Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Hartley on July 27, 2011, 03:04:PM
-
Inspector D Burrell 13/09/85
-
Interesting in that the line was not constantly monitored until 6.09am if the statement is to be believed.
so if believed there could have been things to hear prior to 6.09am that were not heard as it was not monitored??
or it was monitored and things were heard and have not been revealed as it may expose the cover up !
-
Interesting in that the line was not constantly monitored until 6.09am if the statement is to be believed.
so if believed there could have been things to hear prior to 6.09am that were not heard as it was not monitored??
or it was monitored and things were heard and have not been revealed as it may expose the cover up !
Yes but there was a chance if Sheila or anyone else was alive they could have been heard moving about? But it is interesting that nothing is mentioned about this. This is specially important if we believe her to have been still alive at 7.30am and downstairs in the kitchen.
-
Is Pc Millbank's statement avaliable?
-
Is Pc Millbank's statement avaliable?
Not that I've seen, but if I find it I'll post it.
-
Is Pc Millbank's statement avaliable?
Not that I've seen, but if I find it I'll post it.
thank you :)
-
Off its rest. Does that mean off the hook.
-
Off its rest. Does that mean off the hook.
I would say so Hartley, but others would want it to mean that Neville was on the phone for two hours :)
-
Off its rest. Does that mean off the hook.
" Off its rest ",mid-call, as opposed to a call-ended,so in effect it was a conversation that wasn't finished,therefore the operator would have heard what went on in the background as the line remained open.
This,in turn would have given JB an engaged tone when he'd tried to ring back. Sorted !!
-
Off its rest. Does that mean off the hook.
Yes. It could also have been said to be off the cradle.
-
" Off its rest ",mid-call, as opposed to a call-ended,so in effect it was a conversation that wasn't finished,therefore the operator would have heard what went on in the background as the line remained open.
This,in turn would have given JB an engaged tone when he'd tried to ring back. Sorted !!
Off it's rest/cradle/hook is just that. It matters little if there's an ongoing conversation/a conversation someone has walked away from/someone has removed the receiver to clean the cradle and walked away without replacing it. The fact remains that the receiver is still OFF it's rest/cradle/hook.
-
Off it's rest/cradle/hook is just that. It matters little if there's an ongoing conversation/a conversation someone has walked away from/someone has removed the receiver to clean the cradle and walked away without replacing it. The fact remains that the receiver is still OFF it's rest/cradle/hook.
Because it wasn't first replaced before leaving off the hook,the line had remained open to the operator who would then have heard background noises. If the phone/previous conversation which had taken place had ended and the handset replaced and then removed again,nothing would have been heard in the background because it hadn't been " deactivated ".
In other words it was left with the line still open/activated at the last call-----which was to the police.
-
" Off its rest ",mid-call, as opposed to a call-ended,so in effect it was a conversation that wasn't finished,therefore the operator would have heard what went on in the background as the line remained open.
This,in turn would have given JB an engaged tone when he'd tried to ring back. Sorted !!
What are you talking about? Nowhere does it mention 'mid call'! You just make it up as you go along! of it's rest means OFF THE HOOK and yes, off the hook would have given the engaged tone - glad you now agree that off the hook gives the SAME tone and ENGAGED! Keep wriggling!
-
Because it wasn't first replaced before leaving off the hook,the line had remained open to the operator who would then have heard background noises. If the phone/previous conversation which had taken place had ended and the handset replaced and then removed again,nothing would have been heard in the background because it hadn't been " deactivated ".
In other words it was left with the line still open/activated at the last call-----which was to the police.
An operator can listen into a line if it is off the hook, or a call is in progress - you are making a fool of yourself.
-
An operator can listen into a line if it is off the hook, or a call is in progress - you are making a fool of yourself.
I'm well aware that an operator can listen in ! I'm NOT making a fool of myself at all !! Why would I ??
-
I've explained my part which I'm happy with,now give it a rest ::)
-
I've explained my part which I'm happy with,now give it a rest ::)
That would undoubtedly result in you giving it a rest for a few weeks, or until you conveniently forget this altercation, and then once again raise the subject of the telephones and once again give a totally apocryphal account of what happened and we'll have to go through the whole damned thing again because ONCE AGAIN you won't admit to being wrong.
-
That would undoubtedly result in you giving it a rest for a few weeks, or until you conveniently forget this altercation, and then once again raise the subject of the telephones and once again give a totally apocryphal account of what happened and we'll have to go through the whole damned thing again because ONCE AGAIN you won't admit to being wrong.
I'm not in the habit of " conveniently forgetting "---------unlike yourself !!
-
If the phone/previous conversation which had taken place had ended and the handset replaced and then removed again, nothing would have been heard in the background because it hadn't been " deactivated ".
That is inconsistent with your later statement that you are well aware that a BT operator can listen in to the line, regardless of whether it was connected to another line or just off-hook. Lifting the handset closes (i.e. creates) a circuit, and that circuit remains closed until the handset is replaced. If that weren't the case, the exchange equipment would be unaware of such replacement.
-
Does anybody know what action would have been required to link up the open line to a 999 call line? Are the technical aspects of this easy to explain?
-
Does anybody know what action would have been required to link up the open line to a 999 call line? Are the technical aspects of this easy to explain?
I think I've read it somewhere, I will try and find it, I know manual it was a loud buzzer/bell I think? It was that loud they covered it to dampen the noise.
-
I'm not in the habit of " conveniently forgetting "---------unlike yourself !!
Well, you've conveniently forgotten calling me a LIAR -or was that something else you wanted a line drawn under? Perhaps you'd care to tell me what it is, in your opinion, that I've forgotten. That is if you haven't conveniently forgotten what it was.
-
Does anybody know what action would have been required to link up the open line to a 999 call line? Are the technical aspects of this easy to explain?
. . . I know manual it was a loud buzzer/bell I think?
That doesn't make sense, as "linking up" has no obvious connection with a buzzer/bell or its loudness. The BT operator explained that she didn't use a '999' line for the link-up anyway.
-
. . . I know manual it was a loud buzzer/bell I think?
That doesn't make sense, as "linking up" has no obvious connection with a buzzer/bell or its loudness. The BT operator explained that she didn't use a '999' line for the link-up anyway.
Clearly, the officer got it wrong.
-
. . . I know manual it was a loud buzzer/bell I think?
That doesn't make sense, as "linking up" has no obvious connection with a buzzer/bell or its loudness. The BT operator explained that she didn't use a '999' line for the link-up anyway.
I was just stating when it was Manually operated a loud Buzzer would sound and the operator would connect, obviously Maldon exchange transferred from manual to auto in 1966 and electronic after the murders, Roch is asking to link open lines at the time of murderer (auto) and I don't know how they did it?
1937
The 999 emergency telephone service was made available to London subscribers from 30 June and was later extended throughout the country. When 999 was dialled a buzzer sounded in the exchange and a red light flashed to draw an operator's immediate attention.
This was very far removed from the sophisticated information service designed by BT and launched on 6 October 1998. The new information service allowed details of both the calling number and the address from which a 999 call had been made to be transferred automatically to the emergency authority operator’s screen.
-
That has nothing to do with the action required to link an open line to the police. Even nowadays, a buzzer or light would still serve the immediate purpose of drawing the attention of a BT operator to a new incoming emergency call.
-
Clearly, the officer got it wrong.
Do you mean Inspector Burrell got it wrong?
-
I was just stating when it was Manually operated a loud Buzzer would sound and the operator would connect, obviously Maldon exchange transferred from manual to auto in 1966 and electronic after the murders, Roch is asking to link open lines at the time of murderer (auto) and I don't know how they did it?
1937
The 999 emergency telephone service was made available to London subscribers from 30 June and was later extended throughout the country. When 999 was dialled a buzzer sounded in the exchange and a red light flashed to draw an operator's immediate attention.
This was very far removed from the sophisticated information service designed by BT and launched on 6 October 1998. The new information service allowed details of both the calling number and the address from which a 999 call had been made to be transferred automatically to the emergency authority operator’s screen.
Strange, is it not, that 50 years after it's inception, Jeremy was allegedly unaware of why it was there and what it was used for.
-
That has nothing to do with the action required to link an open line to the police. Even nowadays, a buzzer or light would still serve the immediate purpose of drawing the attention of a BT operator to a new incoming emergency call.
I know, I'm merely pointing out how it was done manually with the manual exchanges when someone called 999, I haven't a clue how it was done on a open line in an auto exchange.
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1211.0;attach=20087;image)
It's interesting that after setting the scene, Burrell provides his account in the first person, for the first three facts. When he reaches the fourth fact, he appears to disassociate himself from the action claimed to have taken place.
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1211.0;attach=20087;image)
It's interesting that after setting the scene, Burrell provides his account in the first person, for the first three facts. When he reaches the fourth fact, he appears to disassociate himself from the action claimed to have taken place.
Probably his nock off time 6.00am?
-
Probably his nock off time 6.00am?
He's an Inspector, why does he say he was duty Sergeant? :-\
-
Probably his nock off time 6.00am?
Or maybe he simply wasn't personally involved in the transfer.
-
He's an Inspector, why does he say he was duty Sergeant? :-\
Not spotted that one Hartley, got promotion just after the murders? ;D
-
Or maybe he simply wasn't personally involved in the transfer.
Delegation I would say, probably fed up of listening to nothing at that time? Or constant dog barking?
-
Probably his nock off time 6.00am?
He doesn't state so, either side of the last action that he claimed took place.
Neither is any reason given regarding necessity for the claimed action. Wouldn't the result cause a 999 call line to be unnecessarily tied up?
-
Not spotted that one Hartley, got promotion just after the murders? ;D
I've just read in the July 1986 issue of the Essex Police Law Magazine, Burrell is thanking people for their kindness following the death of his wife and mother-in-law. :(
-
It's been said by many that Neville couldn't have phoned the police because of his injuries. He could still have just dialled 999,without speaking as that call would have appeared on a digitalised screen showing the area/address rather than having the loud distracting buzzer. The address of the caller would have been recorded and filtered to the police as being the emergency needed if " suspicious sounds " had been heard in the background.
This occurs if a line has been dialled then abandoned and left open for the emergency services.
-
He doesn't state so, either side of the last action that he claimed took place.
Neither is any reason given regarding necessity for the claimed action. Wouldn't the result cause a 999 call line to be unnecessarily tied up?
It could be that 6.00am is a busy time with him being in charge, briefings, manpower change over etc, so all he did was delegate to attend other matters?
-
I've just read in the July 1986 issue of the Essex Police Law Magazine, Burrell is thanking people for their kindness following the death of his wife and mother-in-law. :(
Oh dear that's so sad Hartley, makes you wonder what happened both together, Traffic accident?
-
Oh dear that's so sad Hartley, makes you wonder what happened both together, Traffic accident?
That was my thought. I can't find anything else about it in the news though. :-\
-
Poison mushrooms ?
-
Poison mushrooms ?
That's a bit random Lookout. :))
I remember a film where a chap came back from the American Civil war, he went to a family and pretended to be the returning husband, the lady in question figured it out that he wasn't really her husband and poisoned him with mushrooms. It was on a tobacco farm I think.
Can't remember the name of the film though. >:(
Any takers?
-
That's a bit random Lookout. :))
I remember a film where a chap came back from the American Civil war, he went to a family and pretended to be the returning husband, the lady in question figured it out that he wasn't really her husband and poisoned him with mushrooms. It was on a tobacco farm I think.
Can't remember the name of the film though. >:(
Any takers?
Sommersby
-
Sommersby
That's the one, well done. :)
-
That's the one, well done. :)
But maybe I've got it mixed up with The Beguiled with Clint Eastwood. :-\
-
It's been said by many that Neville couldn't have phoned the police because of his injuries. He could still have just dialled 999,without speaking as that call would have appeared on a digitalised screen showing the area/address rather than having the loud distracting buzzer. The address of the caller would have been recorded and filtered to the police as being the emergency needed if " suspicious sounds " had been heard in the background.
This occurs if a line has been dialled then abandoned and left open for the emergency services.
Really Lookout? And how would digitalised call manifest itself? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
But maybe I've got it mixed up with The Beguiled with Clint Eastwood. :-\
I did think of that one two, but he was Union soldier who turned up at some kind of school for women. He did get poisoned with mushrooms though - after having his leg amputated :o
-
Really Lookout? And how would digitalised call manifest itself? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ask your BT friend.
-
Ask your BT friend.
My BT friend didn't make the suggestion (and never would) - you did, so I'm asking you
-
My BT friend didn't make the suggestion (and never would) - you did, so I'm asking you
He would explain it in such a way that you'd believe him if you ask him. Even though it's true,but it wouldn't be believed of me,so as far as you're concerned you'd rather believe others.
It is also on the internet too,somewhere.
-
He would explain it in such a way that you'd believe him if you ask him. Even though it's true,but it wouldn't be believed of me,so as far as you're concerned you'd rather believe others.
It is also on the internet too,somewhere.
They didn't have the technology back then to have address's appear on computer screens. And even now when you call 999, you don't get straight through to a police officer, you get through to a call centre (back then an operator) who asks which service you require.
-
They didn't have the technology back then to have address's appear on computer screens. And even now when you call 999, you don't get straight through to a police officer, you get through to a call centre (back then an operator) who asks which service you require.
This was before computers when things were digital. It was in 1985 that the " new " digital speaking clock replaced the voices of previous speaking clocks.
Southend-on-sea was the first place where a BT shop sold a wide-range of digital equipment after it had joined up with Cellnet,so the digitised maps would have been an asset to all areas of the emergency services-----an old version of todays GPS system.
-
This was before computers when things were digital. It was in 1985 that the " new " digital speaking clock replaced the voices of previous speaking clocks.
Southend-on-sea was the first place where a BT shop sold a wide-range of digital equipment after it had joined up with Cellnet,so the digitised maps would have been an asset to all areas of the emergency services-----an old version of todays GPS system.
But there seems to be nothing to indicate such was in action at the time Nevill didn't make a 999 call. I believe I'm correct in saying that emergency calls necessarily go through -or did, then- an operator who asked which service was required. Therefore, evidence of such a call couldn't have been squirreled away in an attempt to frame an -at that time, unknown- 'innocent'.
-
This was before computers when things were digital. It was in 1985 that the " new " digital speaking clock replaced the voices of previous speaking clocks.
Southend-on-sea was the first place where a BT shop sold a wide-range of digital equipment after it had joined up with Cellnet,so the digitised maps would have been an asset to all areas of the emergency services-----an old version of todays GPS system.
Not sure what any of that has to do with what you originally claimed. The only way to have found out an address from a phone number would have been to call the GPO(BT) and ask them to look it up. You also ignored the fact that when you dial 999, you don't get straight through to the police.
-
Take a look at question 7, the answer to it is just below the question ;D
http://www.glosfire.gov.uk/cd_res/KS3/downloads/l3_activity1_and_2_quiz.pdf
-
But there seems to be nothing to indicate such was in action at the time Nevill didn't make a 999 call. I believe I'm correct in saying that emergency calls necessarily go through -or did, then- an operator who asked which service was required. Therefore, evidence of such a call couldn't have been squirreled away in an attempt to frame an -at that time, unknown- 'innocent'.
Well in your world,there wouldn't have been anything to indicate if you don't believe he rang-------so what's the use of me explaining anything ? You just poo poo everything I post anyway so I'm wasting my time.
-
Well in your world,there wouldn't have been anything to indicate if you don't believe he rang-------so what's the use of me explaining anything ? You just poo poo everything I post anyway so I'm wasting my time.
Well, naturally, one can't prove a negative. You haven't exactly said anything to make me wonder if, just perhaps..................? All you appear to have said is that such and such MAY have happened/supposing such and such had happened/such and such DID happen but it's been concealed/continue to say that EVERYONE connected to the case has lied/continued to admit when you're wrong. Such provides neither proof of Jeremy's innocence nor confidence in your belief in it.
-
Well in your world,there wouldn't have been anything to indicate if you don't believe he rang-------so what's the use of me explaining anything ? You just poo poo everything I post anyway so I'm wasting my time.
Actually Lookout that's not true, the only things I 'poo poo' are the things that aren't fact. But when you start a sentence with 'they would have had' (or something similar), you're posting it as a piece of factual information. However, if what comes after is incorrect, then what do you expect?
-
Well, naturally, one can't prove a negative. You haven't exactly said anything to make me wonder if, just perhaps..................? All you appear to have said is that such and such MAY have happened/supposing such and such had happened/such and such DID happen but it's been concealed/continue to say that EVERYONE connected to the case has lied/continued to admit when you're wrong. Such provides neither proof of Jeremy's innocence nor confidence in your belief in it.
There is no 'may' about the following quote. And you can't dial 999 without speaking because the operator woud have asked which service you require.
It's been said by many that Neville couldn't have phoned the police because of his injuries. He could still have just dialled 999,without speaking as that call would have appeared on a digitalised screen showing the area/address rather than having the loud distracting buzzer. The address of the caller would have been recorded and filtered to the police as being the emergency needed if " suspicious sounds " had been heard in the background.
This occurs if a line has been dialled then abandoned and left open for the emergency services.
-
There is no 'may' about the following quote. And you can't dial 999 without speaking because the operator woud have asked which service you require.
You're right, Caroline. It was made as a statement of fact. Lookout appears to think that if she believes something to be true, it automatically makes it a fact and goes through convoluted hoops trying to make it so rather than back down and accept being wrong.
-
There is no 'may' about the following quote. And you can't dial 999 without speaking because the operator woud have asked which service you require.
An address has to be picked up somehow for those who,for whatever reason find that they can't speak .
Police will listen in to a silent call for suspicious noises then act accordingly. You CAN dial 999 without speaking !!
-
Ask John on red-----he SHOULD know.
-
An address has to be picked up somehow for those who,for whatever reason find that they can't speak .
Police will listen in to a silent call for suspicious noises then act accordingly. You CAN dial 999 without speaking !!
In which case, the central call centre which handled the alleged call would have had no reason for concealing it, unless of course, you're wanting to accuse yet ANOTHER public service body of lying?
-
An address has to be picked up somehow for those who,for whatever reason find that they can't speak .
Police will listen in to a silent call for suspicious noises then act accordingly. You CAN dial 999 without speaking !!
Yes you can, but NOT without involving BT in finding the caller! You said "that call would have appeared on a digitalised screen showing the area/address rather than having the loud distracting buzzer. The address of the caller would have been recorded and filtered to the police". The only way to have found out who a caller was back then, would have been to contact BT and have the number traced. Which mean BT would have been involved in the case - they weren't other than to listen into the off the hook line.
-
Ask John on red-----he SHOULD know.
Why? You take any notice of what he says either!
-
I have asked him.
-
I have asked him.
And ?
-
And ?
I have to wait for him to reply.
-
I have to wait for him to reply.
Okay.
-
I have to wait for him to reply.
Okay.
The suspense is killing me ;)
-
The suspense is killing me ;)
You mean you don't already know? ;D ;)
-
Before the advancement of technology ALL emergency calls were recorded/taped and logged in the 1980's. The machine was a tape to tape recorder complete with screen.
-
Before the advancement of technology ALL emergency calls were recorded/taped and logged in the 1980's. The machine was a tape to tape recorder complete with screen.
You're clearly sticking to your guns that Nevill made a 999 call, so it must follow that, because this alleged call was never revealed, you're accusing yet another public service body of duplicity and lies to assist in, what you believe to be, the deliberate framing of an innocent man.
-
You're clearly sticking to your guns that Nevill made a 999 call, so it must follow that, because this alleged call was never revealed, you're accusing yet another public service body of duplicity and lies to assist in, what you believe to be, the deliberate framing of an innocent man.
Why should my opinions bother you so much ? I don't argue against yours !!
-
Why should my opinions bother you so much ? I don't argue against yours !!
Your opinions per se, don't. What interests me are the lengths to which you're willing to go, and the segways you're willing to adopt, rather than admit to being wrong.
-
Your opinions per se, don't. What interests me are the lengths to which you're willing to go, and the segways you're willing to adopt, rather than admit to being wrong.
I won't admit to being wrong if what I'm saying is right in the first place will I ? Why should everything I say be wrong in your eyes ? Some of your opinions don't hold water but I don't say anything.
-
I won't admit to being wrong if what I'm saying is right in the first place will I ? Why should everything I say be wrong in your eyes ? Some of your opinions don't hold water but I don't say anything.
Lookout, having already proclaimed that you are NEVER wrong, I guess you have to fight tooth and nail to perpetuate it, which includes segways and convoluted hoops. I think the reason I believe most of what you say to be wrong, is that whilst there are clearly those who agree with you that Jeremy is innocent, there seems a dearth of those who support you when you're obviously wrong, ie. this latest thing with the phone calls. Perhaps they, like I, see you as arguing the point in preference to admitting you might be wrong. Maybe they, like I, don't run with the belief that everyone connected to the crime has deliberately lied to frame an innocent man they'd never heard of.
-
Lookout, having already proclaimed that you are NEVER wrong, I guess you have to fight tooth and nail to perpetuate it, which includes segways and convoluted hoops. I think the reason I believe most of what you say to be wrong, is that whilst there are clearly those who agree with you that Jeremy is innocent, there seems a dearth of those who support you when you're obviously wrong, ie. this latest thing with the phone calls. Perhaps they, like I, see you as arguing the point in preference to admitting you might be wrong. Maybe they, like I, don't run with the belief that everyone connected to the crime has deliberately lied to frame an innocent man they'd never heard of.
C'mon,where are EP's admittances or denials re.whether Neville phoned or not ? As I stated,ALL emergency calls are taped and logged. It's my prerogative to argue that Neville phoned them the same as it's yours to say that he didn't. So why can't EP come up with the answers ?
EP have clearly been mixed up with the two " Mr Bamber " calls and logged them as one then carried on not thinking or realising that the result would be as it was. Neville's call log will be dossed somewhere.
Anyone who spells motive as " motiff " doesn't exactly get my vote of confidence anyway. ::) Educated ? You could have fooled me !
-
C'mon,where are EP's admittances or denials re.whether Neville phoned or not ? As I stated,ALL emergency calls are taped and logged. It's my prerogative to argue that Neville phoned them the same as it's yours to say that he didn't. So why can't EP come up with the answers ?
EP have clearly been mixed up with the two " Mr Bamber " calls and logged them as one then carried on not thinking or realising that the result would be as it was. Neville's call log will be dossed somewhere.
Anyone who spells motive as " motiff " doesn't exactly get my vote of confidence anyway. ::) Educated ? You could have fooled me !
But Nevill wouldn't have gone straight through to a police station if he'd called 999. He'd have gone through to a central call centre whose specific task was dealing with 999 calls and putting them through to the appropriate service. There would be no reason on earth for the call centre to 'lose' a call. A central call system wouldn't have known Nevill from the man in the moon.
-
But Nevill wouldn't have gone straight through to a police station if he'd called 999. He'd have gone through to a central call centre whose specific task was dealing with 999 calls and putting them through to the appropriate service. There would be no reason on earth for the call centre to 'lose' a call. A central call system wouldn't have known Nevill from the man in the moon.
That's just it,there is no lost call,EP made such a hash of everything that they won't now admit to making a mistake about there being two phone-calls and not one.
It's not about " not knowing Neville from the man in the moon ".They didn't have to know him,all they were interested in was getting to the scene of where the last call came from.
-
That's just it,there is no lost call,EP made such a hash of everything that they won't now admit to making a mistake about there being two phone-calls and not one.
It's not about " not knowing Neville from the man in the moon ".They didn't have to know him,all they were interested in was getting to the scene of where the last call came from.
-
That's just it,there is no lost call,EP made such a hash of everything that they won't now admit to making a mistake about there being two phone-calls and not one.
It's not about " not knowing Neville from the man in the moon ".They didn't have to know him,all they were interested in was getting to the scene of where the last call came from.
So how would they persuade central call centre to erase all trace of the call THEY would have put through to the police? It was central calls I was suggesting had no knowledge of Nevill so they'd have had no reason to be intimidated by a magistrate, if that's what you're suggesting.
-
So how would they persuade central call centre to erase all trace of the call THEY would have put through to the police? It was central calls I was suggesting had no knowledge of Nevill so they'd have had no reason to be intimidated by a magistrate, if that's what you're suggesting.
Why would I have to suggest anything pertaining to Neville's status as a magistrate ? That's bonkers.
-
Why would I have to suggest anything pertaining to Neville's status as a magistrate ? That's bonkers.
It has previously been suggested that a call to the police, from Nevill, might have clout because of his status as having been on the board of magistrates/Nevill wouldn't call the police because his position as a former magistrate might have meant that he was known to them. No one at the central call centre would have been aware of it.
-
It has previously been suggested that a call to the police, from Nevill, might have clout because of his status as having been on the board of magistrates/Nevill wouldn't call the police because his position as a former magistrate might have meant that he was known to them. No one at the central call centre would have been aware of it.
Whether or not it was Neville or Sheila who'd left the phone off the hook David Shaw made reference that at 05.40 EP had asked the BT operator to again listen into the open line,to which at that time,it was engaged. So after the phone had been off the hook,the handset had to be replaced in order to make an outside call-------to whom ??
A few minutes later the line was checked again and it was found that the handset was off its cradle again.
The only report that the operator made was hearing the dog/s barking in the background,but no report that someone used that phone at 05.40 as it would have been heard by the operator.
-
" Taff " Jones had said that the only reason Neville rang Jeremy was to get him to go to WHF,at Sheila's request------to kill him,but it all went pear-shaped for her because Jeremy had rang the police.
This,not in as many words,was said during a private meeting on the 10th of August 1985.
Sheila was in wait for Jeremy downstairs in the kitchen because after her father's call to him she expected he would drive straight to WHF as he had on the past. If Jeremy hadn't phoned the po;ice that morning,he too would have been shot dead.
This had been " Taff's " private theory on what really occurred,prompting his determination in that Jeremy was innocent.
-
Whether or not it was Neville or Sheila who'd left the phone off the hook David Shaw made reference that at 05.40 EP had asked the BT operator to again listen into the open line,to which at that time,it was engaged. So after the phone had been off the hook,the handset had to be replaced in order to make an outside call-------to whom ??
A few minutes later the line was checked again and it was found that the handset was off its cradle again.
The only report that the operator made was hearing the dog/s barking in the background,but no report that someone used that phone at 05.40 as it would have been heard by the operator.
I can't believe we're still going around in circles about this. Engaged or off the hook or busy ALL give the same tone. Whoever David Shaw is (and I can guess), like you and the CT, couldn't grasp that it doesn't matter what term is used, the tone is the same and the operator can break into the line to listen in. Have someone been talking on the phone, the operator would have heard them - each time it was listened into, there was no conversation going on because it had been OFF THE HOOK all along!
Re: your claims of digital technology ....... John's reply is below.
"I have had a look at the blue forum re your question and to establish context. I think I'm right in thinking that WHF was not on a digital exchange back in 1985 so automatic number recognition was impossible. BT could trace a number on an open line if they received a silent call but it wasn't instant. The only screens were small computer screens used by the operator to log the call etc. Hope this helps.
John"
-
I can't believe we're still going around in circles about this. Engaged or off the hook or busy ALL give the same tone. Whoever David Shaw is (and I can guess), like you and the CT, couldn't grasp that it doesn't matter what term is used, the tone is the same and the operator can break into the line to listen in. Have someone been talking on the phone, the operator would have heard them - each time it was listened into, there was no conversation going on because it had been OFF THE HOOK all along!
Re: your claims of digital technology ....... John's reply is below.
"I have had a look at the blue forum re your question and to establish context. I think I'm right in thinking that WHF was not on a digital exchange back in 1985 so automatic number recognition was impossible. BT could trace a number on an open line if they received a silent call but it wasn't instant. The only screens were small computer screens used by the operator to log the call etc. Hope this helps.
John"
When one is on the opposing side of an argument,isn't it obvious that they're also going to have opposing views whether right or wrong ? ::) " Never the twain shall meet ".
-
When one is on the opposing side of an argument,isn't it obvious that they're also going to have opposing views whether right or wrong ? ::) " Never the twain shall meet ".
Being on opposing sides isn't justification for continually touting out the same thing when it's clearly wrong, simply because one lacks the grace and humility to back down.
-
Whether or not it was Neville or Sheila who'd left the phone off the hook David Shaw made reference that at 05.40 EP had asked the BT operator to again listen into the open line,to which at that time,it was engaged. So after the phone had been off the hook,the handset had to be replaced in order to make an outside call-------to whom ??
A few minutes later the line was checked again and it was found that the handset was off its cradle again.
The only report that the operator made was hearing the dog/s barking in the background,but no report that someone used that phone at 05.40 as it would have been heard by the operator.
Tone arguments aside - is there a link available for the precise page in Shaw's manuscript that discusses this allegation?
-
Being on opposing sides isn't justification for continually touting out the same thing when it's clearly wrong, simply because one lacks the grace and humility to back down.
Pot.Kettle.Black !
-
Tone arguments aside - is there a link available for the precise page in Shaw's manuscript that discusses this allegation?
Why? Do you know who Shaw is? Why should anyone take any notice of this? Also, peole are trying to suggest that because the words like engaged and busy were interchangeable, it mean the phone was in a different state - this is just silly.
-
I don't have time to read the Shaw stuff but a quick search didn't provide any evidence of what Lookout claimed, you may have more luck. The link provided by Andrea is no longer active but anyone interested, can find some of the Shaw stuff here http://youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/innocent-man-by-david-shaw.html
The original site is gone - I wonder why ::)
-
Why? Do you know who Shaw is? Why should anyone take any notice of this? Also, peole are trying to suggest that because the words like engaged and busy were interchangeable, it mean the phone was in a different state - this is just silly.
I'm not one of the people who think Shaw was/is Mike Tesko. I've never actually read the manuscript all the way through. However I would probably take the content in to consideration and weigh it against other claims. I used to like reading the emails that Mike put up. (Sorry! :)))
-
I'm not one of the people who think Shaw was/is Mike Tesko. I've never actually read the manuscript all the way through. However I would probably take the content in to consideration and weigh it against other claims. I used to like reading the emails that Mike put up. (Sorry! :)))
Well, personally, I'd rather know who the person is before taking any notice of what they say. It's just words and unfounded claims.
-
Well, personally, I'd rather know who the person is before taking any notice of what they say. It's just words and unfounded claims.
Well it's supposed to be the bloke behind the book referred to here:
https://carvedouttastone.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/over-the-edge-david-shaw/
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/ASSH%20Bulletins/No%2027/ASSHBulletin27c.pdf
Read reply no. 11 on this thread:
https://www.superiormuscle.com/forums/anabolic-steroids/18839-steroid-deaths
-
Well it's supposed to be the bloke behind the book referred to here:
https://carvedouttastone.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/over-the-edge-david-shaw/
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/ASSH%20Bulletins/No%2027/ASSHBulletin27c.pdf
Read reply no. 11 on this thread:
https://www.superiormuscle.com/forums/anabolic-steroids/18839-steroid-deaths
Why?Because he has the same name? Where's the connection?
-
Why?Because he has the same name? Where's the connection?
I cant remember. The search facility wont let me go back to 2010 - which is when I think he's first mentioned by Kaldin.
Also - I think somewhere in the emails later posted up by Mike (couple of different threads) - 'Shaw' makes reference to his past.
I think he's either NZ or Aus or links to both.
-
Tone arguments aside - is there a link available for the precise page in Shaw's manuscript that discusses this allegation?
Yes,it's in a typed letter to Mike and on this forum somewhere.
I can't remember the blasted heading ::)
-
The man is Australian. His name's a pseudonym. He wrote a book called " Over the Edge " which received good feedbacks
-
Yes,it's in a typed letter to Mike and on this forum somewhere.
I can't remember the blasted heading ::)
Another one f those "somewhere on the forum" ::)
-
Another one f those "somewhere on the forum" ::)
Yes-------that's where I saw it last !
-
Another one f those "somewhere on the forum" ::)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,776.msg20391/topicseen.html#msg20391
Not sure if what Lookout is referring to is in here.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,776.msg20391/topicseen.html#msg20391
Not sure if what Lookout is referring to is in here.
That's the one Roch. I haven't read the letter right through but I imagine there have been a few changes since it was written.
-
"Yes, Sheila was in the kitchen when the Raid Team entered WHF. 5 independent reports and 3 subsequent statements we have confirm this."
Where are the reports and statements?
If she shot herself in the master bedroom after shooting herself in the kitchen and managing to struggle upstairs and Police entered 45 seconds later why is there dried cracked blood on her face as related by Peter Vanezis?
-
"Yes, Sheila was in the kitchen when the Raid Team entered WHF. 5 independent reports and 3 subsequent statements we have confirm this."
Where are the reports and statements?
If she shot herself in the master bedroom after shooting herself in the kitchen and managing to struggle upstairs and Police entered 45 seconds later why is there dried cracked blood on her face as related by Peter Vanezis?
I have asked this question MANY times - it's one the innocent side can't answer. Had she been alive for long after the first shot, she would surely have expirated blood on her face - there's none.
-
Dried cracked blood denotes a thin layer that has trickled and would have been quick to dry rather than a large volume. The warm atmosphere inside the farmhouse would have helped the drying-----plus,in normal,healthy humans,the bleeding time which would have been the normal ratio clotting time ( 0.8-1.1 ) also played a part while she'd still have been breathing,just.
Because Sheila had been supine,the overflow of blood in her mouth would have just trickled each side,obviously while deceased, where the heart no longer pumps.
-
I have asked this question MANY times - it's one the innocent side can't answer. Had she been alive for long after the first shot, she would surely have expirated blood on her face - there's none.
Yes but how do we account for sightings of one dead male and one dead female, not once but several.
-
I have asked this question MANY times - it's one the innocent side can't answer. Had she been alive for long after the first shot, she would surely have expirated blood on her face - there's none.
Being on her back,the blood would have also flowed backwards down into her gut.
-
Being on her back,the blood would have also flowed backwards down into her gut.
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
-
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
Isn't it self explanatory ? Ever tried coughing when on your back ?
-
Isn't it self explanatory ? Ever tried coughing when on your back ?
She didn't cough because there is no evidence of spluttering so, if she had been alive, she would have chocked.
-
She didn't cough because there is no evidence of spluttering so, if she had been alive, she would have chocked.
You mentioned about there being no expirated blood-------so I answered. If she'd been already dead,there'd have been no choking mechanism.
-
You mentioned about there being no expirated blood-------so I answered. If she'd been already dead,there'd have been no choking mechanism.
She was dead and had been dead for some time because the blood around her mouth was dried and cracked.
-
She was dead and had been dead for some time because the blood around her mouth was dried and cracked.
I know that,though what you mean for " some time " is questionable because a thin veil of blood dries a lot quicker/sooner than if it had been in clots/globules. That blood was an overflow which trickled THINLY at each side of her mouth and would have dried quickly in the warm atmosphere.
-
I know that,though what you mean for " some time " is questionable because a thin veil of blood dries a lot quicker/sooner than if it had been in clots/globules. That blood was an overflow which trickled THINLY at each side of her mouth and would have dried quickly in the warm atmosphere.
What I am saying is that blood couldn't have dried round her moth with no signs of like (and you agree that had she been alive, she'd have chocked) but still be flowing from a wound on her neck. For blood to flow from a wound (especially when someone is on their back) the heart would need to be pumping.
-
What I am saying is that blood couldn't have dried round her moth with no signs of like (and you agree that had she been alive, she'd have chocked) but still be flowing from a wound on her neck. For blood to flow from a wound (especially when someone is on their back) the heart would need to be pumping.
I was only referring to Sheila's mouth and not her neck. But you didn't agree that any blood was pumping from her neck ?
Where there's an outlet of blood pouring from it,tells me that she hadn't been dead that long or it would have been plugged, with the surplus blood settling within her body until disturbed.
Only while alive would the blood have been pumping out of her neck.
-
I was only referring to Sheila's mouth and not her neck. But you didn't agree that any blood was pumping from her neck ?
Where there's an outlet of blood pouring from it,tells me that she hadn't been dead that long or it would have been plugged, with the surplus blood settling within her body until disturbed.
Only while alive would the blood have been pumping out of her neck.
Not going through this again. It's pointless.
-
It's my prerogative to argue that Neville phoned them . . .
He may well have telephoned the police, but there's nothing to suggest he made a 999 call to do that. It appears to me that you're not saying that he made a 999 call.
-
He may well have telephoned the police, but there's nothing to suggest he made a 999 call to do that. It appears to me that you're not saying that he made a 999 call.
Sorry to butt in. There is an argument at the moment that a 999 call was made at 06.09. The Met police got wind of it and went looking for any related evidence in 2002. I've got my own opinions on this at the moment - still sussing things out.
However, if such a call was made - Ainsley would have probably ensured the evidence was destroyed.
-
He may well have telephoned the police, but there's nothing to suggest he made a 999 call to do that. It appears to me that you're not saying that he made a 999 call.
Because it has been suggested on police logs/BT operator ? that the line had remained open from a 999 situation and there'd been a request to close it,one naturally assumes that the last call was a 999 one.
-
It was Lesley the BT operator who closed the open line at 07.47 and the last number dialled was 999.
-
It wasn't Jeremy who'd left that phone off the hook !!
-
It was Lesley the BT operator who closed the open line at 07.47 and the last number dialled was 999.
Where is that info Lookout?
-
Where is that info Lookout?
It's on a police log which is on the forum and appeared not so long ago. I'll try and find it.
-
Where is that info Lookout?
Whatcha bettin it doesn't say what has just been claimed? ;D ;D
-
An occupant of CA07 had verified line closure via a wireless log." It was written on a wireless log to I/R and the operator was notified a minute later by I/R.So between the operator and I/R the 999 line had been closed ".This is what I wrote in March this year so I'd obviously copied it from a log------which I'm still looking for.
-
An occupant of CA07 had verified line closure via a wireless log." It was written on a wireless log to I/R and the operator was notified a minute later by I/R.So between the operator and I/R the 999 line had been closed ".This is what I wrote in March this year so I'd obviously copied it from a log------which I'm still looking for.
Reader has already explained this ;D
-
An occupant of CA07 had verified line closure via a wireless log." It was written on a wireless log to I/R and the operator was notified a minute later by I/R.So between the operator and I/R the 999 line had been closed ".This is what I wrote in March this year so I'd obviously copied it from a log------which I'm still looking for.
Lookout keep looking you will find it sometimes it is difficult to remember where you read something but you will have read it.
-
Reader has already explained this ;D
I'd be interested to read that. I've been researching this a bit recently.
-
Reader has already explained this ;D
So ? Another explanation is on crime ref: SC/688/85.
-
Sorry to butt in. There is an argument at the moment that a 999 call was made at 06.09. The Met police got wind of it and went looking for any related evidence in 2002. I've got my own opinions on this at the moment - still sussing things out.
However, if such a call was made - Ainsley would have probably ensured the evidence was destroyed.
Jesus Christ, how do these people sleep at night
-
Jesus Christ, how do these people sleep at night
High priority Action Record Print 343 from the 2002 Stokenchurch (Met) Enquiry. The Action is dated 15/07/2002 and was instigated by DI XXXXXX
“Research Stokenchurch for any documents by MILLBANK N 347 re 999 call.”
And then:
“Research Stokenchurch for all documentation, including statements, notes, messages and documents that refer to PC MILLBANK N 347 monitoring the 999 call made from White House Farm at 06:09 on 07/08/85, and supply copies of the same into the system.”
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>still looking.Got as far as the RTA in which DB killed an old lady----then in another incident,shot someone in the eye and nothing became of it.No surprises there !!
-
Sorry to butt in. There is an argument at the moment that a 999 call was made at 06.09. The Met police got wind of it and went looking for any related evidence in 2002. I've got my own opinions on this at the moment - still sussing things out.
However, if such a call was made - Ainsley would have probably ensured the evidence was destroyed.
An argument by who?
-
An argument by who?
Probably whoever discovered the content of post 133.
-
Probably whoever discovered the content of post 133.
That's just a quote, where's the document?
-
That's just a quote, where's the document?
It's hardly going to be on here.
-
It's hardly going to be on here.
Why not? Evidence to show Bamber is innocent is on the forum (allegedly) and people make all kinds of claims here. Why would you be prepared to believe something without seeing the actual doc?
-
The document that I quoted from re. the open-line was from the 4 murders/suicide investigation,namely,SC/688/85 and was wafted on here not long ago. There won't be many of these docs around as they gave the TRUE facts of what went on on the 7th of August 1985.
-
Why not? Evidence to show Bamber is innocent is on the forum (allegedly) and people make all kinds of claims here. Why would you be prepared to believe something without seeing the actual doc?
But Caroline - the forum archive is not the be all and end all of source documents.
What I meant was - if it was within the batch of documents that Mike has - it would already exist on here if Mike had came accross it. Since it isn't on here - he either hasn't come accross it or it's not in his batch.
It's not me who's making the claim.
-
If the truth be known,I don't think EP knew for certain who made that 999 call----but someone did.
-
But Caroline - the forum archive is not the be all and end all of source documents.
What I meant was - if it was within the batch of documents that Mike has - it would already exist on here if Mike had came accross it. Since it isn't on here - he either hasn't come accross it or it's not in his batch.
It's not me who's making the claim.
After years on this forum at least you have the satisfaction to know your instincts were right
-
If the truth be known,I don't think EP knew for certain who made that 999 call----but someone did.
Given the rigor mortis condition apparent on Nevill and June, I would say that the only person left alive at 06:09 was Sheila.
-
But Caroline - the forum archive is not the be all and end all of source documents.
What I meant was - if it was within the batch of documents that Mike has - it would already exist on here if Mike had came accross it. Since it isn't on here - he either hasn't come accross it or it's not in his batch.
It's not me who's making the claim.
Then who is?
-
Given the rigor mortis condition apparent on Nevill and June, I would say that the only person left alive at 06:09 was Sheila.
Why do you think Sheila killed everyone before 3.48am, then kept herself alive for another 4 hours. Shooting herself in the kitchen, before making her way upstairs (without being seen) after the police had entered WHF ?
It seems a new and just as important question from the Stokechurch investigation is who was Sheila ringing at 6.09am. Her hair dresser ?
Mike says the police shot Sheila, surely the bullets in her neck would prove this. Or was this more forgery from the police ?
-
Then who is?
Probably the usual suspects ;)
-
Given the rigor mortis condition apparent on Nevill and June, I would say that the only person left alive at 06:09 was Sheila.
Yes of course,of that there's no doubt when you point out the RM.
-
Probably the usual suspects ;)
So, you don't know. OK
-
Why do you think Sheila killed everyone before 3.48am, then kept herself alive for another 4 hours. Shooting herself in the kitchen, before making her way upstairs (without being seen) after the police had entered WHF ?
It seems a new and just as important question from the Stokechurch investigation is who was Sheila ringing at 6.09am. Her hair dresser ?
Mike says the police shot Sheila, surely the bullets in her neck would prove this. Or was this more forgery from the police ?
There is no proof of when Sheila shot herself. Have you ever Seen any tests to establish whether a shot from that rifle from that room at that position would have been heard from the distance that the police were ? Sorry to see that you are using sarcasm still and cherry picking suggestions to embellish your arguments.
-
There is no proof of when Sheila shot herself. Have you ever Seen any tests to establish whether a shot from that rifle from that room at that position would have been heard from the distance that the police were ? Sorry to see that you are using sarcasm still and cherry picking suggestions to embellish your arguments.
Good to see after a year away from the forum you have zeroed straight to the supporters greatest danger. Me.
Why do you think Sheila stayed alive for another 4 hours. And do you believe she used the phone at 6.09am ?
-
Good to see after a year away from the forum you have zeroed straight to the supporters greatest danger. Me.
Why do you think Sheila stayed alive for another 4 hours. And do you believe she used the phone at 6.09am ?
I think you flatter yourself. And it has been proved that Sheila was ill so to apply logic to her actions would be foolish don't you think? Or do you still have your unsympathetic attitudes to mental illness ?
-
There is no proof of when Sheila shot herself. Have you ever Seen any tests to establish whether a shot from that rifle from that room at that position would have been heard from the distance that the police were ? Sorry to see that you are using sarcasm still and cherry picking suggestions to embellish your arguments.
Or even if she did.
-
Or even if she did.
Yes true . But I believe the assumption she could not shoot herself in the position she was in has since been disproven using a person of the same height and a gun of the same length , obviously without the silencer.
Oh and sorry to hear you are second in line to Adam as a danger to supporters . He doesn't change does he?
-
I think you flatter yourself. And it has been proved that Sheila was ill so to apply logic to her actions would be foolish don't you think? Or do you still have your unsympathetic attitudes to mental illness ?
I created a recent thread on the last people to see Sheila. As well as the effects of Haloperidol.
Sheila wouldn't have been able to re fill a hot water bottle at 3am, let alone turn into a navy seal.
-
Yes true . But I believe the assumption she could not shoot herself in the position she was in has since been disproven using a person of the same height and a gun of the same length , obviously without the silencer.
Oh and sorry to hear you are second in line to Adam as a danger to supporters . He doesn't change does he?
I don't see myself as a danger to anyone so if he's claimed that crown, he's welcome to it. But no, he doesn't change - have to admit, I have warmed to him a little but shhhhhh ;) ;D
-
I don't see myself as a danger to anyone so if he's claimed that crown, he's welcome to it. But no, he doesn't change - have to admit, I have warmed to him a little but shhhhhh ;) ;D
Oh dear .
-
Because it has been suggested on police logs/BT operator ? that the line had remained open from a 999 situation and there'd been a request to close it, one naturally assumes that the last call was a 999 one.
Even if the logs indicated that a 999 call was made from WHF (which is debatable, as they don't explicitly confirm that), there's nothing to suggest that Nevill made that call. The time of 06:09 that you've mentioned was well after a BT operator had confirmed (more than once) that the telephone receiver at WHF was off-hook. Any 999 call would have been handled initially by a BT employee (and presumably documented by BT). Also, Jean Rowe (a BT operator) stated that she had twice (shortly before 06:09) been contacted by a police officer (at HQIR) who asked her to connect the WHF line to the police HQIR. She makes no reference to any 999 call having already been made from WHF, but does state that she was not allowed to engage the Direct Emergency Police line, so she telephoned the police headquarters and connected her call with the open WHF line so that the police could monitor it. Her choice of wording suggests that the officer who called her had requested that the emergency line should be used, but that she used a normal line instead.
-
I was thinking the other day that Jeremy never claimed that his father did call the police , because he would not have known if he did . But I think the fact that he said he called back and the line was engaged and then the transcripts later might have convinced him it had happened . But even if Neville did not call the police the one call that would prove that Jeremy was innocent is the call from his father to him. If that was on the records somewhere it would prove his innocence .
-
I was thinking the other day that Jeremy never claimed that his father did call the police , because he would not have known if he did . But I think the fact that he said he called back and the line was engaged and then the transcripts later might have convinced him it had happened . But even if Neville did not call the police the one call that would prove that Jeremy was innocent is the call from his father to him. If that was on the records somewhere it would prove his innocence .
Jan I am sure that call is on record will we get to see it or maybe somebody will come clean and spill
-
Jan I am sure that call is on record will we get to see it or maybe somebody will come clean and spill
Well if that call was proven then it would have to have been Neville or an accomplice which is why I think a record exists . BUT that would mean that the twist in the case would have had to be a fit up totally because then the police could have used that evidence to back up thier initial assumptions . And I can't quite get my head round that . It's frustrating .
-
At that time, there was no routine recording of the details of individual dialled local calls between Maldon numbers.
-
At that time, there was no routine recording of the details of individual dialled local calls between Maldon numbers.
It just falls on deaf ears reader.
-
According to most,Sheila's hands were clean too !
-
I was thinking the other day that Jeremy never claimed that his father did call the police , because he would not have known if he did . But I think the fact that he said he called back and the line was engaged and then the transcripts later might have convinced him it had happened . But even if Neville did not call the police the one call that would prove that Jeremy was innocent is the call from his father to him. If that was on the records somewhere it would prove his innocence .
There is no record, those old exchanges didn't record anything, there was no equipment that could store information. It worked much like an electric meter.
-
There is no record, those old exchanges didn't record anything, there was no equipment that could store information. It worked much like an electric meter.
Yes so you have said before . So when the police said to Jeremy they knew a call had been made from the farm to him you would have thought he would have have been shocked then? They then used the hitman theory to explain the call .
And how do you explain the document posted that said the police did have a list of calls ?
.
-
Yes so you have said before . So when the police said to Jeremy they knew a call had been made from the farm to him you would have thought he would have have been shocked then? They then used the hitman theory to explain the call .
And how do you explain the document posted that said the police did have a list of calls ?
.
Which document Jan?
I don't believe I've seen where the police said that to JB, where is that?
-
Yes so you have said before . So when the police said to Jeremy they knew a call had been made from the farm to him you would have thought he would have have been shocked then? They then used the hitman theory to explain the call .
And how do you explain the document posted that said the police did have a list of calls ?
.
I have had all this with Lookout, if you don't believe me, spend the next few weeks researching the Maldon exchange and you will see there was no way to record calls. I even tracked down an engineer who worked at the Maldon exchange at the time. It's why you shouldn't take notice of stuff people say on the forum and do your own research - always works best for me.
-
I have had all this with Lookout, if you don't believe me, spend the next few weeks researching the Maldon exchange and you will see there was no way to record calls. I even tracked down an engineer who worked at the Maldon exchange at the time. It's why you shouldn't take notice of stuff people say on the forum and do your own research - always works best for me.
That's why I don't take any notice of you. You fell for that one,didn't you ?
-
Which document Jan?
I don't believe I've seen where the police said that to JB, where is that?
Apologies they said it to Mathew , but I knew they said the call had been made and could be verified . So the police were telling porky pies then?
-
See attached
-
Apologies they said it to Mathew , but I knew they said the call had been made and could be verified . So the police were telling porky pies then?
Sorry Jan, I wasn't calling you out, I just hadn't read what you'd posted, that's all.
-
I have had all this with Lookout, if you don't believe me, spend the next few weeks researching the Maldon exchange and you will see there was no way to record calls. I even tracked down an engineer who worked at the Maldon exchange at the time. It's why you shouldn't take notice of stuff people say on the forum and do your own research - always works best for me.
As I said sorry I believed what the police said. Silly me
-
See attached
Thanks Jan.
-
Thanks Jan.
Thanks . Glad I could find it to be honest . But my brain tends to keep these stupid bits of information for no reason. I just remember everyone saying that the police were telling lies to accuse Matthew . But to me it seemed like they did know there was a call and it was not Jeremy so that had to make a story to cover it up.
-
Why would they release information about the glove coming off when it was one of the few pieces which hadn't appeared in the newspapers?
-
See attached
It's interesting that it says the call would register on a digital apparatus.
-
It's interesting that it says the call would register on a digital apparatus.
Oh no we might be back to the phones again. If you read Jeremy's statement again the police don't originally say the call did not happen they seem to just say it should not have been his father that called . But Jeremy asks him to check the phone records to prove the call . So he seems to think they could have checked ? And there were two lines I think one was a business line.
-
As I said sorry I believed what the police said. Silly me
You don't have to if you do your own research - sorry for providing the info, which by the way, CAN be verified. Clearly they said it could be checked out because they were trying to trap MM which meakes it clear that believed Julie when she said Bamber told her MM was the hitman.
-
Oh no we might be back to the phones again. If you read Jeremy's statement again the police don't originally say the call did not happen they seem to just say it should not have been his father that called . But Jeremy asks him to check the phone records to prove the call . So he seems to think they could have checked ? And there were two lines I think one was a business line.
I know that there was only a single line, but yes JB seemed to think it could be checked, which is why I have a theory that JB made the call to his answering machine to reinforce his alibi. :-\ Although it now seems that it couldn't be checked. :-\
-
I know that there was only a single line, but yes JB seemed to think it could be checked, which is why I have a theory that JB made the call to his answering machine to reinforce his alibi. :-\ Although it now seems that it couldn't be checked. :-\
IT COULDN'T >:( ( ;D)
-
You don't have to if you do your own research - sorry for providing the info, which by the way, CAN be verified. Clearly they said it could be checked out because they were trying to trap MM which meakes it clear that believed Julie when she said Bamber told her MM was the hitman.
So it's ok to lie to get your man then .
Really .
-
IT COULDN'T >:( ( ;D)
;D
-
Yes,business calls weren't separate from house calls being as it was just the one line going into the property so N&J Bamber was run from the same line.
-
I know that there was only a single line, but yes JB seemed to think it could be checked, which is why I have a theory that JB made the call to his answering machine to reinforce his alibi. :-\ Although it now seems that it couldn't be checked. :-\
Obviously Jeremy had a stupid alibi that he had not checked out then . And yet he magically managed to have the intelligence to hide every other single bit of evidence . He is a strange one . Stupid or intelligent . Depends on how it fits the situation as far as I can see .
-
So it's ok to lie to get your man then .
Really .
If you have nothing to hise, it won't matter. You don't think that happens? ???
-
Yes,business calls weren't separate from house calls being as it was just the one line going into the property so N&J Bamber was run from the same line.
Thank you lookout .
I stand corrected .
-
If you have nothing to hise, it won't matter. You don't think that happens? ???
Obviously I think it happens there are cases to prove that is what the police have done.
And this might be another one.
Do I think it's morally right ? That's a different matter
-
Obviously Jeremy had a stupid alibi that he had not checked out then . And yet he magically managed to have the intelligence to hide every other single bit of evidence . He is a strange one . Stupid or intelligent . Depends on how it fits the situation as far as I can see .
He had been entering and exiting the windows at White House Farm since childhood. All the other "evidence" he left out on display.
-
Obviously Jeremy had a stupid alibi that he had not checked out then . And yet he magically managed to have the intelligence to hide every other single bit of evidence . He is a strange one . Stupid or intelligent . Depends on how it fits the situation as far as I can see .
Jan think the answer to that one is neither stupid or intelligent just innocent so phone calls,windows and all the other evidence he left not sure what it was but simply does not apply.
-
Obviously I think it happens there are cases to prove that is what the police have done.
And this might be another one.
Do I think it's morally right ? That's a different matter
I don't think the law is moral animal.
-
I don't think the law is moral animal.
It's not meant to be. :o
-
I don't think the law is moral animal.
that's a another whole deeper discussion.
But if they lied to try and trap Malcolm then its obvious they would be willing to do the same to get Jeremy .
If and why the change happened has yet to be revealed .
-
I'm confused by this 999 call at 6.09. Was there or wasn't there a 999 call made from what at 6.09 and if not why does it say there was in the stokenchurch enquiry.
-
I'm confused by this 999 call at 6.09. Was there or wasn't there a 999 call made from what at 6.09 and if not why does it say there was in the stokenchurch enquiry.
The phone operator transferred the WHF phone to a police station via a 999 line so the police could listen in.
-
The phone operator transferred the WHF phone to a police station via a 999 line so the police could listen in.
Not strictly correct. According to her she did not use a 999 line.
-
Not stricly correct. According to her she did not use a 999 line.
This is just something and nothing.
-
This is just something and nothing.
Well whether it's something or nothing - I couldn't say for certain. But the operator didn't use a 999 line and that's my point.
-
Well whether it's something or nothing - I couldn't say for certain. But the operator didn't use a 999 line and that's my point.
So he just said the wrong thing.
-
So he just said the wrong thing.
I think there are several possibilities - but the above is one of them.
-
Not stricly correct. According to her she did not use a 999 line.
"999" line then ::)
-
I'm confused by this 999 call at 6.09. Was there or wasn't there a 999 call made from what at 6.09 and if not why does it say there was in the stokenchurch enquiry.
There could have been a 999 call from WHF.
Maybe it was Nevill after realising the police still hadn't arrived at WHF, 2 hours & 43 minutes after he rang them at 3.26am.
Or maybe it was Sheila who rang to tell the police she had killed everyone but her & Crispy were alright.
Surprised neither of them heard the police outside.
-
There could have been a 999 call from WHF.
Maybe it was Nevill after realising the police still hadn't arrived at WHF, 2 hours & 43 minutes after he rang them at 3.26am.
Or maybe it was Sheila who rang to tell the police she had killed everyone but her & Crispy were alright.
Surprised neither of them heard the police outside.
Adam ;D
-
There could have been a 999 call from WHF.
Maybe it was Nevill after realising the police still hadn't arrived at WHF, 2 hours & 43 minutes after he rang them at 3.26am.
Or maybe it was Sheila who rang to tell the police she had killed everyone but her & Crispy were alright.
Surprised neither of them heard the police outside.
It wont be long till there are alleged outgoing calls from June, Daniel and Nicholas also.
-
The CT can always give possible reasons why a call was made at 6.09am. Rather than just say there was one.
I don't know why Nevill would call Chelmsford at 3.26am. Then call 999 at 6.09am.
-
So we will add it to the list of 'mistakes' then....... this list is getting very long
-
The information originally provided indicates that Insp. Burrell simply assumed how the monitoring had been arranged. We can now see that his assumption was wrong. No evidence has been posted here that a 999 call was made or that Nevill used a "panic button". Although mike tesko asserts that a record exists of the latter, he hasn't posted any police data that clearly supports his assertion. Didn't he some time ago post that someone was dead, only to be informed that the person was in fact alive? Nothing more was posted about their "death" after that.
-
The information originally provided indicates that Insp. Burrell simply assumed how the monitoring had been arranged. We can now see that his assumption was wrong. No evidence has been posted here that a 999 call was made or that Nevill used a "panic button". Although mike tesko asserts that a record exists of the latter, he hasn't posted any police data that clearly supports his assertion. Didn't he some time ago post that someone was dead, only to be informed that the person was in fact alive? Nothing more was posted about their "death" after that.
Evidence has been posted to the contrary and even Jeremy has stated their was no panic button - I don't know why we keep revisiting this, it's just silly.
-
If apparently reliable informants are in fact providing mike tesko with misinformation, this would tend to lead to some things being discussed again. It's hard to avoid that.
-
The claim from supporters is it was Sheila making the call at 6.09am. No one seeing her do this through the kitchen window.
The phone call was after Sheila had -
Fired 26 bullets.
Re loaded twice.
Chambered twice.
Breached twice.
Fought Nevill.
Postioned Nevill onto a coal scuttle.
Burnt Nevill's back.
Wrote a long suicide note.
Got the bible.
Read the bible.
Had a shower.
Changed.
Supporters could have said it was either Nevill or Sheila making the call. Either way it would make Bamber innocent. However Nevill being alive for 2 hours 21 minutes after the police arrived & not letting the police know is not realistic.
It is of course much more realistic Sheila would stay alive & then dial 999 at 6.09am.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/local/15458597.Campaigners_uncover__direct_evidence__of_convicted_murderer_s_innocence/&ved=0ahUKEwj_6-2N04vWAhVGYVAKHfKQDOEQqQIIHCgBMAA&usg=AFQjCNGpL5QNUVgKw7R4q-Wbo4e-WCsB2w
-
Well if none of the officers present made a call for ambulances------and up to now nobody has admitted dong so-------it could only have been Sheila who'd still been alive inside the farmhouse.
-
Well if none of the officers present made a call for ambulances------and up to now nobody has admitted dong so-------it could only have been Sheila who'd still been alive inside the farmhouse.
I'd have thought an ambulance would have been de rigueur once the firearms team was called.
-
I'd have thought an ambulance would have been de rigueur once the firearms team was called.
It obviously wasn't.
-
It obviously wasn't.
Why would that be?
-
Why would that be?
How would I know ? Why don't you answer the question ?
-
Why didn't EP send for an ambulance for standby when they initially arrived at the farmhouse ?
-
How would I know ? Why don't you answer the question ?
You said "It obviously wasn't". I asked why you would say that. You ask "How would I know?" So what was the point of stating "It obviously wasn't" if you didn't categorically KNOW that the ambulances weren't automatically called in conjunction with the firearms team.
-
You said "It obviously wasn't". I asked why you would say that. You ask "How would I know?" So what was the point of stating "It obviously wasn't" if you didn't categorically KNOW that the ambulances weren't automatically called in conjunction with the firearms team.
I answered by stating that no officer/s has admitted to having rang for an ambulance. That's the " obvious " bit.
-
I answered by stating that no officer/s has admitted to having rang for an ambulance. That's the " obvious " bit.
You made no mention of "officer/s" until this moment. I doubt anyone would have had to have done it manually. Given that all these alleged telephone lines were being opened/non existent panic alarms in use, I feel quite certain there was a legitimate one opened somewhere.
-
You made no mention of "officer/s" until this moment. I doubt anyone would have had to have done it manually. Given that all these alleged telephone lines were being opened/non existent panic alarms in use, I feel quite certain there was a legitimate one opened somewhere.
I assume that each officer had been equipped with a radio,but little assistance had been called for by anyone until nearly 3 hours later as it was, so I suppose calling for an ambulance hadn't been a priority.
It's usually a given that where a seige situation exists,an ambulance is on standby.
-
I assume that each officer had been equipped with a radio,but little assistance had been called for by anyone until nearly 3 hours later as it was, so I suppose calling for an ambulance hadn't been a priority.
It's usually a given that where a seige situation exists,an ambulance is on standby.
I guess they'd have waited until they were absolutely certain that no one was going to walk out of the farm house. A firearms team being present lessens the likelihood of that happening. Until they were present, I guess a siege situation isn't positive.
-
I guess they'd have waited until they were absolutely certain that no one was going to walk out of the farm house. A firearms team being present lessens the likelihood of that happening. Until they were present, I guess a siege situation isn't positive.
Well the hint was big enough----firearms at the farmhouse and an unbalanced woman in-situ there ?
-
Well the hint was big enough----firearms at the farmhouse and an unbalanced woman in-situ there ?
IF she was alive -which she wasn't- there was every possibility that she could have curled up and gone to sleep. Such can be the way when psychosis wears off.
-
IF she was alive -which she wasn't- there was every possibility that she could have curled up and gone to sleep. Such can be the way when psychosis wears off.
Yes,that would have been after she'd shot herself.
-
Yes,that would have been after she'd shot herself.
'Cept Jeremy had done that for her. Saved her the trouble.
-
'Cept Jeremy had done that for her. Saved her the trouble.
Not while he was outside,he couldn't.
-
There'd have been none of this if a time of death had been given. A thoroughly shabby investigation.
-
Not while he was outside,he couldn't.
I never suggested he was outside when he did it. That would be a stupid suggestion.
-
I never suggested he was outside when he did it. That would be a stupid suggestion.
So what time did Sheila die ?
-
So what time did Sheila die ?
A smidgeon after the others. Just long enough to make it look as if she'd killed them and then shot herself.
-
A smidgeon after the others. Just long enough to make it look as if she'd killed them and then shot herself.
What time is a smidgeon ?
-
What time is a smidgeon ?
Slightly longer than a nanosecond.
-
Slightly longer than a nanosecond.
So you don't know. Not even hazard a guess ?
-
So you don't know. Not even hazard a guess ?
As there were no times of death given, this is a question no one can answer.
-
So you don't know. Not even hazard a guess ?
Very difficult when one hasn't seen the bodies, don't you think? No, I can't hazard a guess but having read his WS, I'd be happy to go along with whatever Dr Craig estimates. I know that erstwhile member, Graham, was keen for us to know that the good doctor was a heavy drinker, but I imagine HAD he been hungover when he arrived at WHF that morning, the sight which greeted him would have sobered him up very quickly. It's also worth noting here that much noise has been made about him only noting one gsw to Sheila's neck. Perhaps those responsible for pushing this point as 'proof' that Sheila was 'undead' and shot again later, might care to read again Dr Craig's WS. According to him each victim had just one shot. Might that mean that none of them were fully dead?