Shiela,s body, and why. Did Shiela batter Ralph with the end of the gun.
The fact is EP were satisfied of the murder/suicide theory until the extended family became involved.
This family stood to lose, if JB took control of Whf, and it,s assets.
RB seemed to be an influential person,[ I will not mention the masons], he nagged, and nagged the higher ups in EP until Taff jones was removed from the case, and was replaced by someone who was more sympathetic to the family. He would be rewarded later.
The obscure remaks that Stan Jones made. [You did not see this Ann, remember to say that in court Ann,You have a good memory Ann] Even though she kept repeating I cannot remember when in court.
How can anyone say this was a fair trial, with the police truly on the side of the family.
Please bear in mind the case of Mike Tesco, do you think he was stitched up, [I do]
-
Hartley
Are you able to put a 'time of hearing the telphone ringing' against each person in the flat where Julie Mugford was residing on the morning of 7th August 1985.
Julie Mugford..... ????
Susan Battersby.....????
Douglas Dale..... ????
A.N.Other..... ????
Only as taken from the 2002 appeal:
Ground 4 – timing of telephone call to Julie Mugford
289. Ground 4 relates to the first telephone call made by the appellant to Julie Mugford on the night of the killing. The prosecution contended at trial that this preceded the telephone call to the police, whilst the appellant asserted that it was made after he had telephoned the police and before he left home to go to the farmhouse. It has to be said that whichever version is right, it was remarkable that the appellant made such a call. On his own version he had just received a dramatic plea for help from his father, he had rung the police and had
been asked to go to meet officers at the farm. Yet he delayed for long enough to make a telephone call to someone many miles away, who could not possibly help in the situation. However, it clearly was even less likely that he would have telephoned before he rang the police and if the call was shortly after 3 a.m. it was wholly inconsistent with his account and only consistent with the account of Julie Mugford as to the nature of that call. Thus timing of that call, if it could be determined by the jury was of importance.
290. Ground 4 alleges that evidence was withheld from the defence at trial which supports the assertion he made at trial that the call to Julie Mugford was at about 3.30 a.m. and no earlier. Alternatively it is suggested that there is now fresh evidence that supports that contention.
291. A further and related complaint is made that a document was not disclosed which revealed that Susan Battersby, one of Julie Mugford’s flatmates, who gave evidence that the call was at 3.12 a.m., had been less assertive in respect of the timing of the telephone call, indicating that it was either at 3.12 or 3.20 a.m. when she was seen by the police.
292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”
293. Later in the same statement Ann Eaton said that on reaching home, she had made notes on a card of the events of 8 August and that she had retained the card that was handed to the police and given a reference CAE/4. The card recorded the fact that Julie had given a statement and then apparently added in brackets alongside at some later stage was:
“There was trouble getting right time of 3.15 phone call. A London friend was phoned.”
294. No reference was made in that statement to any other notes made by Ann Eaton on 8 August. The document that those advising the appellant have now discovered came to light as a result of the City of London Police inquiry. Ann Eaton was seen as a part of that inquiry and made a statement. She described how her September 1985 statement had been taken by an officer DS Davis. She said that he had allowed her to have time to use her 1985 diary and “loose note cards” to put things in date order. She said that she had retained the documents and had handed them to the City of London police. One of the documents was a different set of notes made in pencil on a card which recorded the taking of the statement from Julie Mugford (it was given a reference in the inquiry of CAE/4A). It said about the timing of the telephone call:
“Stan Jones talked to Julie about the phone call. Julie said her flat mate said 3.30 a.m.”
295. The first complaint under this ground relates to the card CAE/4A. It is said that the prosecution failed to disclose this card or that in the alternative it is fresh evidence that the court should consider in determining the safety of the conviction.
296. There can be no doubt that the defence were unaware of this note at trial. We, therefore consider, whether it is a document that the prosecution were under a duty to disclose, whether there is any reason to think that the police or Ann Eaton may have deliberately concealed its existence, and whether in any event it could have been used by the defence in a way that would have had an impact on the jury’s verdicts.
297. We think that it is clear from the content of the two notes that the card CAE/4A was made first probably as the events were unfolding. The card CAE/4 was what appears to be an expanded version of those notes although not containing all the same detail made at some later stage, possibly that day when Ann Eaton got back home as she recalled in her September 1985 statement. At some later stage additions were clearly made to the second note and it seems likely that they included the reference to the “3.15 phone call”.
298. The first question that we must consider is whether the police were in possession of the card CAE/4A so that it could have formed a part of the disclosure. We conclude that it was not in their possession. The card CAE/4 had been taken from Ann Eaton and was treated as a potential exhibit at trial. It was undoubtedly in the possession of the police. The other card must have been in the possession of Ann Eaton after she had made her statement because she was able to produce it to the City of London Police.
299. Hence we are dealing with a case either of suppression by the police and/or Ann Eaton, or with a straightforward case of fresh evidence and not with a case of inadvertent non-disclosure by the police.
300. We have looked carefully to see whether any evidence exists that suggests that DS Davis was aware that there were two cards that gave potentially important conflicting information and we have found none. In a statement made by Ann Eaton in 2000, she referred (pages 36 and 37) to the note CAE/4A and said that she had made additions to CAE/4 at the time of making her statement or shortly before. That was a conclusion to which we had independently come.
301. The only evidence that suggests that the card CAE/4A was being used by Ann Eaton is the reference by her in her statement to the City of London Police made some years after the event. In that statement she referred to having retained the notes she had consulted in making her statement and she seems not to have recalled that the card CAE/4 had been taken from her by the police. Thus her recollection was at least in this regard faulty. There is, therefore, no evidence upon which we feel any reliance can be placed that she had both cards CAE/4 and CAE/4A with her when she made her statement. Equally there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that DS Davis inspected both sets of notes and decided only to
produce that which in this one respect fitted in with the emerging case against the appellant. Accordingly we find no evidence of any impropriety on the part of DS Davis.
302. So far as Ann Eaton is concerned, we can see nothing that would permit of a conclusion that she was behaving improperly. She is no lawyer or policeman. The significance of any conflicting rough notes would not be apparent to her in the same way that it would be for a person engaged professionally in police inquiries. These were no more than rough notes made by someone who not unnaturally must have been devastated by the events of 7 August and its aftermath. We can see no reason to believe that she was deliberately suppressing information that she realised might be of significance.
303. Thus on a realistic appraisal of the available evidence, this falls to be considered as an instance of fresh evidence that has emerged since trial and we must consider whether or not, if known by the defence at the time, it could have had any impact on the trial and the resulting convictions.
304. To consider this aspect of this ground, it is necessary to look at the available evidence at trial. The starting point has to be what Julie Mugford said at trial and in earlier statements. In the statement that she made to the police on the 8 August following a telephone call to one of her house mates, she said that the phone call had been at about 3.30 a.m. In a later statement she said that she had since learnt from Susan Battersby that it was at 3.15 a.m. In evidence she said that she had been woken by the telephone call between 3 a.m. and 3.30 a.m. She said that she had not looked at any watch or clock. In cross-examination, her first statement was put to her and the passage including the approximate time of 3.30 a.m. was read to the jury and she acknowledged that that was what she had said at the time. Mr Rivlin did not choose to establish that she had spoken to one of her flatmates before committing herself to the time of 3.30 a.m. although that fact was apparent from the evidence available to him. Doubtless this was because he thought it was of greater advantage that her independent recollection was 3.30 a.m. rather than establishing that it was or may have been somebody else’s recollection. In any event the evidence that she had given did not conflict as to timing with the defence case.
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
306. In evidence Helen Eaton again put the time at about 3 a.m. like Julie Mugford she accepted in cross-examination that it could have been at about 3.30 a.m. She told the jury that she had not looked at her watch at the time and that she could not be accurate as to time within half an hour.
307. Douglas Dale was in the house at the time. He made a statement on 9 September saying that he had heard the phone at about 3 a.m. He also gave that evidence at trial. But when cross-examined he said that it could have been about 3.30 a.m. He said that he had never looked at the time and had probably been told the time the next morning by others.
308. Since Julie Mugford and each of the last two witnesses had given evidence that they had not looked at any clock when the telephone rang, it followed that any estimation of the time that they made was of necessity either a guess or based upon information from someone else. The other two occupants of the flat each said that they had looked at the time when the telephone rang and they were able to remember to differing degrees what time was recorded.
309. Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m. On 3 October, she made a further statement in which she explained why she had said about 2 a.m. She said:
“In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as “2”. I do not remember noting the minute reading and therefore the time could have been anywhere between 2 a.m. and 2.59 a.m.”
310. In evidence Miss Woad gave precisely the same account and she would not accept in cross-examination that she was wrong.
311. The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:
“I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy’s house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton.”
312. In her evidence to the jury Susan Battersby was adamant that the time shown by her clock was 3.12 a.m. and that she had kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast. The prosecution supported her evidence about keeping the clock fast by calling evidence from her boyfriend and also by evidence from a police officer who had been to check the timing on her clock at a later date without forewarning her. In cross-examination the fact that she
had originally said that the time was 3.15 a.m. was put to her. She explained that she had been quite nervous when she made her first statement and had not then appreciated the importance of giving the time exactly. Later she had thought about it and she could picture in her mind the time as being 3.12 a.m. and she remained certain that that was the time shown on the clock.
313. If the jury were to disbelieve the appellant’s evidence as to the timing of the telephone call, it could only have been because they were sure about the evidence of one or other of Joanne Woad and Susan Battersby. They could have accepted both to be right because if Joanne Woad was right the time could have been 2.59 a.m. and no precise check had been made as to the accuracy of her clock. If Susan Battersby was right, it was at approximately 3.02 a.m. and whilst it was known that she kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast there was some room for some slight variation.
314. To detemine whether the document CAE/4A was capable of having an impact upon any conclusion that the jury might have reached, it is necessary to consider what use could have been made of it at trial and whether even if used it could have altered any conclusion that the jury might have reached about the evidence of Joanne Woad or Susuan Battersby either by demonstrating some weakness in their evidence or by supporting the evidence of the appellant.
315. The document did not purport to record anything observed or heard directly by Ann Eaton other than that after speaking to Helen Eaton, Julie Mugford had said that her flatmate said that it was 3.30 a.m. Such evidence is hearsay evidence as to what Helen Eaton herself said. Based upon this document, Helen Eaton could have been cross-examined about what time she had said to Julie Mugford but the document would not have been admissible to disprove any answer that she gave.
316. Even without knowledge of CAE/4A, Julie Mugford could have been asked questions about the conversation which she had had with Helen Eaton. If she said that Helen Eaton had given a time other than 3.30 a.m. she could have been asked why having said that she needed to telephone the flat before giving the time, she had still said 3.30 a.m. in her statement. All of this was possible without any need to know about, or to refer to, CAE/4A.
317. Thus it is very difficult to see how knowledge of CAE/4A could have altered the approach which Mr Rivilin chose to adopt. But even accepting in that some way it could have led to other cross-examination we have to consider whether that cross-examination could possibly have had any impact on the jury.
318. This evidence did not in any way reveal any defect in the evidence of the only two witnesses upon whom the jury would have had to have relied in reaching a conclusion adverse to the appellant. Neither Joanne Woad nor Susan Battersby was a party to the discussion on the telephone whilst Julie Mugford was making her statement. The evidence was clear on the point that each of them was out of the flat at that time. The most the evidence revealed was that Helen Eaton had thought the time was about 3.30 a.m. and that Julie Mugford having consulted her was prepared to adopt that time. However, crucially both Julie Mugford and Helen Eaton had said consistently that they themselves had never looked at the time when
the telephone call was received during the night. Each accepted that the time could have been as late as 3.30 a.m. in evidence and the jury knew that. We fail to see how the jury could have attached any further weight to their estimate of the time made on the 8 August when it was not said to be based upon them actually looking at a clock. In any event the jury knew that Julie Mugford gave that estimate in her statement made on that very day.
319. Thus we are satisfied that even if the jury were able to know of the existence of this document, it could not in any reasoned way have enabled them to have resolved the conflict between Joanne Woad and Susan Battersby on the one hand and the appellant on the other hand in a way different from any conclusion that they may have reached on the evidence which they heard. Accordingly this fresh evidence can form no basis for doubting the safeness of the conviction.
320. The other document referred to under this ground is a police action form. On 9 September 1985, Detective Superintendent Ainsley issued a written action requiring that Susan Battersby should been seen and a statement should be taken from her. The action recorded that the statement was required:
“Re knowledge of Jeremy Bamber and in particular relation to telephone calls received on 7 and 30 August 1985.”
321. This action was issued to DI Bright. The following day the first statement was taken from Susan Battersby. As we have already recorded in that statement she said that the telephone call was at 3.15 a.m.
322. The action record has on it under “result of the action”:
“10 p.m. tues?
3.12? 3.20? 7/8/85
Tues 27.8.85
Statement obtained
Statement under caution obtained
PDF attached”
323. Alongside the reference to statement obtained apparently in a different hand and at right angles to the writing there appears in a circle 3.15.
324. It is common ground that this police action was not seen by the defence. Mr Turner suggests that it was deliberately suppressed. We cannot accept that this is so. None of the police actions or police messages were disclosed to the defence. However, we are satisfied
that at the relevant time when this case was being prepared for trial, it was not routinely the case for such documents to be disclosed. Mr Edmund Lawson QC who acted as junior counsel for the appellant at trial gave evidence to us and in evidence said that he could never recall seeing such a police action in any case at or prior to that date. His experience corresponds entirely with that of each of the members of this court, all of whom were involved as counsel in major criminal cases in the mid-1980’s. We are thus entirely satisfied that the document was not disclosed because at that date it was not the practice for such documents to be disclosed.
325. However, even rejecting the suggestion of deliberate suppression of the document we have to consider whether the document reveals information which in itself ought to have been drawn to the attention of the defence.
326. Mr Turner’s submission is that the document gives rise to the inference that Susan Battersby gave at least two different times when she was seen by the police on that occasion, namely 3.12 a.m. and 3.20 a.m. and that this would have been further information that the defence could have utilised to show that she was not sure of the time in the way that she had purported to be before the jury.
327. We fail to see how anyone could draw from the document and the rest of the evidence on this matter, the inference suggested by Mr Turner. The action does not purport to be a record of anything said by the witness. It is an internal document for the use of DI Bright. That which was to be said by the witness was to be recorded in statement form and the statement recorded the time as being 3.15 a.m.
328. It seems to us that before taking the required statement DI Bright would inevitably inform himself of the evidence available and of the inferences that the police thought might be drawn from such evidence before going to see the witness. We think, examining just the document, that the most likely explanation for these notes that appear before the record of taking the statement are that they were jottings made by the officer pre-interview. Certainly nothing in the subsequent statement would in any way allow of an inference that the witness was saying anything other than that the time was 3.15 a.m. There is no mention in her statement of either 3.12 a.m. or 3.20 a.m. Each of those times are consistent with the case against the appellant and contradicted his account and there would be no reason why those times should not have been given if the witness was putting them forward. The action refers to the “27 August”. However examination of the statement shows that this specific date does not appear in the statement and the witness speaks of events happening on either 26 or 27 August. This does not seem consistent with her putting forward the 27 August in the course of any conversation as a precise date as would be suggested if Mr Turner’s inference as to the meaning of the notes that precede the record of the taking of the statement were correct.
329. We were aware that if we had taken a different view on looking at the document, the prosecution would have sought to call DI Bright who would have advanced exactly the explanation that seemed to us the only sensible one. We could see nothing that the defence could have put to that officer which in any way could have justified a different conclusion.
330. Thus we concluded that there was no information recorded on the police action form that required to be disclosed to the defence and that the action itself could not have had any impact upon the jury’s conclusions. For these reasons ground 4 is in our judgment wholly without merit.
Hartley
Thanks.... good post.
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
... So, everybodies clocks, except the ones yot want to rely upon, is/was wrong? Consider the following - Mugford originally said Jeremy called her at 3.30am, now which clock is it, that you say she was relying upon, when she originally mentioned time of the call as being 3.3 am?
No Mike I am quoting from what witnesses have said (according to various sources).
If you post JM's statements I'll tell ya. ;D
... I will post JM's statement in due course to facilitate debate, but for now - do you agree that there was only one call to JM before Jeremy left to go to the scene? Now the various flatmates of JM all give different and conflicting times about the time of the call, all I want to know from you, is which clock, in your opinion was telling the correct time, and why all the other clocks were/are wrong?
Well unfortunately all you can have from me is a repeat of what various witnesses have said in their statements. I think it would be a pretty sensible starting point to assume that all clocks and other time telling equipment were accurate to BST +/- say a couple of minutes or so, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
That assumption wouldn't get you anywhere in my house. I keep my kitchen clock 15 minutes fast to allow for extra traffic. My alarms are set 5 minutes and 10 minutes fast to confuse me into rising immediatly when I wake in order to check with my kitchen clock and always leave early. My watch always loses a few minutes.
So you or somebody close by would be questioned to ascertain if such extravagant ( ;D ) time keeping was practised.
In pretty much the same way as the flatmates were questioned.
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
... So, everybodies clocks, except the ones yot want to rely upon, is/was wrong? Consider the following - Mugford originally said Jeremy called her at 3.30am, now which clock is it, that you say she was relying upon, when she originally mentioned time of the call as being 3.3 am?
No Mike I am quoting from what witnesses have said (according to various sources).
If you post JM's statements I'll tell ya. ;D
... I will post JM's statement in due course to facilitate debate, but for now - do you agree that there was only one call to JM before Jeremy left to go to the scene? Now the various flatmates of JM all give different and conflicting times about the time of the call, all I want to know from you, is which clock, in your opinion was telling the correct time, and why all the other clocks were/are wrong?
Mike
Have you seen Hartley's post from the 2002 Appeal.
309. Joanne Woad first made a statement on 16 September. In that statement she said that she thought the time was about 2 a.m. On 3 October, she made a further statement in which she explained why she had said about 2 a.m. She said:
“In my original statement I stated that this call was at 2 a.m. To be more precise I can add that when I awoke I remember looking at my digital radio/alarm clock at the foot of my bed and reading the hour figure as “2”. I do not remember noting the minute reading and therefore the time could have been anywhere between 2 a.m. and 2.59 a.m.”
310. In evidence Miss Woad gave precisely the same account and she would not accept in cross-examination that she was wrong.
311. The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:
“I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy’s house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton.”
312. In her evidence to the jury Susan Battersby was adamant that the time shown by her clock was 3.12 a.m. and that she had kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast. The prosecution supported her evidence about keeping the clock fast by calling evidence from her boyfriend and also by evidence from a police officer who had been to check the timing on her clock at a later date without forewarning her. In cross-examination the fact that she
had originally said that the time was 3.15 a.m. was put to her. She explained that she had been quite nervous when she made her first statement and had not then appreciated the importance of giving the time exactly. Later she had thought about it and she could picture in her mind the time as being 3.12 a.m. and she remained certain that that was the time shown on the clock.
313. If the jury were to disbelieve the appellant’s evidence as to the timing of the telephone call, it could only have been because they were sure about the evidence of one or other of Joanne Woad and Susan Battersby. They could have accepted both to be right because if Joanne Woad was right the time could have been 2.59 a.m. and no precise check had been made as to the accuracy of her clock. If Susan Battersby was right, it was at approximately 3.02 a.m. and whilst it was known that she kept her clock approximately 10 minutes fast there was some room for some slight variation.
Given the above I guess the answer to your question will be
Joanne Woad who testified she looked at her radio / alarm clock and
Susan Battersby who also detailed she had looked at her radio clock which she admits was kept 10 minutes fast. According to the Appeal details this was verified by her boyfriend and a policeman.
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
... So, everybodies clocks, except the ones yot want to rely upon, is/was wrong? Consider the following - Mugford originally said Jeremy called her at 3.30am, now which clock is it, that you say she was relying upon, when she originally mentioned time of the call as being 3.3 am?
No Mike I am quoting from what witnesses have said (according to various sources).
If you post JM's statements I'll tell ya. ;D
... I will post JM's statement in due course to facilitate debate, but for now - do you agree that there was only one call to JM before Jeremy left to go to the scene? Now the various flatmates of JM all give different and conflicting times about the time of the call, all I want to know from you, is which clock, in your opinion was telling the correct time, and why all the other clocks were/are wrong?
Well unfortunately all you can have from me is a repeat of what various witanesses have said in their statements. I think it would be a pretty sensible starting point to assume that all clocks and other time telling equipment were accurate to BST +/- say a couple of minutes or so, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
... All of JM flat mates, give different and conflicting times for the same call that JM received from Jeremy, now do you agree that they all can't be right if we are making a check against the same universal clock? Now, if JM and her flatmates can't get the time of the call that Jeremy made to JM, right - why make such a big deal about the time that Jeremy allots to the same call?
-
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventually is to be measured?
Mike that is a blatant and misleading statement, one of JM's flatmates said her clock in her own room was 10 minutes fast when recalling the time of JB's call to JM. This was later corroborated by an unannounced police visit to check.
This clock is not in JM's room, other flat mates also had their own clocks which is what they referred to during their statements when referring to JB's call.
... So, everybodies clocks, except the ones yot want to rely upon, is/was wrong? Consider the following - Mugford originally said Jeremy called her at 3.30am, now which clock is it, that you say she was relying upon, when she originally mentioned time of the call as being 3.3 am?
No Mike I am quoting from what witnesses have said (according to various sources).
If you post JM's statements I'll tell ya. ;D
... I will post JM's statement in due course to facilitate debate, but for now - do you agree that there was only one call to JM before Jeremy left to go to the scene? Now the various flatmates of JM all give different and conflicting times about the time of the call, all I want to know from you, is which clock, in your opinion was telling the correct time, and why all the other clocks were/are wrong?
Well unfortunately all you can have from me is a repeat of what various witanesses have said in their statements. I think it would be a pretty sensible starting point to assume that all clocks and other time telling equipment were accurate to BST +/- say a couple of minutes or so, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
... All of JM flat mates, give different and conflicting times for the same call that JM received from Jeremy, now do you agree that they all can't be right if we are making a check against the same universal clock? Now, if JM and her flatmates can't get the time of the call that Jeremy made to JM, right - why make such a big deal about the time that Jeremy allots to the same call?
Mike
It is very important because it is impossible for Jeremy to be calling Julie before he wakes up with a prediction of trouble at White House Farm.
Jeremy admits he was woken by a telephone from Nevill and the line went dead. Jeremy immediately tries to call Nevill back but got the engaged tone at least twice. Apparently an explanation for this has been that Nevill is calling the police (re the 03.26 Telephone log being an alleged reference to a call from Nevill to the police). If the 03.26 log refers to a call made by Nevill to the police, then Jeremy will have managed to telephone Julie in his sleep according to the flatmates who testified they had looked at their radio clocks when the telephone rang.
The earliest possible interpretation of the Police becoming aware of any type of incident happening at White House Farm is 03.26 no matter how the telephone logs may be interpreted.
It is Jeremy who states the telephone call from Nevill wakes him up, the line goes dead and he tries to call back and gets the engaged tone at least twice more.
Everyone can even hear Jeremy saying so in his own words because it is on the Mirror website.
Jeremy verbally details that it was a telephone call from Nevill that wakes him up around 3.15 / 3.30 am.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
-
Now I can recall that back in those days making calls to people and if I hung up and they did not then that prevented me from calling out on my phone to any other number for quite some time because the line to that caller would still remain open. Not sure if that information is of any use or not?
-
...
[/quote
Mike
It is very important because it is impossible for Jeremy to be calling Julie before he wakes up with a prediction of trouble at White House Farm.
In my house it wouldn't be as, for various reasons, all of my clocks are set to different times. I wake at 6.30 by my kitchen clock, which is 6.15 in real time, so I could call someone before I'm awake.
Jeremy admits he was woken by a telephone from Nevill and the line went dead. Jeremy immediately tries to call Nevill back but got the engaged tone at least twice. Apparently an explanation for this has been that Nevill is calling the police (re the 03.26 Telephone log being an alleged reference to a call from Nevill to the police).
This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.
If the 03.26 log refers to a call made by Nevill to the police, then Jeremy will have managed to telephone Julie in his sleep according to the flatmates who testified they had looked at their radio clocks when the telephone rang.
The earliest possible interpretation of the Police becoming aware of any type of incident happening at White House Farm is 03.26 no matter how the telephone logs may be interpreted.
It is Jeremy who states the telephone call from Nevill wakes him up, the line goes dead and he tries to call back and gets the engaged tone at least twice more.
Everyone can even hear him saying so in his own words because it is on, I think, the Mirror website.
Understandably so, but Jeremy may have been mistaken in assuming it was Nevill making that call.
-
...
[/quote
Mike
It is very important because it is impossible for Jeremy to be calling Julie before he wakes up with a prediction of trouble at White House Farm.
Jeremy admits he was woken by a telephone from Nevill and the line went dead. Jeremy immediately tries to call Nevill back but got the engaged tone at least twice. Apparently an explanation for this has been that Nevill is calling the police (re the 03.26 Telephone log being an alleged reference to a call from Nevill to the police).
This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.
If the 03.26 log refers to a call made by Nevill to the police, then Jeremy will have managed to telephone Julie in his sleep according to the flatmates who testified they had looked at their radio clocks when the telephone rang.
The earliest possible interpretation of the Police becoming aware of any type of incident happening at White House Farm is 03.26 no matter how the telephone logs may be interpreted.
It is Jeremy who states the telephone call from Nevill wakes him up, the line goes dead and he tries to call back and gets the engaged tone at least twice more.
Everyone can even hear him saying so in his own words because it is on, I think, the Mirror website.
Understandably so, but Jeremy may have been mistaken in assuming it was Nevill making that call.
Removed para re my waking times as I got these back to front
-
...
[/quote
Mike
It is very important because it is impossible for Jeremy to be calling Julie before he wakes up with a prediction of trouble at White House Farm.
Jeremy admits he was woken by a telephone from Nevill and the line went dead. Jeremy immediately tries to call Nevill back but got the engaged tone at least twice. Apparently an explanation for this has been that Nevill is calling the police (re the 03.26 Telephone log being an alleged reference to a call from Nevill to the police).
This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.
If the 03.26 log refers to a call made by Nevill to the police, then Jeremy will have managed to telephone Julie in his sleep according to the flatmates who testified they had looked at their radio clocks when the telephone rang.
The earliest possible interpretation of the Police becoming aware of any type of incident happening at White House Farm is 03.26 no matter how the telephone logs may be interpreted.
It is Jeremy who states the telephone call from Nevill wakes him up, the line goes dead and he tries to call back and gets the engaged tone at least twice more.
Everyone can even hear him saying so in his own words because it is on, I think, the Mirror website.
Understandably so, but Jeremy may have been mistaken in assuming it was Nevill making that call.
Removed para re my waking times as I got these back to front
Keira
Re your comment - 'This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.'
If Sheila made a call at 03.26 to the police why would the 03.26 police telephone log not include any indication that a female had made the call. Whether the call is, as has been alleged from the defence, was from Nevill or was a relay of Jeremy's call to the Police, as maintained by the prosecution it is a common factor that both calls involve males.
Did Sheila have a deep voice?
........ and were the Police at White House Farm by 03.26?
-
...
[/quote
Mike
It is very important because it is impossible for Jeremy to be calling Julie before he wakes up with a prediction of trouble at White House Farm.
Jeremy admits he was woken by a telephone from Nevill and the line went dead. Jeremy immediately tries to call Nevill back but got the engaged tone at least twice. Apparently an explanation for this has been that Nevill is calling the police (re the 03.26 Telephone log being an alleged reference to a call from Nevill to the police).
This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.
If the 03.26 log refers to a call made by Nevill to the police, then Jeremy will have managed to telephone Julie in his sleep according to the flatmates who testified they had looked at their radio clocks when the telephone rang.
The earliest possible interpretation of the Police becoming aware of any type of incident happening at White House Farm is 03.26 no matter how the telephone logs may be interpreted.
It is Jeremy who states the telephone call from Nevill wakes him up, the line goes dead and he tries to call back and gets the engaged tone at least twice more.
Everyone can even hear him saying so in his own words because it is on, I think, the Mirror website.
Understandably so, but Jeremy may have been mistaken in assuming it was Nevill making that call.
Removed para re my waking times as I got these back to front
Keira
Re your comment - 'This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.'
If Sheila made a call at 03.26 to the police why would the 03.26 police telephone log not include any indication that a female had made the call. Whether the call is, as has been alleged from the defence, was from Nevill or was a relay of Jeremy's call to the Police, as maintained by the prosecution it is a common factor that both calls involve males.
Did Sheila have a deep voice?
........ and were the Police at White House Farm by 03.26?
I didn't state that Sheila called the police, I don't know who she might have called or attempted to call. One or more calls to an unknown number was recorded from WHF though, wasn't it - by the operator monitoring the open line? Does anyone recall what time this was?
-
...
[/quote
Mike
It is very important because it is impossible for Jeremy to be calling Julie before he wakes up with a prediction of trouble at White House Farm.
Jeremy admits he was woken by a telephone from Nevill and the line went dead. Jeremy immediately tries to call Nevill back but got the engaged tone at least twice. Apparently an explanation for this has been that Nevill is calling the police (re the 03.26 Telephone log being an alleged reference to a call from Nevill to the police).
This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.
If the 03.26 log refers to a call made by Nevill to the police, then Jeremy will have managed to telephone Julie in his sleep according to the flatmates who testified they had looked at their radio clocks when the telephone rang.
The earliest possible interpretation of the Police becoming aware of any type of incident happening at White House Farm is 03.26 no matter how the telephone logs may be interpreted.
It is Jeremy who states the telephone call from Nevill wakes him up, the line goes dead and he tries to call back and gets the engaged tone at least twice more.
Everyone can even hear him saying so in his own words because it is on, I think, the Mirror website.
Understandably so, but Jeremy may have been mistaken in assuming it was Nevill making that call.
Removed para re my waking times as I got these back to front
Keira
Re your comment - 'This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.'
If Sheila made a call at 03.26 to the police why would the 03.26 police telephone log not include any indication that a female had made the call. Whether the call is, as has been alleged from the defence, was from Nevill or was a relay of Jeremy's call to the Police, as maintained by the prosecution it is a common factor that both calls involve males.
Did Sheila have a deep voice?
........ and were the Police at White House Farm by 03.26?
I didn't state that Sheila called the police, I don't know who she might have called or attempted to call. One or more calls to an unknown number was recorded from WHF though, wasn't it - by the operator monitoring the open line? Does anyone recall what time this was?
Keira
Can you explain this in more detail.
If an operator was monitoring the line and somebody tried to use the telephone the operator would have been able to speak with the person who was trying to make the call. The line was open with the operator monitoring it. The only reports from the logs, as far as I am aware, are reports from the operator monitoring the line that dog or dogs were barking.
-
We need to know, to which clock was each witness relying upon when describing events that are accompanied by timed reference?
At the moment, all these reports are being treated as though they were/are all being made against a universal clock that take into account every eventuality and occurrence...
It is not possible, in the circumstances of this case, to use the profile of a universal clock against which we can compare and judge, what took place, by whom, when and how, in any sort of sequential order...
What we are dealing with here...
Are different time cycles which are unique to each witness, which may or may not overlap the times sequences of the other events described by other witnesses...
-
We need to know, to which clock was each witness relying upon when describing events that are accompanied by timed reference?
At the moment, all these reports are being treated as though they were/are all being made against a universal clock that takers into account every eventuality and occurrence...
No they do not.
Joanne Woad testified she looked at her radio / alarm clock
Susan Battersby also detailed she had looked at her radio clock which she admits was kept 10 minutes fast. According to the Appeal details this was verified by her boyfriend and a policeman.
There is no universal clock at play in these two acounts.
A common feature is that both testimonies relate to times which are before Jeremy, by his own admission, has been woken by having received an alledged telephone call from Nevill.
Jeremy verbally details that it was a telephone call from Nevill that wakes him up around 3.15 / 3.30 am.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
-
...
[/quote
Mike
It is very important because it is impossible for Jeremy to be calling Julie before he wakes up with a prediction of trouble at White House Farm.
Jeremy admits he was woken by a telephone from Nevill and the line went dead. Jeremy immediately tries to call Nevill back but got the engaged tone at least twice. Apparently an explanation for this has been that Nevill is calling the police (re the 03.26 Telephone log being an alleged reference to a call from Nevill to the police).
This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.
If the 03.26 log refers to a call made by Nevill to the police, then Jeremy will have managed to telephone Julie in his sleep according to the flatmates who testified they had looked at their radio clocks when the telephone rang.
The earliest possible interpretation of the Police becoming aware of any type of incident happening at White House Farm is 03.26 no matter how the telephone logs may be interpreted.
It is Jeremy who states the telephone call from Nevill wakes him up, the line goes dead and he tries to call back and gets the engaged tone at least twice more.
Everyone can even hear him saying so in his own words because it is on, I think, the Mirror website.
Understandably so, but Jeremy may have been mistaken in assuming it was Nevill making that call.
Removed para re my waking times as I got these back to front
Keira
Re your comment - 'This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.'
If Sheila made a call at 03.26 to the police why would the 03.26 police telephone log not include any indication that a female had made the call. Whether the call is, as has been alleged from the defence, was from Nevill or was a relay of Jeremy's call to the Police, as maintained by the prosecution it is a common factor that both calls involve males.
Did Sheila have a deep voice?
........ and were the Police at White House Farm by 03.26?
I didn't state that Sheila called the police, I don't know who she might have called or attempted to call. One or more calls to an unknown number was recorded from WHF though, wasn't it - by the operator monitoring the open line? Does anyone recall what time this was?
Keira
Can you explain this in more detail.
If an operator was monitoring the line and somebody tried to use the telephone the operator would have been able to speak with the person who was trying to make the call. The line was open with the operator monitoring it. The only reports from the logs, as far as I am aware, are reports from the operator monitoring the line that dog or dogs were barking.
I've found the reference now. The time was 5.40 a.m.
"At 5.40 a.m., just five minutes after the report that the TFU were engaged in conversation with someone inside the farm, the BT operator was asked by Essex Police to once again check the telephone line inside the farmhouse (Which had previously been confirmed as being off the hook) and at that time the operator reported that the telephone was now engaged.
Another five minutes passed and the police asked the operator to recheck the line; the operator reported that the handset was once again off its cradle at that point. Jeremy believes this illustrates that someone was still alive in the house at that time because the handset in the kitchen must have been replaced or the cradle of the kitchen phone depressed and an outside number dialled which produced the engaged tone and then afterwards the handset laid back on the kitchen worktop to allow the operator to report that the phone was off its hook again."
I found it in David Shaw's manuscript: The Innocent Man. So this rests on the assumption that Shaw is correct about this call.
-
We need to know, to which clock was each witness relying upon when describing events that are accompanied by timed reference?
At the moment, all these reports are being treated as though they were/are all being made against a universal clock that takers into account every eventuality and occurrence...
No they do not.
Joanne Woad testified she looked at her radio / alarm clock
Susan Battersby also detailed she had looked at her radio clock which she admits was kept 10 minutes fast. According to the Appeal details this was verified by her boyfriend and a policeman.
There is no universal clock at play in these two acounts.
A common feature is that both testimonies relate to times which are before Jeremy, by his own admission, has been woken by having received an alledged telephone call from Nevill.
Jeremy verbally details that it was a telephone call from Nevill that wakes him up around 3.15 / 3.30 am.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
------------------
Well, you had better re-think, because Julie Mugford originally said that Jeremy called her at 3:30am, now it doesn't matter what the individual flatmates say about their own clocks being fast or slow, since taking into account that the times they refer to are / were different to what Mugford said, somebody is not telling the truth about the actual time that Jeremy made the call to Julie...
One of the flatmates clocks being 10 minutes fast, and the time they refer, does not equate with the original time (3:30am) that Julie Mugford gave to the police, no matter how hard you try to twist the facts to suit your argument...
Mugford and her friends give conflicting details about the time of the call, which has to be treated as unreliable, no matter which side of the fence you sit on...
-
We need to know, to which clock was each witness relying upon when describing events that are accompanied by timed reference?
At the moment, all these reports are being treated as though they were/are all being made against a universal clock that takers into account every eventuality and occurrence...
No they do not.
Joanne Woad testified she looked at her radio / alarm clock
Susan Battersby also detailed she had looked at her radio clock which she admits was kept 10 minutes fast. According to the Appeal details this was verified by her boyfriend and a policeman.
There is no universal clock at play in these two acounts.
A common feature is that both testimonies relate to times which are before Jeremy, by his own admission, has been woken by having received an alledged telephone call from Nevill.
Jeremy verbally details that it was a telephone call from Nevill that wakes him up around 3.15 / 3.30 am.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
------------------
Well, you had better re-think, because Julie Mugford originally said that Jeremy called her at 3:30am, now it doesn't matter what the individual flatmates say about their own clocks being fast or slow, since taking into account that the times they refer to are / were different to what Mugford said, somebody is not telling the truth about the actual time that Jeremy made the call to Julie...
One of the flatmates clocks being 10 minutes fast, and the time they refer, does not equate with the original time (3:30am) that Julie Mugford gave to the police, no matter how hard you try to twist the facts to suit your argument...
Mugford and her friends give conflicting details about the time of the call, which has to be treated as unreliable, no matter which side of the fence you sit on...
Well noted Mike. +1
-
The only way you can proceed when you are dealing with a situation like this, is to say that the evidence of each witness occurred within its own time frame, against which has been described a set of circumstances, which may or may not overlap similar circumstances referred to by others, which may rely upon a different time frame...
-
...
[/quote
Mike
It is very important because it is impossible for Jeremy to be calling Julie before he wakes up with a prediction of trouble at White House Farm.
Jeremy admits he was woken by a telephone from Nevill and the line went dead. Jeremy immediately tries to call Nevill back but got the engaged tone at least twice. Apparently an explanation for this has been that Nevill is calling the police (re the 03.26 Telephone log being an alleged reference to a call from Nevill to the police).
This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.
If the 03.26 log refers to a call made by Nevill to the police, then Jeremy will have managed to telephone Julie in his sleep according to the flatmates who testified they had looked at their radio clocks when the telephone rang.
The earliest possible interpretation of the Police becoming aware of any type of incident happening at White House Farm is 03.26 no matter how the telephone logs may be interpreted.
It is Jeremy who states the telephone call from Nevill wakes him up, the line goes dead and he tries to call back and gets the engaged tone at least twice more.
Everyone can even hear him saying so in his own words because it is on, I think, the Mirror website.
Understandably so, but Jeremy may have been mistaken in assuming it was Nevill making that call.
Removed para re my waking times as I got these back to front
Keira
Re your comment - 'This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.'
If Sheila made a call at 03.26 to the police why would the 03.26 police telephone log not include any indication that a female had made the call. Whether the call is, as has been alleged from the defence, was from Nevill or was a relay of Jeremy's call to the Police, as maintained by the prosecution it is a common factor that both calls involve males.
Did Sheila have a deep voice?
........ and were the Police at White House Farm by 03.26?
I didn't state that Sheila called the police, I don't know who she might have called or attempted to call. One or more calls to an unknown number was recorded from WHF though, wasn't it - by the operator monitoring the open line? Does anyone recall what time this was?
Keira
Can you explain this in more detail.
If an operator was monitoring the line and somebody tried to use the telephone the operator would have been able to speak with the person who was trying to make the call. The line was open with the operator monitoring it. The only reports from the logs, as far as I am aware, are reports from the operator monitoring the line that dog or dogs were barking.
I've found the reference now. The time was 5.40 a.m.
"At 5.40 a.m., just five minutes after the report that the TFU were engaged in conversation with someone inside the farm, the BT operator was asked by Essex Police to once again check the telephone line inside the farmhouse (Which had previously been confirmed as being off the hook) and at that time the operator reported that the telephone was now engaged.
Another five minutes passed and the police asked the operator to recheck the line; the operator reported that the handset was once again off its cradle at that point. Jeremy believes this illustrates that someone was still alive in the house at that time because the handset in the kitchen must have been replaced or the cradle of the kitchen phone depressed and an outside number dialled which produced the engaged tone and then afterwards the handset laid back on the kitchen worktop to allow the operator to report that the phone was off its hook again."
I found it in David Shaw's manuscript: The Innocent Man. So this rests on the assumption that Shaw is correct about this call.
I do not think there is anything in the Police logs to support this assumption. In fact there is probably enough given the line was open and being monitored by the GPO to suggest that the assumption is incorrect. In fact the White House Farm telephone would only effectively become usable if the GPO had terminated their end in order to close the line for it to be reopened for another call.
-
I think this could be a world record for the size of link category... But this blog has an interesting take on the JB/JM call scenario:
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l-s2Wpf1ui8/TVrWhwaKt3I/AAAAAAAAAhI/ygkfQZRPJeU/s1600/julie%2Bm.jpg&imgrefurl=http://bambermugfordaccomplicestomurder.blogspot.com/2011/02/bamber-and-mugford-accomplices-in.html&usg=__qPDcPZc-6M5OQR0Nw1ke9bDZzoQ=&h=114&w=100&sz=3&hl=en&start=28&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=JydYV-18EQqCBM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=76&prev=/search%3Fq%3DJulie%2BMugford%26start%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dopera%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26channel%3Dsuggest%26ndsp%3D18%26tbm%3Disch&ei=4RYKTqjWO4WzhAfg7ZX2Dw
-
Operator terminated the open line connection, to allow DCI Harris to make contact with ACC peter Simpson by use of the kitchen phone at about 8:15am...
-
The only way you can proceed when you are dealing with a situation like this, is to say that the evidence of each witness occurred within its own time frame, against which has been described a set of circumstances, which may or may not overlap similar circumstances referred to by others, which may rely upon a different time frame...
What time did Jeremy say he made the call to Julie in his original witness statement which you have copy but will not post?
It would be good to know so we can at least try and understand Jeremy's own timeframe which may or may not overlap similar circumstances referred to by others........ such as police call logs.
-
...
[/quote
Mike
It is very important because it is impossible for Jeremy to be calling Julie before he wakes up with a prediction of trouble at White House Farm.
Jeremy admits he was woken by a telephone from Nevill and the line went dead. Jeremy immediately tries to call Nevill back but got the engaged tone at least twice. Apparently an explanation for this has been that Nevill is calling the police (re the 03.26 Telephone log being an alleged reference to a call from Nevill to the police).
This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.
If the 03.26 log refers to a call made by Nevill to the police, then Jeremy will have managed to telephone Julie in his sleep according to the flatmates who testified they had looked at their radio clocks when the telephone rang.
The earliest possible interpretation of the Police becoming aware of any type of incident happening at White House Farm is 03.26 no matter how the telephone logs may be interpreted.
It is Jeremy who states the telephone call from Nevill wakes him up, the line goes dead and he tries to call back and gets the engaged tone at least twice more.
Everyone can even hear him saying so in his own words because it is on, I think, the Mirror website.
Understandably so, but Jeremy may have been mistaken in assuming it was Nevill making that call.
Removed para re my waking times as I got these back to front
Keira
Re your comment - 'This rests on the assumption that it was Nevill making that call. As there is evidence that Sheila attempted to make at least one call from the kitchen phone some time after the police arrived at WHF, then this may be a false assumption.'
If Sheila made a call at 03.26 to the police why would the 03.26 police telephone log not include any indication that a female had made the call. Whether the call is, as has been alleged from the defence, was from Nevill or was a relay of Jeremy's call to the Police, as maintained by the prosecution it is a common factor that both calls involve males.
Did Sheila have a deep voice?
........ and were the Police at White House Farm by 03.26?
I didn't state that Sheila called the police, I don't know who she might have called or attempted to call. One or more calls to an unknown number was recorded from WHF though, wasn't it - by the operator monitoring the open line? Does anyone recall what time this was?
Keira
Can you explain this in more detail.
If an operator was monitoring the line and somebody tried to use the telephone the operator would have been able to speak with the person who was trying to make the call. The line was open with the operator monitoring it. The only reports from the logs, as far as I am aware, are reports from the operator monitoring the line that dog or dogs were barking.
I've found the reference now. The time was 5.40 a.m.
"At 5.40 a.m., just five minutes after the report that the TFU were engaged in conversation with someone inside the farm, the BT operator was asked by Essex Police to once again check the telephone line inside the farmhouse (Which had previously been confirmed as being off the hook) and at that time the operator reported that the telephone was now engaged.
Another five minutes passed and the police asked the operator to recheck the line; the operator reported that the handset was once again off its cradle at that point. Jeremy believes this illustrates that someone was still alive in the house at that time because the handset in the kitchen must have been replaced or the cradle of the kitchen phone depressed and an outside number dialled which produced the engaged tone and then afterwards the handset laid back on the kitchen worktop to allow the operator to report that the phone was off its hook again."
I found it in David Shaw's manuscript: The Innocent Man. So this rests on the assumption that Shaw is correct about this call.
I do not think there is anything in the Police logs to support this assumption. In fact there is probably enough given the line was open and being monitored by the GPO to suggest that the assumption is incorrect. In fact the White House Farm telephone would only effectively become usable if the GPO had terminated their end in order to close the line for it to be reopened for another call.
"the BT operator was asked by Essex Police to once again check the telephone line inside the farmhouse (Which had previously been confirmed as being off the hook)"
I assumed this meant that the operator was monitoring periodically rather than continuously.
Weren't the logs of this monitoring withheld?
-
Operator terminated the open line connection, to allow DCI Harris to make contact with ACC peter Simpson by use of the kitchen phone at about 8:15am...
Well I guess Sheila could not have tried to make the call Keira was refering to in David Shaw's manuscript.
-
Operator terminated the open line connection, to allow DCI Harris to make contact with ACC peter Simpson by use of the kitchen phone at about 8:15am...
Well I guess Sheila could not have tried to make the call Keira was refering to in David Shaw's manuscript.
----------------
So how did police make call to whf, at a time when line was open and giving an engaged tone?
-
The only way you can proceed when you are dealing with a situation like this, is to say that the evidence of each witness occurred within its own time frame, against which has been described a set of circumstances, which may or may not overlap similar circumstances referred to by others, which may rely upon a different time frame...
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused009.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
Operator terminated the open line connection, to allow DCI Harris to make contact with ACC peter Simpson by use of the kitchen phone at about 8:15am...
Well I guess Sheila could not have tried to make the call Keira was refering to in David Shaw's manuscript.
----------------
So how did police make call to whf, at a time when line was open and giving an engaged tone?
Mike
I do not know if they did or did not. If you can post a reference to this in a call log or something similar or give a pointer to where it is detailed I will gladly provide you with a response.
-
We need to know, to which clock was each witness relying upon when describing events that are accompanied by timed reference?
At the moment, all these reports are being treated as though they were/are all being made against a universal clock that takers into account every eventuality and occurrence...
No they do not.
Joanne Woad testified she looked at her radio / alarm clock
Susan Battersby also detailed she had looked at her radio clock which she admits was kept 10 minutes fast. According to the Appeal details this was verified by her boyfriend and a policeman.
There is no universal clock at play in these two acounts.
A common feature is that both testimonies relate to times which are before Jeremy, by his own admission, has been woken by having received an alledged telephone call from Nevill.
Jeremy verbally details that it was a telephone call from Nevill that wakes him up around 3.15 / 3.30 am.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
------------------
Well, you had better re-think, because Julie Mugford originally said that Jeremy called her at 3:30am, now it doesn't matter what the individual flatmates say about their own clocks being fast or slow, since taking into account that the times they refer to are / were different to what Mugford said, somebody is not telling the truth about the actual time that Jeremy made the call to Julie...
One of the flatmates clocks being 10 minutes fast, and the time they refer, does not equate with the original time (3:30am) that Julie Mugford gave to the police, no matter how hard you try to twist the facts to suit your argument...
Mugford and her friends give conflicting details about the time of the call, which has to be treated as unreliable, no matter which side of the fence you sit on...
When JM was first asked the time of call see didn't say 3.30 with any certainty, she said 'around' 3.30 as she hadn't looked at a clock when she took the call. She then phoned her flatmates who all said that it was much nearer to 3.00. This was I believe a well documented moment in the investigation.
The call time from Nevill to JB has also changed. When JB gave his statements he said 3.10. Now it has changed to 3.15-3.30.
This might be unreliable to you Mike, but the Police, the Jury and the 2002 appeal do not think it unreliable.
This is anyhow a completely pointless argument. Unless there was real new evidence, which this log isn't, as it's already been disclosed, then any new appeal wouldn't touch it and nor would the CCRC.
-
We need to know, to which clock was each witness relying upon when describing events that are accompanied by timed reference?
At the moment, all these reports are being treated as though they were/are all being made against a universal clock that takers into account every eventuality and occurrence...
No they do not.
Joanne Woad testified she looked at her radio / alarm clock
Susan Battersby also detailed she had looked at her radio clock which she admits was kept 10 minutes fast. According to the Appeal details this was verified by her boyfriend and a policeman.
There is no universal clock at play in these two acounts.
A common feature is that both testimonies relate to times which are before Jeremy, by his own admission, has been woken by having received an alledged telephone call from Nevill.
Jeremy verbally details that it was a telephone call from Nevill that wakes him up around 3.15 / 3.30 am.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
------------------
Well, you had better re-think, because Julie Mugford originally said that Jeremy called her at 3:30am, now it doesn't matter what the individual flatmates say about their own clocks being fast or slow, since taking into account that the times they refer to are / were different to what Mugford said, somebody is not telling the truth about the actual time that Jeremy made the call to Julie...
One of the flatmates clocks being 10 minutes fast, and the time they refer, does not equate with the original time (3:30am) that Julie Mugford gave to the police, no matter how hard you try to twist the facts to suit your argument...
Mugford and her friends give conflicting details about the time of the call, which has to be treated as unreliable, no matter which side of the fence you sit on...
When JM was first asked the time of call see didn't say 3.30 with any certainty, she said 'around' 3.30 as she hadn't looked at a clock when she took the call. She then phoned her flatmates who all said that it was much nearer to 3.00. This was I believe a well documented moment in the investigation.
The call time from Nevill to JB has also changed. When JB gave his statements he said 3.10. Now it has changed to 3.15-3.30.
This might be unreliable to you Mike, but the Police, the Jury and the 2002 appeal do not think it unreliable.
This is anyhow a completely pointless argument. Unless there was real new evidence, which this log isn't, as it's already been disclosed, then any new appeal wouldn't touch it and nor would the CCRC.
Vidvic
In my opinion it is a good thread with healthy discussion and debate........... By the way you started the thread!!
-
We need to know, to which clock was each witness relying upon when describing events that are accompanied by timed reference?
At the moment, all these reports are being treated as though they were/are all being made against a universal clock that takers into account every eventuality and occurrence...
No they do not.
Joanne Woad testified she looked at her radio / alarm clock
Susan Battersby also detailed she had looked at her radio clock which she admits was kept 10 minutes fast. According to the Appeal details this was verified by her boyfriend and a policeman.
There is no universal clock at play in these two acounts.
A common feature is that both testimonies relate to times which are before Jeremy, by his own admission, has been woken by having received an alledged telephone call from Nevill.
Jeremy verbally details that it was a telephone call from Nevill that wakes him up around 3.15 / 3.30 am.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/01/31/the-jeremy-bamber-files-exclusive-audio-extracts-of-the-convicted-killer-discussing-his-case-115875-22887323/
------------------
Well, you had better re-think, because Julie Mugford originally said that Jeremy called her at 3:30am, now it doesn't matter what the individual flatmates say about their own clocks being fast or slow, since taking into account that the times they refer to are / were different to what Mugford said, somebody is not telling the truth about the actual time that Jeremy made the call to Julie...
One of the flatmates clocks being 10 minutes fast, and the time they refer, does not equate with the original time (3:30am) that Julie Mugford gave to the police, no matter how hard you try to twist the facts to suit your argument...
Mugford and her friends give conflicting details about the time of the call, which has to be treated as unreliable, no matter which side of the fence you sit on...
When JM was first asked the time of call see didn't say 3.30 with any certainty, she said 'around' 3.30 as she hadn't looked at a clock when she took the call. She then phoned her flatmates who all said that it was much nearer to 3.00. This was I believe a well documented moment in the investigation.
The call time from Nevill to JB has also changed. When JB gave his statements he said 3.10. Now it has changed to 3.15-3.30.
This might be unreliable to you Mike, but the Police, the Jury and the 2002 appeal do not think it unreliable.
This is anyhow a completely pointless argument. Unless there was real new evidence, which this log isn't, as it's already been disclosed, then any new appeal wouldn't touch it and nor would the CCRC.
----------------
I have already pointed out that the phone log itself bearing the time, 3:26am, was not disclosed in time for the trial, although there was some evidence about one of the clocks being 10 minutes fast - if the log itself had been disclosed all hell would have broke loose in court and the prosecutions case would have been exposed as a sham, because Sheila was not Jeremy's daughter, and the gun which the police identified as the murder weapon belonged to Ralph Bamber, so log contents which refer daughter having got one of my guns, could only be a reference to Ralph making comments about his daughter and his own gun...
-
The other thing to take into account, is whether or not the clock that was relied upon to record the time of the 3:26am, log, was accurate, or so many minutes fast, or slow? Just because it has the time 3:26am, upon it, it could easily have been 10 minutes fast like the clock in the control room? I cannot imagine clocks in a police station all telling different times? You would think the police would be more efficient when it came to time keeping, especially as if they had kept good time on all their clocks, we might have been able to make more sense out of the timing of the calls to the police station by Ralph and Jeremy...
If the timing was out by say 10 minutes, the timed log contents timed at 3:26am, could have occurred at around 3:16am, and the occupations of CA07 could have been dispatched to the scene at 3:25am, which would then be ahead of the timing of the call that Jeremy made to the police at a revised 3:26am...
-
Operator terminated the open line connection, to allow DCI Harris to make contact with ACC peter Simpson by use of the kitchen phone at about 8:15am...
Well I guess Sheila could not have tried to make the call Keira was refering to in David Shaw's manuscript.
----------------
So how did police make call to whf, at a time when line was open and giving an engaged tone?
Good point, Mike +1
-
I think this could be a world record for the size of link category... But this blog has an interesting take on the JB/JM call scenario:
Thanks, Rocky. +1
-
So the argument now is, what if the clocks were wrong?
-
So the argument now is, what if the clocks were wrong?
Coming from the chief propagandist of "the logs are all wrong", that's mighty rich, Harters ::)
-
So the argument now is, what if the clocks were wrong?
Coming from the chief propagandist of "the logs are all wrong", that's mighty rich, Harters ::)
That's a cheap shot Choc. :-\
-
So the argument now is, what if the clocks were wrong?
Coming from the chief propagandist of "the logs are all wrong", that's mighty rich, Harters ::)
That's a cheap shot Choc. :-\
Jeremy wore a watch............. I wonder what time Jeremy's watch detailed when he awoke, rang Julie and rang the Police.
Maybe we would get an idea if the time of calls detailed in Jeremy's original witness statement was revealed.
-
So the argument now is, what if the clocks were wrong?
Coming from the chief propagandist of "the logs are all wrong", that's mighty rich, Harters ::)
That's a cheap shot Choc. :-\
Cheaper than: "So the argument now is, what if the clocks were wrong?"
-
So the argument now is, what if the clocks were wrong?
Coming from the chief propagandist of "the logs are all wrong", that's mighty rich, Harters ::)
That's a cheap shot Choc. :-\
Cheaper than: "So the argument now is, what if the clocks were wrong?"
That was a serious question actually, if you read Mikes last post you will see that my question is quite clear.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Really smiffy? You might want to tell the defence team at trial and at appeal, as they have worked very hard to show the phone call was AFTER he called the police.
... Consider the following - (1) phone log timed at 3.26am, is/was call made to police by Ralph, (2) phone log timed at 3.36am, was 10 minutes out of sinc', and really took place at around 3.26am, lasting about 11 minutes and thus terminating at around 3.37am. This gives Jeremy ample time to get dressed, call JM, and start the car up, and make his way to the scene as instructed by the police - throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that clock reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense. One of the problems in this case, is that everybody is treating all the time references as though they relate to a universal clock, in which every eventuality is to be measured?
'........-throw into the equation that the clock at JM's bedsit is/was 10 minutes fast (so that reads 3.40am, or later) and Jeremy's account makes sense."
implies Jeremy's account does not make sense.
Two witnesses testified against two individual clocks and not a single clock in JM's bedsit.
-
So the argument now is, what if the clocks were wrong?
Coming from the chief propagandist of "the logs are all wrong", that's mighty rich, Harters ::)
That's a cheap shot Choc. :-\
Cheaper than: "So the argument now is, what if the clocks were wrong?"
That was a serious question actually, if you read Mikes last post you will see that my question is quite clear.
I appear to have made the classic internet mistake of reading sarcasm into a remark where none was intended, so I apologise, Harters. I O U another +1 for this.
-
So the argument now is, what if the clocks were wrong?
Coming from the chief propagandist of "the logs are all wrong", that's mighty rich, Harters ::)
That's a cheap shot Choc. :-\
Cheaper than: "So the argument now is, what if the clocks were wrong?"
That was a serious question actually, if you read Mikes last post you will see that my question is quite clear.
I appear to have made the classic internet mistake of reading sarcasm into a remark where none was intended, so I apologise, Harters. I O U another +1 for this.
That's fine, I'm quite prone to being somewhat sarcastic at times, although I'm trying to tone it down, the therapy was going well.
-
I have always found it fascinating,that all of Julies flatmates after spending an evening drinking and getting stoned,all just happened to wake up when the phone was ringing and all just happened to glance at their clocks at that time.What are the odds of that?Not one of them sleeping through a ringing telephone.
-
I have always found it fascinating,that all of Julies flatmates after spending an evening drinking and getting stoned,all just happened to wake up when the phone was ringing and all just happened to glance at their clocks at that time.What are the odds of that?Not one of them sleeping through a ringing telephone.
They didn't................ try reading the Appeal extracts as posted by Hartley earlier in the thread.
-
So 2 of them state that they didnt look at their clocks.Could you point to where it states that any one of them slept through the telephone ringing,because I cant seem to find it.
-
So 2 of them state that they didnt look at their clocks.Could you point to where it states that any one of them slept through the telephone ringing,because I cant seem to find it.
So 2 of them state that they didnt look at their clocks.Could you point to where it states that any one of them slept through the telephone ringing,because I cant seem to find it.
If they all woke up then they all woke up. However they all did not wake up and look at their clocks.
Your statement was 'I have always found it fascinating, that all of Julies flatmates after spending an evening drinking and getting stoned, all just happened to wake up when the phone was ringing and all just happened to glance at their clocks at that time.'
The emphasis was all doing the same thing....... they did not and do not admit as such.
-
No,my emaphasis was/is that I find it a bit coincidental that none of them slept through a ringing telephone.That it awoke every single one of them.
-
I have always found it fascinating,that all of Julies flatmates after spending an evening drinking and getting stoned,all just happened to wake up when the phone was ringing and all just happened to glance at their clocks at that time.What are the odds of that?Not one of them sleeping through a ringing telephone.
odds wise, it is not that good 4-1 i think. Not 100's or 1000's -1. Can you point me to their statements or the evidence of Julie's mates spending their evening drinking and getting stoned. I am sure it must have happened and i am a tad jealous, but seeing them admit it would be great.
-
I have always found it fascinating,that all of Julies flatmates after spending an evening drinking and getting stoned,all just happened to wake up when the phone was ringing and all just happened to glance at their clocks at that time.What are the odds of that?Not one of them sleeping through a ringing telephone.
odds wise, it is not that good 4-1 i think. Not 100's or 1000's -1. Can you point me to their statements or the evidence of Julie's mates spending their evening drinking and getting stoned. I am sure it must have happened and i am a tad jealous, but seeing them admit it would be great.
Have to work it out a little differently Si.
Each person has its own odds, its evens for each person, so a £1 accumulator would pay £16.
There was 4 flat mates?
-
I thought Tylers point was, what was the odds of the people in the house sleeping through the phonecall. 4 people, 4-1 i thought, No?
-
I thought Tylers point was, what was the odds of the people in the house sleeping through the phonecall. 4 people, 4-1 i thought, No?
Obviously there's lots of other things that could sway the odds, like how loud the phone is, and where people are sleeping in relation to the phone.
But yes, its 4-1.
£16 back from a £1 stake though, as its 4 individual bets at evens, in an accumulator.
-
Having thought about it, i think i see your point and odds. I was envisaging a four horse race with someone not waking up but Tyler wants the actual odds on them all waking up so 16-1. I get ya! Not massive though, i had a horse win at bigger tonight at Sligo!! ???
-
What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! >:(
-
What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! >:(
I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.
-
By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.
One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.
-
By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.
One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.
From the 2002 Appeal
292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”
The flatmates gave different times so if colluding, as detailed in your opinion, the colusion was wide open for exploitation and harsh probing questions by the defence at trial. They surely would have smelt blood and gone for broke. Jeremy had a prominent QC representing him at the original trial. A prime example would been the current stories about the Millie Dowler murder conviction. It has been reported the family of Millie Dowler stating the ordeal of the trial was not worth the conviction.
Besides what did the flatmates have to gain in Jeremy's potential conviction............. There are no reports of any of them having a deal with a newspaper and none were due to gain any inheritance. Such details have been made known in the defence's discrediting of other witnesses.
-
By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.
One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.
Oh I don't know so much, due to their inconsistent recollections, it doesn't seem to be the case that they were briefed on what to say. If they all said the call was heard at 3:14 and 22 seconds then I would agree with you, but as they all indicated a different time then I don't immediately see how you arrive at your conclusion.
-
Operator terminated the open line connection, to allow DCI Harris to make contact with ACC peter Simpson by use of the kitchen phone at about 8:15am...
Well I guess Sheila could not have tried to make the call Keira was refering to in David Shaw's manuscript.
----------------
So how did police make call to whf, at a time when line was open and giving an engaged tone?
Mike
I do not know if they did or did not. If you can post a reference to this in a call log or something similar or give a pointer to where it is detailed I will gladly provide you with a response.
Mike
Any update on this?
-
By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.
One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.
From the 2002 Appeal
292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”
The flatmates gave different times so if colluding, as detailed in your opinion, the colusion was wide open for exploitation and harsh probing questions by the defence at trial. They surely would have smelt blood and gone for broke. Jeremy had a prominent QC representing him at the original trial. A prime example would been the current stories about the Millie Dowler murder conviction. It has been reported the family of Millie Dowler stating the ordeal of the trial was not worth the conviction.
Besides what did the flatmates have to gain in Jeremy's potential conviction............. There are no reports of any of them having a deal with a newspaper and none were due to gain any inheritance. Such details have been made known in the defence's discrediting of other witnesses.
And this is the day after the killings, not a month after.
-
What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! >:(
Erm, you asked a question based on odds, my brother attempted to answer the question.
I took my brother to task, and showed how the odds should be calculated.
I'm guessing you didn't like the odds?
The rest of your post is a personal attack, no need to takeaction, you've left.
-
What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! >:(
I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.
Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.
So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?
-
What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! >:(
I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.
Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.
So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?
Looks like possible crossed wires? The gbros do like to have a bit of banter. I hope Tyler does re-register. I know that paul is stout-hearted enough to take a bit of flak, when wires get crossed, as they inevitabley do from time to time one here.
-
By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.
One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.
From the 2002 Appeal
292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”
The flatmates gave different times so if colluding, as detailed in your opinion, the colusion was wide open for exploitation and harsh probing questions by the defence at trial. They surely would have smelt blood and gone for broke. Jeremy had a prominent QC representing him at the original trial. A prime example would been the current stories about the Millie Dowler murder conviction. It has been reported the family of Millie Dowler stating the ordeal of the trial was not worth the conviction.
Besides what did the flatmates have to gain in Jeremy's potential conviction............. There are no reports of any of them having a deal with a newspaper and none were due to gain any inheritance. Such details have been made known in the defence's discrediting of other witnesses.
Flatmate Susan Battersby appears to have gained from Jeremy's conviction.
"...in exchange for information Essex police helped get Susan out of a conviction for bank cheque fraud, and her witness statement was given to the police under the clear belief that ‘she would not be taken before the court as a result of making (her) statement…’ "
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TWMfY6ClmTQJ:youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/innocent-man-part-8.html+bamber+susan+battersby,+fraud&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk
-
What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! >:(
I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.
Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.
So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?
Paulg, I was merely pointing out that Tylers question was valid. I don,t think she meant the odds in literal terms,it was just a phrase.
I do not agree with personal attacks on anyone, and if it seemed I was defending that part of Tylers post, then I apologise.
-
By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.
One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.
From the 2002 Appeal
292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”
The flatmates gave different times so if colluding, as detailed in your opinion, the colusion was wide open for exploitation and harsh probing questions by the defence at trial. They surely would have smelt blood and gone for broke. Jeremy had a prominent QC representing him at the original trial. A prime example would been the current stories about the Millie Dowler murder conviction. It has been reported the family of Millie Dowler stating the ordeal of the trial was not worth the conviction.
Besides what did the flatmates have to gain in Jeremy's potential conviction............. There are no reports of any of them having a deal with a newspaper and none were due to gain any inheritance. Such details have been made known in the defence's discrediting of other witnesses.
Flatmate Susan Battersby appears have gained from Jeremy's conviction.
"...in exchange for information Essex police helped get Susan out of a conviction for bank cheque fraud, and her witness statement was given to the police under the clear belief that ‘she would not be taken before the court as a result of making (her) statement…’ "
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TWMfY6ClmTQJ:youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/innocent-man-part-8.html+bamber+susan+battersby,+fraud&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk
Perhaps.
On the other hand, she could have been considered to have lost out rather than gained. She was home and dry after the cheque fraud until JM went to the police, she then had to pay the money back to the bank.
Unless JM paid her share or financially gifted her later on then I'm not sure this shows anything of substance to help either the defence or prosecutions case.
-
By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.
One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.
From the 2002 Appeal
292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”
The flatmates gave different times so if colluding, as detailed in your opinion, the colusion was wide open for exploitation and harsh probing questions by the defence at trial. They surely would have smelt blood and gone for broke. Jeremy had a prominent QC representing him at the original trial. A prime example would been the current stories about the Millie Dowler murder conviction. It has been reported the family of Millie Dowler stating the ordeal of the trial was not worth the conviction.
Besides what did the flatmates have to gain in Jeremy's potential conviction............. There are no reports of any of them having a deal with a newspaper and none were due to gain any inheritance. Such details have been made known in the defence's discrediting of other witnesses.
And this is the day after the killings, not a month after.
wrong wrong wrong
AE's notes may have been edited at any time.... AE's statement was a month after the killings but refers to the day after...
AE should not have been present while a police officer was taking notes....so this may be false.
The police officer should have only noted what JM said and there should have been no phone calls to check as any answer given could be wrong and is effectively hearsay.
oh this so called probing and cross examination....how much experience do some posters have of court proceedings...very little it seems.
defences do not go heavily and ask every question for such an approach can go against the person they are defending......any claims that they do act in this way are way off what happens in practise.
Things in court can often be very stacked against the defence...as key points in evidence may get missed if too much time is spent on what appears to be trivial matters.
LOOK AT THIS THREAD....much of it is of little real importance for it distracts from key issues such as it being Sheila's fingernails that gouged Ralph's arm...
that is key ....and indicates an attack by Sheila on Ralph and makes Sheila the killer....the only remaining worthy issue is whether Sheila shot herself or if the police shot her....
Police altering statements, fiddling evidence and manipulating witnesses is fairly obvious except to those with blinkered vision.
-
What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! >:(
I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.
Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.
So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?
Paulg, I was merely pointing out that Tylers question was valid. I don,t think she meant the odds in literal terms,it was just a phrase.
I do not agree with personal attacks on anyone, and if it seemed I was defending that part of Tylers post, then I apologise.
No worries, mate water off a ducks back.
But, the odds thing is there for a reason, and very apt.
Tyler posts were suggesting that the chances are very high for all to wake, but in reality they're not. As i said in one of my posts, all sorts of factors have to be taken into account when working on possibilities/odds, some will be shorter, some higher. But, it really isn't that far fetched that all housemates were woken by a 3:00am phone call...this is the point Cliff.
-
By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.
One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.
From the 2002 Appeal
292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”
The flatmates gave different times so if colluding, as detailed in your opinion, the colusion was wide open for exploitation and harsh probing questions by the defence at trial. They surely would have smelt blood and gone for broke. Jeremy had a prominent QC representing him at the original trial. A prime example would been the current stories about the Millie Dowler murder conviction. It has been reported the family of Millie Dowler stating the ordeal of the trial was not worth the conviction.
Besides what did the flatmates have to gain in Jeremy's potential conviction............. There are no reports of any of them having a deal with a newspaper and none were due to gain any inheritance. Such details have been made known in the defence's discrediting of other witnesses.
Flatmate Susan Battersby appears to have gained from Jeremy's conviction.
"...in exchange for information Essex police helped get Susan out of a conviction for bank cheque fraud, and her witness statement was given to the police under the clear belief that ‘she would not be taken before the court as a result of making (her) statement…’ "
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TWMfY6ClmTQJ:youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/innocent-man-part-8.html+bamber+susan+battersby,+fraud&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk
I believe someone has posted something in terms of statement comments from the Bank concerned in relation to the cheque fraud. The Bank did not press charges and possibly had not even reported the crime to the Police. I think Battersby and Mugford effectively came clean about it.
Even if you remove Battersby and Mugford there were other flatmates with nothing to gain.
-
What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! >:(
I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.
Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.
So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?
Looks like possible crossed wires? The gbros do like to have a bit of banter. I hope Tyler does re-register. I know that paul is stout-hearted enough to take a bit of flak, when wires get crossed, as they inevitabley do from time to time one here.
You took the words out of my mouth, Rocky. I had to apologised to Harters yesterday for a similar misunderstanding - I mistook one of his responses regarding a serious aspect of the case for sarcasm.
It's so easy to have this sort of misunderstanding on the internet because it's such a rapid response medium and we don't have the facial clues which clarify meaning in face to face communication.
From where I'm sitting - and I stand to be corrected guys - it looked to me as though Tyler misunderstood paulg's and simong's betting patois as a direct attack on her. Tyler then responded in what she though was the same vein and paulg did likewise. Cliff seems to have taken the same view of the betting patois.
Hey, guys, I really like all of you, can we not forgive and forget this and start again?
-
What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! >:(
I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.
Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.
So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?
Looks like possible crossed wires? The gbros do like to have a bit of banter. I hope Tyler does re-register. I know that paul is stout-hearted enough to take a bit of flak, when wires get crossed, as they inevitabley do from time to time one here.
You took the words out of my mouth, Rocky. I had to apologised to Harters yesterday for a similar misunderstanding - I mistook one of his responses regarding a serious aspect of the case for sarcasm.
It's so easy to have this sort of misunderstanding on the internet because it's such a rapid response medium and we don't have the facial clues which clarify meaning in face to face communication.
From where I'm sitting - and I stand to be corrected guys - it looked to me as though Tyler misunderstood paulg's and simong's betting patois as a direct attack on her. Tyler then responded in what she though was the same vein and paulg did likewise. Cliff seems to have taken the same view of the betting patois.
Hey, guys, I really like all of you, can we not forgive and forget this and start again?
As long aspeople realise that if one person wakes to a phone ringing, the chances of 3 others within the same enviroment also waking is not far fetched.
All forgotten this end.
-
By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.
One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.
From the 2002 Appeal
292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”
The flatmates gave different times so if colluding, as detailed in your opinion, the colusion was wide open for exploitation and harsh probing questions by the defence at trial. They surely would have smelt blood and gone for broke. Jeremy had a prominent QC representing him at the original trial. A prime example would been the current stories about the Millie Dowler murder conviction. It has been reported the family of Millie Dowler stating the ordeal of the trial was not worth the conviction.
Besides what did the flatmates have to gain in Jeremy's potential conviction............. There are no reports of any of them having a deal with a newspaper and none were due to gain any inheritance. Such details have been made known in the defence's discrediting of other witnesses.
And this is the day after the killings, not a month after.
wrong wrong wrong
AE's notes may have been edited at any time.... AE's statement was a month after the killings but refers to the day after...
AE should not have been present while a police officer was taking notes....so this may be false.
The police officer should have only noted what JM said and there should have been no phone calls to check as any answer given could be wrong and is effectively hearsay.
oh this so called probing and cross examination....how much experience do some posters have of court proceedings...very little it seems.
defences do not go heavily and ask every question for such an approach can go against the person they are defending......any claims that they do act in this way are way off what happens in practise.
Things in court can often be very stacked against the defence...as key points in evidence may get missed if too much time is spent on what appears to be trivial matters.
LOOK AT THIS THREAD....much of it is of little real importance for it distracts from key issues such as it being Sheila's fingernails that gouged Ralph's arm...
that is key ....and indicates an attack by Sheila on Ralph and makes Sheila the killer....the only remaining worthy issue is whether Sheila shot herself or if the police shot her....
Police altering statements, fiddling evidence and manipulating witnesses is fairly obvious except to those with blinkered vision.
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
311. The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:
“I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy’s house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton.”
.......if rules were broken and it was 'wrong wrong wrong' then would the Appeal Court not have dismissed the evidence? Independent of any posters experience of cross examination and court proceedings
-
What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! >:(
I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.
Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.
So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?
Looks like possible crossed wires? The gbros do like to have a bit of banter. I hope Tyler does re-register. I know that paul is stout-hearted enough to take a bit of flak, when wires get crossed, as they inevitabley do from time to time one here.
You took the words out of my mouth, Rocky. I had to apologised to Harters yesterday for a similar misunderstanding - I mistook one of his responses regarding a serious aspect of the case for sarcasm.
It's so easy to have this sort of misunderstanding on the internet because it's such a rapid response medium and we don't have the facial clues which clarify meaning in face to face communication.
From where I'm sitting - and I stand to be corrected guys - it looked to me as though Tyler misunderstood paulg's and simong's betting patois as a direct attack on her. Tyler then responded in what she though was the same vein and paulg did likewise. Cliff seems to have taken the same view of the betting patois.
Hey, guys, I really like all of you, can we not forgive and forget this and start again?
As long aspeople realise that if one person wakes to a phone ringing, the chances of 3 others within the same enviroment also waking is not far fetched.
All forgotten this end.
And this end too. Never could hold a grudge.
-
What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! >:(
I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.
Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.
So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?
Looks like possible crossed wires? The gbros do like to have a bit of banter. I hope Tyler does re-register. I know that paul is stout-hearted enough to take a bit of flak, when wires get crossed, as they inevitabley do from time to time one here.
You took the words out of my mouth, Rocky. I had to apologised to Harters yesterday for a similar misunderstanding - I mistook one of his responses regarding a serious aspect of the case for sarcasm.
It's so easy to have this sort of misunderstanding on the internet because it's such a rapid response medium and we don't have the facial clues which clarify meaning in face to face communication.
From where I'm sitting - and I stand to be corrected guys - it looked to me as though Tyler misunderstood paulg's and simong's betting patois as a direct attack on her. Tyler then responded in what she though was the same vein and paulg did likewise. Cliff seems to have taken the same view of the betting patois.
Hey, guys, I really like all of you, can we not forgive and forget this and start again?
As long aspeople realise that if one person wakes to a phone ringing, the chances of 3 others within the same enviroment also waking is not far fetched.
All forgotten this end.
:D
-
What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! >:(
I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.
Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.
So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?
Looks like possible crossed wires? The gbros do like to have a bit of banter. I hope Tyler does re-register. I know that paul is stout-hearted enough to take a bit of flak, when wires get crossed, as they inevitabley do from time to time one here.
You took the words out of my mouth, Rocky. I had to apologised to Harters yesterday for a similar misunderstanding - I mistook one of his responses regarding a serious aspect of the case for sarcasm.
It's so easy to have this sort of misunderstanding on the internet because it's such a rapid response medium and we don't have the facial clues which clarify meaning in face to face communication.
From where I'm sitting - and I stand to be corrected guys - it looked to me as though Tyler misunderstood paulg's and simong's betting patois as a direct attack on her. Tyler then responded in what she though was the same vein and paulg did likewise. Cliff seems to have taken the same view of the betting patois.
Hey, guys, I really like all of you, can we not forgive and forget this and start again?
As long aspeople realise that if one person wakes to a phone ringing, the chances of 3 others within the same enviroment also waking is not far fetched.
All forgotten this end.
And this end too. Never could hold a grudge.
:D
-
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
The rest of her claims are very suspect...ie she had no firm foundation to claim 3.00am at all and gives no explanation for arriving at the 3.00am claim ...as she fails to explain...then I can only reject her evidence as being of no value and more likely to be incorrect than correct. As she tries so hard to say nothing I see her claims as being false and knowingly false. If she really did not know or was aware then she should have honestly said so.
-
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
The rest of her claims are very suspect...ie she had no firm foundation to claim 3.00am at all and gives no explanation for arriving at the 3.00am claim ...as she fails to explain...then I can only reject her evidence as being of no value and more likely to be incorrect than correct. As she tries so hard to say nothing I see her claims as being false and knowingly false. If she really did not know or was aware then she should have honestly said so.
OK so eject her evidence in your opinion.
Now deal with the other flatmates...........
e.g. and etc.
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
311. The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:
“I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy’s house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton.”
-
311. The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:
“I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy’s house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton.”
I have no doubts here...she is plainly lying......a deceiver. oh she was the one that was party to the cheque fraud with JM wasnt she...
-
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
Or it's simply a verb? ::)
-
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
Or it's simply a verb? ::)
told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.
But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..
-
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
Or it's simply a verb? ::)
told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.
No it's not, it depends on the context, a sentence may be forceful or aggressive, the word 'told' is simply a word.
Anyway I don't really know why I'm replying to you, your suggestion regarding the word 'told' is utterly ridiculous.
-
Smite away people for my next comment, i'll consider them as applauds.
Do you want to know Smiffy what the accumulative odds are for everyone to be involved in some conspiracy?
And to not break rank for 26 years?
You, i, and others, have to accept that some statements are done to the best of peoples memory.
Maybe, just maybe, the one person thats not telling the truth is serving in prison??
And yes, i know he took a lie detector test, totally unreliable.
-
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
Or it's simply a verb? ::)
told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.
But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..
Smiffy
OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.
According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?
-
Smite away people for my next comment, i'll consider them as applauds.
Do you want to know Smiffy what the accumulative odds are for everyone to be involved in some conspiracy?
And to not break rank for 26 years?
You, i, and others, have to accept that some statements are done to the best of peoples memory.
Maybe, just maybe, the one person thats not telling the truth is serving in prison??
And yes, i know he took a lie detector test, totally unreliable.
The odds are very low indeed...
When an organisation such as the police is involved that has control over its staff and information with threats and fears involved it is all very simple to maintain the lie for many have a lot to lose.
Reality check yourself for incorrectly applied statistics mislead.
-
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
Or it's simply a verb? ::)
told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.
But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..
Smiffy
OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.
According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?
probably the time he said he did...that makes sense...he would be more awake and concious of the time than people who may have been wakened by the phone call.
They could have checked the phone records....you know... the ones police claimed did not exist and that have been kept hidden.
-
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
Or it's simply a verb? ::)
told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.
But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..
Smiffy
OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.
According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?
probably the time he said he did...that makes sense...he would be more awake and concious of the time than people who may have been wakened by the phone call.
They could have checked the phone records....you know... the ones police claimed did not exist and that have been kept hidden.
That's the whole point, JB has changed his mind over the time of the call.
-
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
Or it's simply a verb? ::)
told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.
But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..
Smiffy
OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.
According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?
probably the time he said he did...that makes sense...he would be more awake and concious of the time than people who may have been wakened by the phone call.
They could have checked the phone records....you know... the ones police claimed did not exist and that have been kept hidden.
What time did Jeremy say he called JM?
No one seems to know......... and Mike will not make available Jeremy's original witness statement.
-
Smite away people for my next comment, i'll consider them as applauds.
Do you want to know Smiffy what the accumulative odds are for everyone to be involved in some conspiracy?
And to not break rank for 26 years?
You, i, and others, have to accept that some statements are done to the best of peoples memory.
Maybe, just maybe, the one person thats not telling the truth is serving in prison??
And yes, i know he took a lie detector test, totally unreliable.
The odds are very low indeed...
When an organisation such as the police is involved that has control over its staff and information with threats and fears involved it is all very simple to maintain the lie for many have a lot to lose.
Reality check yourself for incorrectly applied statistics mislead.
And the odds on the one person telling the truth in your opinion?
I'm not a favourite backer normally, but i'll go with the odds on he's guilty runner, doesn't offer value, but i won't lose money.
-
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
Or it's simply a verb? ::)
told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.
But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..
Smiffy
OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.
According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?
probably the time he said he did...that makes sense...he would be more awake and concious of the time than people who may have been wakened by the phone call.
They could have checked the phone records....you know... the ones police claimed did not exist and that have been kept hidden.
What time did Jeremy say he called JM?
No one seems to know......... and Mike will not make available Jeremy's original witness statement.
I suspect this is why we're not allowed to see JB's witness statements as they will show that originally JB was most unclear about his answers, evasive even.
Originally he said that the call from Nevill to him was at 3.10. He changes his mind on the next point. In one questioning he said he called JM Before he called the Police but later changed that.
He is now saying the call from Nevill was between 3.15-3.30.
At the 2002 appeal team JB tried to change the call from 3.00am(approx) to 3.30 but this was rejected.
-
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
Or it's simply a verb? ::)
told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.
But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..
Smiffy
OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.
According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?
probably the time he said he did...that makes sense...he would be more awake and concious of the time than people who may have been wakened by the phone call.
They could have checked the phone records....you know... the ones police claimed did not exist and that have been kept hidden.
What time did Jeremy say he called JM?
No one seems to know......... and Mike will not make available Jeremy's original witness statement.
I suspect this is why we're not allowed to see JB's witness statements as they will show that originally JB was most unclear about his answers, evasive even.
Originally he said that the call from Nevill to him was at 3.10. He changes his mind on the next point. In one questioning he said he called JM Before he called the Police but later changed that.
He is now saying the call from Nevill was between 3.15-3.30.
At the 2002 appeal team JB tried to change the call from 3.00am(approx) to 3.30 but this was rejected.
How can you know what JB said in statements etc unless you have access to them...you cant..so its speculation on your part here vidvic.
Then again....how was JB's statements taken...in note form or tape recorded etc..?
who says it was written down correctly or typos were not made etc...
Police officers have been known to write down what they want many times and attribute the words to other people...I have experienced this personally.
How much misleading was carried out in interviews between JB and the police?...trickery and deception is well known to be part and parcel of police interrogation methods...which makes answers given unreliable.
-
The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............
305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”
Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
Or it's simply a verb? ::)
told is a forceful way of speaking or instructing so its use is misplaced and the sentiment behind it may be unreal to the subject matter.
But going by the AE fairytale version ... erm JM phones and is informed by a flatmate (Helen it seems) that it was about 3.15am....but Helen in september says she said 3.00am.
ooops story falling apart....what we expect when people are fabricating and not recalling from memory.
and there was plenty of time to constuct the lies by the time statements were taken..
Smiffy
OK so lets look at it another way without involving any witnesses who in your opinion appear to be colluding with police.
According to your opinion what time did Jeremy telephone JM in the early hours of the morning of 7th August?
probably the time he said he did...that makes sense...he would be more awake and concious of the time than people who may have been wakened by the phone call.
They could have checked the phone records....you know... the ones police claimed did not exist and that have been kept hidden.
What time did Jeremy say he called JM?
No one seems to know......... and Mike will not make available Jeremy's original witness statement.
I suspect this is why we're not allowed to see JB's witness statements as they will show that originally JB was most unclear about his answers, evasive even.
Originally he said that the call from Nevill to him was at 3.10. He changes his mind on the next point. In one questioning he said he called JM Before he called the Police but later changed that.
He is now saying the call from Nevill was between 3.15-3.30.
At the 2002 appeal team JB tried to change the call from 3.00am(approx) to 3.30 but this was rejected.
How can you know what JB said in statements etc unless you have access to them...you cant..so its speculation on your part here vidvic.
Then again....how was JB's statements taken...in note form or tape recorded etc..?
who says it was written down correctly or typos were not made etc...
Police officers have been known to write down what they want many times and attribute the words to other people...I have experienced this personally.
How much misleading was carried out in interviews between JB and the police?...trickery and deception is well known to be part and parcel of police interrogation methods...which makes answers given unreliable.
Smiffy, so the only person in this whole case, who's word you will accept is JB? You won't accept statements, interviews with Journalists, witnesses, testimonials in court, nothing. JB is innocent, no discussion.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
Hi Hartley,
My question was aimed at smiffy who dismissed my reasoning earlier in the thread. I pointed out that team JB really NEED that call to be after he called Police.
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
Hi Hartley,
My question was aimed at smiffy who dismissed my reasoning earlier in the thread. I pointed out that team JB really NEED that call to be after he called Police.
Lost track a bit here, sorry. :-[
Just to clarify, why do team JB need to call to JM to be after JB's call to the police?
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
Hi Hartley,
My question was aimed at smiffy who dismissed my reasoning earlier in the thread. I pointed out that team JB really NEED that call to be after he called Police.
Lost track a bit here, sorry. :-[
Just to clarify, why do team JB need to call to JM to be after JB's call to the police?
Because it makes him look incredibly bad calling JM BEFORE he calls the Police, if his 'terrified' father had called asking for help. And obviously, if it was actually before he was supposedly called by Nevill then he should have been asleep, which is what is believed by the jury.
-
Because it makes him look incredibly bad calling JM BEFORE he calls the Police, if his 'terrified' father had called asking for help. And obviously, if it was actually before he was supposedly called by Nevill then he should have been asleep, which is what is believed by the jury.
If it was before Nevill allegedly called JB, then JB should not have been aware of the 'trouble at the farm' (if he was innocent of course).
-
Because it makes him look incredibly bad calling JM BEFORE he calls the Police, if his 'terrified' father had called asking for help. And obviously, if it was actually before he was supposedly called by Nevill then he should have been asleep, which is what is believed by the jury.
If it was before Nevill allegedly called JB, then JB should not have been aware of the 'trouble at the farm' (if he was innocent of course).
Exactly! Plus 1.. ;D....lol
-
Because it makes him look incredibly bad calling JM BEFORE he calls the Police, if his 'terrified' father had called asking for help. And obviously, if it was actually before he was supposedly called by Nevill then he should have been asleep, which is what is believed by the jury.
If it was before Nevill allegedly called JB, then JB should not have been aware of the 'trouble at the farm' (if he was innocent of course).
................. and that is the most important bit. Jeremy admits to talking about trouble at the farm in the telephone call to Julie. Irrelevant of any poor police investigation.
+
Jeremy details that he was asleep before receiving the alleged call from Nevill.
-
Smite away people for my next comment, i'll consider them as applauds.
Do you want to know Smiffy what the accumulative odds are for everyone to be involved in some conspiracy?
And to not break rank for 26 years?
You, i, and others, have to accept that some statements are done to the best of peoples memory.
Maybe, just maybe, the one person thats not telling the truth is serving in prison??
And yes, i know he took a lie detector test, totally unreliable.
Hi Paul,
You will know what the odds are of winning the lottery: 1 in almost 14 million.
What are the odds of there never, in the history of the world being a conspiracy of the size that would be required here?
-
Smite away people for my next comment, i'll consider them as applauds.
Do you want to know Smiffy what the accumulative odds are for everyone to be involved in some conspiracy?
And to not break rank for 26 years?
You, i, and others, have to accept that some statements are done to the best of peoples memory.
Maybe, just maybe, the one person thats not telling the truth is serving in prison??
And yes, i know he took a lie detector test, totally unreliable.
Hi Paul,
You will know what the odds are of winning the lottery: 1 in almost 14 million.
What are the odds of there never, in the history of the world being a conspiracy of the size that would be required here?
Other than Christianity you mean?
EDIT:
Forgot Disclaimer: (this was just a bad joke, there was no intention to mock anybodies religious beliefs during the making of this post)
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
In order to accomodate the theory that the 3.26 log relates to Nevill calling the police and that this was the reason for Jeremy getting the engaged tone when he rang Nevill back. Jeremy admits he tried to call Nevill back straight away after the line went dead. Jeremy distinctly remembers getting the engaged tone.
In this theory scenario Jeremy would therefore put the telephone call as received from Nevill to himself at just before 3.26 am.
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
In order to accomodate the theory that the 3.26 log relates to Nevill calling the police and that this was the reason for Jeremy getting the engaged tone when he rang Nevill back. Jeremy admits he tried to call Nevill back straight away after the line went dead. Jeremy distinctly remebers getting the engaged tone.
In this theory scenario Jeremy would therefore put the telephone call as received from Nevill to himself at just before 3.26 am.
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
-
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
If Nevill had telephoned a police station wouldn't the call have been itemised on his telephone account along with that to Jeremy's house in Goldhanger?
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
In order to accomodate the theory that the 3.26 log relates to Nevill calling the police and that this was the reason for Jeremy getting the engaged tone when he rang Nevill back. Jeremy admits he tried to call Nevill back straight away after the line went dead. Jeremy distinctly remebers getting the engaged tone.
In this theory scenario Jeremy would therefore put the telephone call as received from Nevill to himself at just before 3.26 am.
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
-
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
If Nevill had telephoned a police station wouldn't the call have been itemised on his telephone account along with that to Jeremy's house in Goldhanger?
There was no detailed itemised billing at that time like there is today.
According to the 2002 Appeal Judgement anyway.
-
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
If Nevill had telephoned a police station wouldn't the call have been itemised on his telephone account along with that to Jeremy's house in Goldhanger?
There was no detailed itemised billing at that time like there is today.
According to the 2002 Appeal Judgement anyway.
Yes, I remember someone else posting this a while back. I have been trying to think back to my own phone in 1985 and what the GPO presented in the form of billing then. I have no doubt that calls were listed in the GPO bill as how else would one check if it was correct?
I found this too...
I have got copies of billing (itemized) from 1984 to July 1985, so, Yes, they did and do exist...
But I ain't got the August / September 1985, ones, which are crucial - but EP must have obtained them as part of their investigation into this matter...
Seems they are then as Mike has accepted this. Could this info not be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,517.msg8976.html#msg8976
-
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
If Nevill had telephoned a police station wouldn't the call have been itemised on his telephone account along with that to Jeremy's house in Goldhanger?
There was no detailed itemised billing at that time like there is today.
According to the 2002 Appeal Judgement anyway.
Yes, I remember someone else posting this a while back. I have been trying to think back to my own phone in 1985 and what the GPO presented in the form of billing then. I have no doubt that calls were listed in the GPO bill as how else would one check if it was correct?
I found this too...
I have got copies of billing (itemized) from 1984 to July 1985, so, Yes, they did and do exist...
But I ain't got the August / September 1985, ones, which are crucial - but EP must have obtained them as part of their investigation into this matter...
Seems they are then as Mike has accepted this. Could this info not be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,517.msg8976.html#msg8976
From what I understand (and I may be wrong) itemised billing of that nature was available only in a few places and was not available at this location.
Mike has tried to suggest in the past that there were indeed itemised billings and whilst he didn't have the bills for the date of the five murders he had the bills from an earlier month or quarter. Personally I think it's bull.
It would have been a very easy avenue for the defence to pursue at the time of the original trial, they could have requested the bills straight from BT at the time.
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
Well it does seem that way.
I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.
Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
Well it does seem that way.
I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.
Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.
The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
Well it does seem that way.
I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.
Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.
The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.
Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.
Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
Well it does seem that way.
I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.
Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.
The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.
Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.
Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.
The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
Well it does seem that way.
I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.
Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.
The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.
Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.
Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.
The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.
Proving Jeremy to be innocent is a very different standard to establishing an unsafe conviction
-
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
If Nevill had telephoned a police station wouldn't the call have been itemised on his telephone account along with that to Jeremy's house in Goldhanger?
There was no detailed itemised billing at that time like there is today.
According to the 2002 Appeal Judgement anyway.
Yes, I remember someone else posting this a while back. I have been trying to think back to my own phone in 1985 and what the GPO presented in the form of billing then. I have no doubt that calls were listed in the GPO bill as how else would one check if it was correct?
I found this too...
I have got copies of billing (itemized) from 1984 to July 1985, so, Yes, they did and do exist...
But I ain't got the August / September 1985, ones, which are crucial - but EP must have obtained them as part of their investigation into this matter...
Seems they are then as Mike has accepted this. Could this info not be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,517.msg8976.html#msg8976
From what I understand (and I may be wrong) itemised billing of that nature was available only in a few places and was not available at this location.
Mike has tried to suggest in the past that there were indeed itemised billings and whilst he didn't have the bills for the date of the five murders he had the bills from an earlier month or quarter. Personally I think it's bull.
It would have been a very easy avenue for the defence to pursue at the time of the original trial, they could have requested the bills straight from BT at the time.
Well there is only one way to call his bluff, so lets see the itemised phone bill you already have Mike.
If you fail to post it we will know the answer to that particular question.
-
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
If Nevill had telephoned a police station wouldn't the call have been itemised on his telephone account along with that to Jeremy's house in Goldhanger?
There was no detailed itemised billing at that time like there is today.
According to the 2002 Appeal Judgement anyway.
Yes, I remember someone else posting this a while back. I have been trying to think back to my own phone in 1985 and what the GPO presented in the form of billing then. I have no doubt that calls were listed in the GPO bill as how else would one check if it was correct?
I found this too...
I have got copies of billing (itemized) from 1984 to July 1985, so, Yes, they did and do exist...
But I ain't got the August / September 1985, ones, which are crucial - but EP must have obtained them as part of their investigation into this matter...
Seems they are then as Mike has accepted this. Could this info not be obtained under the Freedom of Information Act?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,517.msg8976.html#msg8976
From what I understand (and I may be wrong) itemised billing of that nature was available only in a few places and was not available at this location.
Mike has tried to suggest in the past that there were indeed itemised billings and whilst he didn't have the bills for the date of the five murders he had the bills from an earlier month or quarter. Personally I think it's bull.
It would have been a very easy avenue for the defence to pursue at the time of the original trial, they could have requested the bills straight from BT at the time.
Well there is only one way to call his bluff, so lets see the itemised phone bill you already have Mike.
If you fail to post it we will know the answer to that particular question.
If there was itemised billing then one side or the other would have waved it from the rooftops at trial. I believe the exchange in deepest Essex was ancient and not able to record anymore than units used.
-
If there was itemised billing then one side or the other would have waved it from the rooftops at trial. I believe the exchange in deepest Essex was ancient and not able to record anymore than units used.
That is most certainly a distinct and probable possibility. So why would Mike be telling porkies?
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
Well it does seem that way.
I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.
Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.
The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.
Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.
Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.
The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.
Mike has explained why he has not posted certain material within his possession, even though I suspect that in many cases he would have been perfectly prepared to do so. We have seen evidence on this forum (apart from anything else through letters from Jeremy which Mike has posted) that Jeremy Bambers team are concentrating upon their further submissions to the CCRC and do not want anything to detract from that. Mike has therefore deferred to the requests made by Jeremy that he should not continue to post documents in his possession. That should certainly not be held against Mike or treated as evidence that Mike is trying to filter the material published here so that it only points in the direction of Jeremy's innocence. Mike has allowed very free debate here and has advanced his own opinions within that context.
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
Well it does seem that way.
I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.
Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.
The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.
Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.
Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.
The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.
Mike has explained why he has not posted certain material within his possession, even though I suspect that in many cases he would have been perfectly prepared to do so. We have seen evidence on this forum (apart from anything else through letters from Jeremy which Mike has posted) that Jeremy Bambers team are concentrating upon their further submissions to the CCRC and do not want anything to detract from that. Mike has therefore deferred to the requests made by Jeremy that he should not continue to post documents in his possession. That should certainly not be held against Mike or treated as evidence that Mike is trying to filter the material published here so that it only points in the direction of Jeremy's innocence. Mike has allowed very free debate here and has advanced his own opinions within that context.
NGB1066
May I ask why, in your opinion, anything on this forum may detract from what is happening with the CCRC?
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
Well it does seem that way.
I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.
Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.
The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.
Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.
Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.
The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.
Mike has explained why he has not posted certain material within his possession, even though I suspect that in many cases he would have been perfectly prepared to do so. We have seen evidence on this forum (apart from anything else through letters from Jeremy which Mike has posted) that Jeremy Bambers team are concentrating upon their further submissions to the CCRC and do not want anything to detract from that. Mike has therefore deferred to the requests made by Jeremy that he should not continue to post documents in his possession. That should certainly not be held against Mike or treated as evidence that Mike is trying to filter the material published here so that it only points in the direction of Jeremy's innocence. Mike has allowed very free debate here and has advanced his own opinions within that context.
I understand what you are saying but i cannot see why posting any itemised bill from 1983 onward that Mike says he has would harm anything submitted to the CCRC.
-
If there was itemised billing then one side or the other would have waved it from the rooftops at trial. I believe the exchange in deepest Essex was ancient and not able to record anymore than units used.
That is most certainly a distinct and probable possibility. So why would Mike be telling porkies?
It has been suggested that trunk calls (i.e. long distance rather than local) may have been recorded as well as international calls. I suspect operator connected calls would also have been itemised. I do not know whether the technology was available at the time for locally dialled calls to be specifically identified and timed. Whatever the position Mike's views expressed here do not amount to "porkies", they are his understanding of the position.
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
Well it does seem that way.
I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.
Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.
The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.
Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.
Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.
The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.
Mike has explained why he has not posted certain material within his possession, even though I suspect that in many cases he would have been perfectly prepared to do so. We have seen evidence on this forum (apart from anything else through letters from Jeremy which Mike has posted) that Jeremy Bambers team are concentrating upon their further submissions to the CCRC and do not want anything to detract from that. Mike has therefore deferred to the requests made by Jeremy that he should not continue to post documents in his possession. That should certainly not be held against Mike or treated as evidence that Mike is trying to filter the material published here so that it only points in the direction of Jeremy's innocence. Mike has allowed very free debate here and has advanced his own opinions within that context.
NGB1066
May I ask why, in your opinion, anything on this forum may detract from what is happening with the CCRC?
The final submissions to the CCRC are being prepared and I suspect that Jeremy Bamber's advisors do not want there to be a "dry run" on this forum of some of the key aspects of those submissions in isolation or without the full material in support. I can understand their caution about this, however frustrating this may be for forum members. Mike has been urged to be cautious about what he publishes here and whether or not he agrees with that he has acceeded to the requests made by Jeremy Bamber and his team.
-
Actually Mike said he had itemised bills for whf farm for previous months, so that would indeed be telling fibs if it turned out not to be the case.
-
Actually Mike said he had itemised bills for whf farm for previous months, so that would indeed be telling fibs if it turned out not to be the case.
If Mike says he has itemised bills then I believe he does have them. The key issue however is the extent of the information which is itemised on the bills and I am not sure that Mike has gone into detail on that.
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
Well it does seem that way.
I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.
Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.
The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.
Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.
Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.
The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.
Mike has explained why he has not posted certain material within his possession, even though I suspect that in many cases he would have been perfectly prepared to do so. We have seen evidence on this forum (apart from anything else through letters from Jeremy which Mike has posted) that Jeremy Bambers team are concentrating upon their further submissions to the CCRC and do not want anything to detract from that. Mike has therefore deferred to the requests made by Jeremy that he should not continue to post documents in his possession. That should certainly not be held against Mike or treated as evidence that Mike is trying to filter the material published here so that it only points in the direction of Jeremy's innocence. Mike has allowed very free debate here and has advanced his own opinions within that context.
NGB1066
May I ask why, in your opinion, anything on this forum may detract from what is happening with the CCRC?
The final submissions to the CCRC are being prepared and I suspect that Jeremy Bamber's advisors do not want there to be a "dry run" on this forum of some of the key aspects of those submissions in isolation or without the full material in support. I can understand their caution about this, however frustrating this may be for forum members. Mike has been urged to be cautious about what he publishes here and whether or not he agrees with that he has acceeded to the requests made by Jeremy Bamber and his team.
Do you really think what is discussed on here affects the CCRC?
I thought they are supposed to be professionally independent.
-
If there were any clues in the paperwork or the photos the members here would find it long before the CCRC could ever do so. That I believe is the fear.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,549.0.html
This is the thread where Mike specifically says there are Local itemised bills going back to 1984.
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
Well it does seem that way.
I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.
Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.
The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.
Is that not at odds with the PII argument that is openly discussed on the forum.
Surely it would be better to lead by example within the context of the forum.
The truth isn't his goal, his goal is to try and persuade people that JB is innocent by any means, otherwise he would disclose the lot and let people paw over them and come to their own conclusions.
Mike has explained why he has not posted certain material within his possession, even though I suspect that in many cases he would have been perfectly prepared to do so. We have seen evidence on this forum (apart from anything else through letters from Jeremy which Mike has posted) that Jeremy Bambers team are concentrating upon their further submissions to the CCRC and do not want anything to detract from that. Mike has therefore deferred to the requests made by Jeremy that he should not continue to post documents in his possession. That should certainly not be held against Mike or treated as evidence that Mike is trying to filter the material published here so that it only points in the direction of Jeremy's innocence. Mike has allowed very free debate here and has advanced his own opinions within that context.
NGB1066
May I ask why, in your opinion, anything on this forum may detract from what is happening with the CCRC?
The final submissions to the CCRC are being prepared and I suspect that Jeremy Bamber's advisors do not want there to be a "dry run" on this forum of some of the key aspects of those submissions in isolation or without the full material in support. I can understand their caution about this, however frustrating this may be for forum members. Mike has been urged to be cautious about what he publishes here and whether or not he agrees with that he has acceeded to the requests made by Jeremy Bamber and his team.
Do you really think what is discussed on here affects the CCRC?
I thought they are supposed to be professionally independent.
What is discussed on this forum should not affect the CCRC and yes, the CCRC is supposed to be professionally independent. However the CCRC have not covered themselves in glory generally and in particular in relation to this case. I sense that they feel under a considerable amount of scrutiny and are aware of the bulid up of public concern. Against that background the PR campaigning on behalf of Jeremy Bamber is increasingly significant in my view. What is discussed on this forum, particularly if it amounts to arguments not presented fully and without the benefit of the supporting evidence, could have an affect on the public campaign and to that extent could in indirect impact on the CCRC.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,549.0.html
This is the thread where Mike specifically says there are Local itemised bills going back to 1984.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,517.msg8976.html#msg8976
-
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
Jeremy's original witness statements.
He either doesn't have them or they are not helpful to Jeremy. You choose?
Mike says he has them but will not post them because of some personal details which Jeremy mentioned about Colin Caffel.............??
Mikes had no problems with posting any other personal details.
Well it does seem that way.
I also seem to recall at some point Mike mentioned in a post that he had be told not to post them. I will need to check on that one.
Maybe requests should be repeated to try and get Mike to post Jeremy's original witness statement.
The thing is, and I respect that it's the case, but Mikes sole purpose is to utilise the documents and forum to publicise his view that JB is innocent. If there are documents which conflict with any aspect of his theories then he simply isn't going to post them.
This is mere speculation, Harters.
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
In order to accomodate the theory that the 3.26 log relates to Nevill calling the police and that this was the reason for Jeremy getting the engaged tone when he rang Nevill back. Jeremy admits he tried to call Nevill back straight away after the line went dead. Jeremy distinctly remebers getting the engaged tone.
In this theory scenario Jeremy would therefore put the telephone call as received from Nevill to himself at just before 3.26 am.
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
I have found some details included in Roger Wilkes' book 'Blood Relations' which directly reference Jeremy's original statement on 8th August 1985.
For clarity, should anyone wish to check the following extract is detailed on page 136 -
' Stan Jones reminded Jeremy Bamber that he had been asked by several police officers about his actions that night, and that he had said he phoned the police before calling Julie. So what was the correct order?
'I don't remember,' said Jeremy, 'but my first statement was done at the time and must be correct.'
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
In order to accomodate the theory that the 3.26 log relates to Nevill calling the police and that this was the reason for Jeremy getting the engaged tone when he rang Nevill back. Jeremy admits he tried to call Nevill back straight away after the line went dead. Jeremy distinctly remebers getting the engaged tone.
In this theory scenario Jeremy would therefore put the telephone call as received from Nevill to himself at just before 3.26 am.
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
I have found some details included in Roger Wilkes' book 'Blood Relations' which directly reference Jeremy's original statement on 8th August 1985.
For clarity, should anyone wish to check the following extract is detailed on page 136 -
' Stan Jones reminded Jeremy Bamber that he had been asked by several police officers about his actions that night, and that he had said he phoned the police before calling Julie. So what was the correct order?
'I don't remember,' said Jeremy, 'but my first statement was done at the time and must be correct.'
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
ah the 8th august statement...
is this info taken from the handwritten version that must be part of the "suicide investigation"...or is it from a typed version....
obviously this was not taped.....and do we know if what JB said was taken down verbatim....or is it from police officers notebooks etc
in other words how do we know this claimed summary was correct at all?
similarly with the stan jones nonsense..... Lets remind people ..police are allowed to lie and use all sorts of dirty tricks in interviews to get the answers they desire....and the way EP behaved in this investigation...little trust should be put into anything they claim people may have said or not.
Anne Eaton gave very conflicting accounts about the so called silencer finding and transportation...WHY WASNT THE GESTAPO ROLLED OUT...? etc etc etc
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
In order to accomodate the theory that the 3.26 log relates to Nevill calling the police and that this was the reason for Jeremy getting the engaged tone when he rang Nevill back. Jeremy admits he tried to call Nevill back straight away after the line went dead. Jeremy distinctly remebers getting the engaged tone.
In this theory scenario Jeremy would therefore put the telephone call as received from Nevill to himself at just before 3.26 am.
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
I have found some details included in Roger Wilkes' book 'Blood Relations' which directly reference Jeremy's original statement on 8th August 1985.
For clarity, should anyone wish to check the following extract is detailed on page 136 -
' Stan Jones reminded Jeremy Bamber that he had been asked by several police officers about his actions that night, and that he had said he phoned the police before calling Julie. So what was the correct order?
'I don't remember,' said Jeremy, 'but my first statement was done at the time and must be correct.'
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
ah the 8th august statement...
is this info taken from the handwritten version that must be part of the "suicide investigation"...or is it from a typed version....
obviously this was not taped.....and do we know if what JB said was taken down verbatim....or is it from police officers notebooks etc
in other words how do we know this claimed summary was correct at all?
similarly with the stan jones nonsense..... Lets remind people ..police are allowed to lie and use all sorts of dirty tricks in interviews to get the answers they desire....and the way EP behaved in this investigation...little trust should be put into anything they claim people may have said or not.
Anne Eaton gave very conflicting accounts about the so called silencer finding and transportation...WHY WASNT THE GESTAPO ROLLED OUT...? etc etc etc
Smiffy
The source is revealed in the post.
In answer to your question...........I do not know but I suspect it is taken from the equivalent of the Julie Mugford witness statement as taken on 8th August 1985 as has been posted by Mike on the forum. I believe this can be seen in the Jeremy's original statment thread.
I guess you should really be asking Mike as he has confirmed on the forum that he has a copy of Jeremy's original statement. Mike has detailed that he has been told not to post a copy of Jeremy's original statement.
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
In order to accomodate the theory that the 3.26 log relates to Nevill calling the police and that this was the reason for Jeremy getting the engaged tone when he rang Nevill back. Jeremy admits he tried to call Nevill back straight away after the line went dead. Jeremy distinctly remebers getting the engaged tone.
In this theory scenario Jeremy would therefore put the telephone call as received from Nevill to himself at just before 3.26 am.
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
I have found some details included in Roger Wilkes' book 'Blood Relations' which directly reference Jeremy's original statement on 8th August 1985.
For clarity, should anyone wish to check the following extract is detailed on page 136 -
' Stan Jones reminded Jeremy Bamber that he had been asked by several police officers about his actions that night, and that he had said he phoned the police before calling Julie. So what was the correct order?
'I don't remember,' said Jeremy, 'but my first statement was done at the time and must be correct.'
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
CE, without looking at your telephone or mobile records, can you:
Recall two telephone calls you made or received on 1st June?
Or the nearest day to 1st June if there were not two calls then?
Can you recall the times you made or received these calls?
Can you be certain of the order with which these calls were made/ taken?
I certainly can't recall any of the above.
I accept that 7-8th August were important days in Jeremy Bamber's life, however, it was also the start of a traumatic period when there would have been a great deal happening.
Remember too that Jeremy had been prescribed and was taking tranquilisers at that time, I believe these in themselves can have a damaging impact on memory. They wiped out the memory and the capacity to rationalise of a friend of mine.
-
I can, does that count?
I think when a major incident occurs you know exactly where you were and what you did, I don't recall what I did this time last week or month or year, but I recall the entire day almost minute by minute when the bombs went off in London on 7/7, I think that's just the way it works.
-
Smiffy
The source is revealed in the post.
In answer to your question...........I do not know but I suspect it is taken from the equivalent of the Julie Mugford witness statement as taken on 8th August 1985 as has been posted by Mike on the forum. I believe this can be seen in the Jeremy's original statment thread.
I guess you should really be asking Mike as he has confirmed on the forum that he has a copy of Jeremy's original statement. Mike has detailed that he has been told not to post a copy of Jeremy's original statement.
That doesn't impress me for a minute, if there was anything controversial or incriminating in the statement, which I believe there is, Mike could redact it accordingly before posting it.
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
In order to accomodate the theory that the 3.26 log relates to Nevill calling the police and that this was the reason for Jeremy getting the engaged tone when he rang Nevill back. Jeremy admits he tried to call Nevill back straight away after the line went dead. Jeremy distinctly remebers getting the engaged tone.
In this theory scenario Jeremy would therefore put the telephone call as received from Nevill to himself at just before 3.26 am.
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
I have found some details included in Roger Wilkes' book 'Blood Relations' which directly reference Jeremy's original statement on 8th August 1985.
For clarity, should anyone wish to check the following extract is detailed on page 136 -
' Stan Jones reminded Jeremy Bamber that he had been asked by several police officers about his actions that night, and that he had said he phoned the police before calling Julie. So what was the correct order?
'I don't remember,' said Jeremy, 'but my first statement was done at the time and must be correct.'
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
CE, without looking at your telephone or mobile records, can you:
Recall two telephone calls you made or received on 1st June?
Or the nearest day to 1st June if there were not two calls then?
Can you recall the times you made or received these calls?
Can you be certain of the order with which these calls were made/ taken?
I certainly can't recall any of the above.
I accept that 7-8th August were important days in Jeremy Bamber's life, however, it was also the start of a traumatic period when there would have been a great deal happening.
Remember too that Jeremy had been prescribed and was taking tranquilisers at that time, I believe these in themselves can have a damaging impact on memory. They wiped out the memory and the capacity to rationalise of a friend of mine.
Very convenient, now the tranquillisers are responsible.
-
why don't you put all your energy into getting the ccrc to release everything rather than pestering Mike
Take a walk up to Birmingham to the ccrc they might let you photocopy everything
-
why don't you put all your energy into getting the ccrc to release everything rather than pestering Mike
Take a walk up to Birmingham to the ccrc they might let you photocopy everything
Unfortunately Mike set this forum up, if he didn't want the claims he makes to be questioned then perhaps a blog may have been a better choice.
-
I can, does that count?
I think when a major incident occurs you know exactly where you were and what you did, I don't recall what I did this time last week or month or year, but I recall the entire day almost minute by minute when the bombs went off in London on 7/7, I think that's just the way it works.
You must have an extraordinary memory, Harters, I think very few people would be able to provide a minute by minute account of their day on 7/7.
-
Possibly Mike thought he might be playing an even field by now with everything out in the open from the ccrc
So Hartley you will just have to live with it
Be patient just like JB has been for 26 years
-
I can, does that count?
I think when a major incident occurs you know exactly where you were and what you did, I don't recall what I did this time last week or month or year, but I recall the entire day almost minute by minute when the bombs went off in London on 7/7, I think that's just the way it works.
You must have an extraordinary memory, Harters, I think very few people would be able to provide a minute by minute account of their day on 7/7.
Yes perhaps I do.
-
I don't believe you Hartley you better swot up and I can test you tomorrow
-
Possibly Mike thought he might be playing an even field by now with everything out in the open from the ccrc
So Hartley you will just have to live with it
Be patient just like JB has been for 26 years
You see Jac, that's the sort of post I mean. My patience is just fine thanks.
-
I don't believe you Hartley you better swot up and I can test you tomorrow
Jac, my point is that people remember all sorts, I lost my father in the 7/7 bombings and I can remember a darn sight more of that day and the following weeks than I can about other dates.
-
Hartley stop having a go at Mike try the other avenues
Anyway I am off now and Vidvic can slip back on because he still has not answered my post.
Could someone lend him a dictionary so he can look up the word if and the word goad and could you make sure he finds the post where I gave him an actual time for when he would hear about new evidence
Hartley you didn't say you lost your father in the bombings that is tragic and I can now understand why you remember everything about that day on the other hand I was extremely close to my Dad and I have blocked everything out about the time he died I couldn't even give you the date it is still painful everything reminds me but I can't bear it.
-
Goodnight JP.
-
If there was itemised billing then one side or the other would have waved it from the rooftops at trial. I believe the exchange in deepest Essex was ancient and not able to record anymore than units used.
That is most certainly a distinct and probable possibility. So why would Mike be telling porkies?
It has been suggested that trunk calls (i.e. long distance rather than local) may have been recorded as well as international calls. I suspect operator connected calls would also have been itemised. I do not know whether the technology was available at the time for locally dialled calls to be specifically identified and timed. Whatever the position Mike's views expressed here do not amount to "porkies", they are his understanding of the position.
Ah Chelmsford telephone exchange.....
vidvic uses flowery language (hmm wonder why) to promote his belief in the relevant telephone exchange being very old and out of date for the time of the murder... nothing more than wishful thinking...how old eh vidvic in your imagination?
a little research and it cannot have been too old...for the old telephone exchange building in chelmsford went out of use in 1974....
so that immediately implies that in 1985 the replacement exchanges equipment cannot have been much older than from 1974. System X digital exchanges were being introduced in the early 80's and chelmsford is very likely to have gone to system x prior to 1985 due to its importance to BT.
Itemised billing....there are two components that are relevant... key is recording equipment to obtain the data...the paperwork side only comes later... One came before the other...so was in place before the other.
Where the right equipment was installed the ability to log calls was already present even if no itemised bills were being sent out to customers.
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
In order to accomodate the theory that the 3.26 log relates to Nevill calling the police and that this was the reason for Jeremy getting the engaged tone when he rang Nevill back. Jeremy admits he tried to call Nevill back straight away after the line went dead. Jeremy distinctly remebers getting the engaged tone.
In this theory scenario Jeremy would therefore put the telephone call as received from Nevill to himself at just before 3.26 am.
Yes but that can't possibly be the case, as that would put JB's call to the police at 3:36 which would not give him time to arrive at whf at 3:48 bearing in mind the length of his call to the police.
If Nevill called the police (which I don't believe happened) then Nevills call must have been before 3:26 minus a few minutes for JB to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, and possibly minus the time it took him to call JM.
I know and agree. Hence my repeated requests for Mike to post Jeremy's original WITNESS statement, as made on 7 / 8 the August 1985 which will include Jeremy's version of the time of the alleged call from Nevill.
It is my belief this will be the time Jeremy either received the alleged call from Nevill if innocent or the time Jermey wanted everyone to believe.
There remains a possibility that Jeremy's original WITNESS statement may corroborate with Ann Eaton's hand written notes.
I have found some details included in Roger Wilkes' book 'Blood Relations' which directly reference Jeremy's original statement on 8th August 1985.
For clarity, should anyone wish to check the following extract is detailed on page 136 -
' Stan Jones reminded Jeremy Bamber that he had been asked by several police officers about his actions that night, and that he had said he phoned the police before calling Julie. So what was the correct order?
'I don't remember,' said Jeremy, 'but my first statement was done at the time and must be correct.'
'[In his statement on 8 August, Jeremy Bamber claimed that he called Chelmsford Police 'immediately' after getting the engaged tone. He timed his father's call at about 3.10 a.m. According to his first statement, it was 'about 3.25 when he telephoned Julie to tell her something seemed to be wrong.] '
CE, without looking at your telephone or mobile records, can you:
Recall two telephone calls you made or received on 1st June?
Or the nearest day to 1st June if there were not two calls then?
Can you recall the times you made or received these calls?
Can you be certain of the order with which these calls were made/ taken?
I certainly can't recall any of the above.
I accept that 7-8th August were important days in Jeremy Bamber's life, however, it was also the start of a traumatic period when there would have been a great deal happening.
Remember too that Jeremy had been prescribed and was taking tranquilisers at that time, I believe these in themselves can have a damaging impact on memory. They wiped out the memory and the capacity to rationalise of a friend of mine.
Keira
In response to your request about telephone calls.
On 1st June I can remember the sequence and content of a couple of telephone calls I had with an individual having realised that was the day I had spoken with them i.e. 1st June.
Further, my good lady tragically lost her middle daughter about 18 months ago. I can still remember the sequence of telephone calls relating to the events unfolding, our journeys made and the telephone calls made after she passed.
I certainly remembered them all very clearly the following day.
-
Keira
In response to your request about telephone calls.
On 1st June I can remember the sequence and content of a couple of telephone calls I had with an individual having realised that was the day I had spoken with them i.e. 1st June.
Further, my good lady tragically lost her middle daughter about 18 months ago. I can still remember the sequence of telephone calls relating to the events unfolding, our journeys made and the telephone calls made after she passed.
I certainly remembered them all very clearly the following day.
Most certainly one will remember a sequence of events when trauma is involved. The very idea that Jeremy could not remember who he telephoned first is just ridiculous. I suspect he was caught out in a momentary loss of control but that is all it takes to unearth the truth.
Anyone looking at this series of events would realise that Jeremy could not have telephoned Julie Mugford before telephoning the police but that seems to be what took place. As you state curiousessex, he could only have done so if he was not asleep and if he had a special knowledge of events.
How could he possibly telephone Julie and tell her there was trouble at the farm shortly after 3am if the alleged telephone call from Nevill only took place after 3.20am?
-
Keira
In response to your request about telephone calls.
On 1st June I can remember the sequence and content of a couple of telephone calls I had with an individual having realised that was the day I had spoken with them i.e. 1st June.
Further, my good lady tragically lost her middle daughter about 18 months ago. I can still remember the sequence of telephone calls relating to the events unfolding, our journeys made and the telephone calls made after she passed.
I certainly remembered them all very clearly the following day.
Most certainly one will remember a sequence of events when trauma is involved. The very idea that Jeremy could not remember who he telephoned first is just ridiculous. I suspect he was caught out in a momentary loss of control but that is all it takes to unearth the truth.
Anyone looking at this series of events would realise that Jeremy could not have telephoned Julie Mugford before telephoning the police but that seems to be what took place. As you state curiousessex, he could only have done so if he was not asleep and if he had a special knowledge of events.
How could he possibly telephone Julie and tell her there was trouble at the farm shortly after 3am if the alleged telephone call from Nevill only took place after 3.20am?
spreading misinformation as usual eh JERRY....
-
It was the police who moved the time of the call from Jeremy to JM, not Jeremy - this becomes clear in his interviews when the police are trying to trick Jeremy into saying something different to what he has already said? Jeremy's response, was to say that the true account was what he said when he was first spoken to by the police about it - by the time of his interviews he was on medication and would have been feeling drowsy etc...
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Wrong, because in the recent interview with Bamber he says he called the Police after his father called? so not in the Bin after all..
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
Don't you think that the Police would have said something to Bamber about the call from the father if true while outside the Farm or up until the inquest where it was still thought it was suede? Cause they would if true.
-
Do you still believe this? That the call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB called the Police?
It's a difficult one to pin down.
The simple fact is that no matter which way you swing it, JB was on the phone to the police between 3:26 and 3:37 (give or take a minute either way).
So the call from JB to JM must have been either before 3:26 or after 3:37.
Based on the arrival of JB at the scene of the murders at around 3:48, it would seem unlikely that he would have had the time to call JM after his call to the police and then and drive slowly to the whf.
It would therefore seem most likely that JB's call took place before he called the police at 3:26.
Don't you think that the Police would have said something to Bamber about the call from the father if true while outside the Farm or up until the inquest where it was still thought it was suede? Cause they would if true.
Very interesting point
-
Do you mean interesting in a good way, or a completely incomprehensible way?
-
Do you mean interesting in a good way, or a completely incomprehensible way?
Hi pugsy... I mean it makes sense what he's posted. You'd think the cops would have discussed it with Jeremy outside the farmhouse.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Wrong, because in the recent interview with Bamber he says he called the Police after his father called? so not in the Bin after all..
the sequence is simple....so you obviously misunderstood me "part due"
neville phones JB.
JB phones JM.
JB phones police.
certainly ..early on there seems to be no doubt the police accepted JB's reporting of a phone call from his father...it may even be the case that they too had received a call from Neville...which would support JB's report of trouble so make it even less likely to question its credibility and reliablity.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Wrong, because in the recent interview with Bamber he says he called the Police after his father called? so not in the Bin after all..
the sequence is simple....so you obviously misunderstood me "part due"
neville phones JB.
JB phones JM.
JB phones police.
certainly ..early on there seems to be no doubt the police accepted JB's reporting of a phone call from his father...it may even be the case that they too had received a call from Neville...which would support JB's report of trouble so make it even less likely to question its credibility and reliablity.
JB himself, does not agree with your sequence of events.
-
It was the police who moved the time of the call from Jeremy to JM, not Jeremy - this becomes clear in his interviews when the police are trying to trick Jeremy into saying something different to what he has already said? Jeremy's response, was to say that the true account was what he said when he was first spoken to by the police about it - by the time of his interviews he was on medication and would have been feeling drowsy etc...
That is not true Mike. JB changed the sequence and the police said, are you sure? Because previously it was the other way around.
-
If there was itemised billing then one side or the other would have waved it from the rooftops at trial. I believe the exchange in deepest Essex was ancient and not able to record anymore than units used.
That is most certainly a distinct and probable possibility. So why would Mike be telling porkies?
It has been suggested that trunk calls (i.e. long distance rather than local) may have been recorded as well as international calls. I suspect operator connected calls would also have been itemised. I do not know whether the technology was available at the time for locally dialled calls to be specifically identified and timed. Whatever the position Mike's views expressed here do not amount to "porkies", they are his understanding of the position.
Ah Chelmsford telephone exchange.....
vidvic uses flowery language (hmm wonder why) to promote his belief in the relevant telephone exchange being very old and out of date for the time of the murder... nothing more than wishful thinking...how old eh vidvic in your imagination?
a little research and it cannot have been too old...for the old telephone exchange building in chelmsford went out of use in 1974....
so that immediately implies that in 1985 the replacement exchanges equipment cannot have been much older than from 1974. System X digital exchanges were being introduced in the early 80's and chelmsford is very likely to have gone to system x prior to 1985 due to its importance to BT.
Itemised billing....there are two components that are relevant... key is recording equipment to obtain the data...the paperwork side only comes later... One came before the other...so was in place before the other.
Where the right equipment was installed the ability to log calls was already present even if no itemised bills were being sent out to customers.
err.....what about the one in Maldon?? It's a Maldon number.....
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Wrong, because in the recent interview with Bamber he says he called the Police after his father called? so not in the Bin after all..
the sequence is simple....so you obviously misunderstood me "part due"
neville phones JB.
JB phones JM.
JB phones police.
certainly ..early on there seems to be no doubt the police accepted JB's reporting of a phone call from his father...it may even be the case that they too had received a call from Neville...which would support JB's report of trouble so make it even less likely to question its credibility and reliablity.
JB himself, does not agree with your sequence of events.
are you referring to a very early claim by JB to the police in which JB was under stress and possibly confused or did not want to admit he was scared by the call and did not want to come across to the police as a coward so may have possibly said he phoned JM after calling the police.
hmm a killer planning a cover up /alibi type thing based on phone calls ...they would KNOW what order to make the calls and what times they were and have the sequence well remembered in anticipation of possible police questioning....
JB's being unsure in a stressful situation seems to indicate his focus was not on the time he did things.
Neville's call to JB would have posed a dilemma for JB as to what to do in response to his fathers call.
does he go himself to whf as it seems his father didnt want the police involved......risky...or does he call the police contrary to what his fathers message would imply his father wanted ......
In my view he phoned JM to seek opinion on the issue but JM's lack of concern (cold and uncaring) meant he got no help from her as he never got to raise this difficult question with her.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Wrong, because in the recent interview with Bamber he says he called the Police after his father called? so not in the Bin after all..
the sequence is simple....so you obviously misunderstood me "part due"
neville phones JB.
JB phones JM.
JB phones police.
certainly ..early on there seems to be no doubt the police accepted JB's reporting of a phone call from his father...it may even be the case that they too had received a call from Neville...which would support JB's report of trouble so make it even less likely to question its credibility and reliablity.
JB himself, does not agree with your sequence of events.
are you referring to a very early claim by JB to the police in which JB was under stress and possibly confused or did not want to admit he was scared by the call and did not want to come across to the police as a coward so may have possibly said he phoned JM after calling the police.
hmm a killer planning a cover up /alibi type thing based on phone calls ...they would KNOW what order to make the calls and what times they were and have the sequence well remembered in anticipation of possible police questioning....
JB's being unsure in a stressful situation seems to indicate his focus was not on the time he did things.
Neville's call to JB would have posed a dilemma for JB as to what to do in response to his fathers call.
does he go himself to whf as it seems his father didnt want the police involved......risky...or does he call the police contrary to what his fathers message would imply his father wanted ......
In my view he phoned JM to seek opinion on the issue but JM's lack of concern (cold and uncaring) meant he got no help from her as he never got to raise this difficult question with her.
Smiffy
In your opinion........... IF Jeremy did not receive a telephone call from Nevill do you think Jeremy would be guilty as charged?
-
"does he go himself to whf as it seems his father didnt want the police involved"
but I thought you said Nevill called the Police too?
When Jeremy was questioned about the order of the calls to the Police & Mugford, he initially said he called JM BEFORE the Police, then later he said he called her AFTER the Police. When Police picked up the change they pointed it out and he kept referring back to his first statement where he said BEFORE the Police. At trial and in later statements he changed it back to AFTER and last year, in the Mirror interview he said AFTER.
If it was AFTER the Police this was around 3.30 and if Nevill called the Police it was after 3.36. Three witnesses say the call to JM was around 3.00am.
-
Such a simple thing to remember and he got it wrong. Doesn't that tell a story all of its own?
And then he tried to cover his mistake by telling the police to refer to his initial statement. Well practised liars usually slip up on the simplest of questions.
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Wrong, because in the recent interview with Bamber he says he called the Police after his father called? so not in the Bin after all..
the sequence is simple....so you obviously misunderstood me "part due"
neville phones JB.
JB phones JM.
JB phones police.
certainly ..early on there seems to be no doubt the police accepted JB's reporting of a phone call from his father...it may even be the case that they too had received a call from Neville...which would support JB's report of trouble so make it even less likely to question its credibility and reliablity.
JB himself, does not agree with your sequence of events.
are you referring to a very early claim by JB to the police in which JB was under stress and possibly confused or did not want to admit he was scared by the call and did not want to come across to the police as a coward so may have possibly said he phoned JM after calling the police.
hmm a killer planning a cover up /alibi type thing based on phone calls ...they would KNOW what order to make the calls and what times they were and have the sequence well remembered in anticipation of possible police questioning....
JB's being unsure in a stressful situation seems to indicate his focus was not on the time he did things.
Neville's call to JB would have posed a dilemma for JB as to what to do in response to his fathers call.
does he go himself to whf as it seems his father didnt want the police involved......risky...or does he call the police contrary to what his fathers message would imply his father wanted ......
In my view he phoned JM to seek opinion on the issue but JM's lack of concern (cold and uncaring) meant he got no help from her as he never got to raise this difficult question with her.
Smiffy
In your opinion........... IF Jeremy did not receive a telephone call from Nevill do you think Jeremy would be guilty as charged?
certainly I would....
but if he did then would you "curious" accept JB is innocent?
-
"does he go himself to whf as it seems his father didnt want the police involved"
but I thought you said Nevill called the Police too?
When Jeremy was questioned about the order of the calls to the Police & Mugford, he initially said he called JM BEFORE the Police, then later he said he called her AFTER the Police. When Police picked up the change they pointed it out and he kept referring back to his first statement where he said BEFORE the Police. At trial and in later statements he changed it back to AFTER and last year, in the Mirror interview he said AFTER.
If it was AFTER the Police this was around 3.30 and if Nevill called the Police it was after 3.36. Three witnesses say the call to JM was around 3.00am.
CAN YOU PLEASE SHOW copies of all these claims from the statements etc and reports...oh and stuff this silly 3.00am nonsense where it belongs...in the bin...for those claims look false in regards to the time .
erm you do take the line that "IF NEVILL called the police" vidvic ...so clearly ...you are not convinced of JB's guilt as you are prepared to consider that Nevill could in fact have called the police himself.
-
Such a simple thing to remember and he got it wrong. Doesn't that tell a story all of its own?
And then he tried to cover his mistake by telling the police to refer to his initial statement. Well practised liars usually slip up on the simplest of questions.
is that why you slip up a lot jerry?
thats going by your reasoning...not mine!
-
Such a simple thing to remember and he got it wrong. Doesn't that tell a story all of its own?
And then he tried to cover his mistake by telling the police to refer to his initial statement. Well practised liars usually slip up on the simplest of questions.
is that why you slip up a lot jerry?
thats going by your reasoning...not mine!
I never slip up as you infer and certainly don't take any notice of an upstart who has little to bring to this debate.
-
it certainly isn't nonsense smiffy, it's what was testified at trial. 3 witnesses all reported the call at around 3am. I know you don't want to hear it, but loks like JB was lying.
-
Now that would be a surprise after everything that has occurred? ;)
-
any chance of an answer Smiffy? Do you realise that it's not Chelmsford exchange??
-
Such a simple thing to remember and he got it wrong. Doesn't that tell a story all of its own?
And then he tried to cover his mistake by telling the police to refer to his initial statement. Well practised liars usually slip up on the simplest of questions.
is that why you slip up a lot jerry?
thats going by your reasoning...not mine!
I never slip up as you infer and certainly don't take any notice of an upstart who has little to bring to this debate.
well you took notice of my post so that can only mean I am not an upstart and that I do bring much to the debate...
takes care with your words jerry as in your desperate attempts to belittle other posters you make your self look very silly indeed .
of course you slip up ...you did in your claim that you dont slip up
-
It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.
The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.
The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)
By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.
He wasn't dressed when he took the call.
Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....
Impossible I'm afraid.
If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.
Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?
The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.
Wrong, because in the recent interview with Bamber he says he called the Police after his father called? so not in the Bin after all..
the sequence is simple....so you obviously misunderstood me "part due"
neville phones JB.
JB phones JM.
JB phones police.
certainly ..early on there seems to be no doubt the police accepted JB's reporting of a phone call from his father...it may even be the case that they too had received a call from Neville...which would support JB's report of trouble so make it even less likely to question its credibility and reliablity.
JB himself, does not agree with your sequence of events.
are you referring to a very early claim by JB to the police in which JB was under stress and possibly confused or did not want to admit he was scared by the call and did not want to come across to the police as a coward so may have possibly said he phoned JM after calling the police.
hmm a killer planning a cover up /alibi type thing based on phone calls ...they would KNOW what order to make the calls and what times they were and have the sequence well remembered in anticipation of possible police questioning....
JB's being unsure in a stressful situation seems to indicate his focus was not on the time he did things.
Neville's call to JB would have posed a dilemma for JB as to what to do in response to his fathers call.
does he go himself to whf as it seems his father didnt want the police involved......risky...or does he call the police contrary to what his fathers message would imply his father wanted ......
In my view he phoned JM to seek opinion on the issue but JM's lack of concern (cold and uncaring) meant he got no help from her as he never got to raise this difficult question with her.
Smiffy
In your opinion........... IF Jeremy did not receive a telephone call from Nevill do you think Jeremy would be guilty as charged?
certainly I would....
but if he did then would you "curious" accept JB is innocent?
Smiffy
Thank you for the reply.
If Nevill did call Jeremy to advise of trouble at the farm before Jeremy called Julie to effectively advise the same, I believe, Jeremy's current position would be very different and Jeremy's version of events would stand scrutiny.
-
any chance of an answer Smiffy? Do you realise that it's not Chelmsford exchange??
It seems like the local exchange would be Maldon....
so when was that upgraded to digital...at a similar time to chelmsford I would think...