Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: tonyb on March 04, 2012, 11:43:AM
-
Events in Telecommunications History
1987
Manx Telecom Ltd came into operation as a wholly-owned subsidiary of British Telecom on 1 January, with a 20-year licence to operate the Isle of Man's telecommunications system.
Itemised billing was introduced on a trial basis in the City of London in January for six months. An £87million programme to provide itemised telephone bills for all customers was announced in December.
This is a section off the BT website. It's fairly clear, I think you will agree,prior to jan 1987 no residential lines had itemised billing. So the question is would a buisines? Without the technology of digital exchanges in place I would say No.
-
City of London. That's normally a reference to the business community.....
-
Yes but how do you know the person writing that piece wasn't bribed by EP in case it was ever used to how that itemised phone bills did not exist for WHF in 1985. Or it could be a typo, it could have meant to say 1975. :P
(sorry couldn't resist :D )
-
I posted the following elsewhere TonyB, but you must have missed it.
New Scientist May 1983
"New Telehone Bills detail every call"
Article re BT's intention of introducing itemised phone bills by 1984.
Picture of itemised phoned bill.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z0Z3DxacC9IC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=New+Scientist,+itemised+phone+bills+may+1983&source=bl&ots=O3Cqf1k_R4&sig=3eQwKzoAvtpQX8-mbkW07g7-hEc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3klTT-jIMYij8gOis_DwBQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
The article states that BT intended to purchase the PCs with the technology for this. If the technology was available in 1984, even if itemised billing was delayed, or not fully introduced by then, there would presumably have been the ability to provide the police with itemised bills.
-
Yes but how do you know the person writing that piece wasn't bribed by EP in case it was ever used to how that itemised phone bills did not exist for WHF in 1985. Or it could be a typo, it could have meant to say 1975. :P
(sorry couldn't resist :D )
I've never looked hard before but Choc put the New Scientist article up and I had to have a search round. New scientist was looking to the future,BT site is historical fact.
-
Intended Choc. Find the sie,you'll see they changed preferred supplier
-
I've never looked hard before but Choc put the New Scientist article up and I had to have a search round. New scientist was looking to the future,BT site is historical fact.
As you have said before in another thread, if there was any truth behind the existance of itemised phone records at WHF on the 7th August 1985 then at some point over the last 26 years the defence would have presented this as a ground of appeal. Holding a bill under PII would not hide the fact that a bill existed.
It's pure fantasy and not really worth my time in refuting. Imo.
-
What we have here if you follow me is a report of last Sunday's weather. Chocs seen Saturdays report far a sunny day,gone to the park and got wet. I look at Monday's newspaper and saw we had freak rainfall yesterday. In hind site then I'm glad I went to the pub...one is guessing what may happen,one tells you what did happen
-
What we have here if you follow me is a report of last Sunday's weather. Chocs seen Saturdays report far a sunny day,gone to the park and got wet. I look at Monday's newspaper and saw we had freak rainfall yesterday. In hind site then I'm glad I went to the pub...one is guessing what may happen,one tells you what did happen
Makes sense to me.
-
As you have said before in another thread, if there was any truth behing the existance of itemised phone records at WHF on the 7th August 1985 then at some point over the last 26 years the defence would have presented this as a ground of appeal. Holding a bill under PII would not hide the fact that a bill existed.
It's pure fantasy and not really worth my time in refuting. Imo.
How long did it take EP to finally release the phone logs, Hartley? Some 19 years, I believe and then only when they were compelled to do so by a court order.
It's impossible, however, to obtain documents held under PII with a court order. So the defence have no means whatsoever of obtaining such records.
-
I've never looked hard before but Choc put the New Scientist article up and I had to have a search round. New scientist was looking to the future,BT site is historical fact.
If permanent itemised billing was introduced in the city during 1987 (though I'm sure I've read this occured in 1986)
1. When was the trial of this? 1985 to 1986?
2. When were the new PCs purchased, installed and tested?
-
How long did it take EP to finally release the phone logs, Hartley? Some 19 years, I believe and then only when they were compelled to do so by a court order.
It's impossible, however, to obtain documents held under PII with a court order. So the defence have no means whatsoever of obtaining such records.
Choc, I don't for one minute deny that important documents are being held under pii that may help the defence. However, itemised billing simply isn't one of them as they simply do not exist in the form you believe. Now,MT states that the telephones were being tapped. That will be the only way to itemise the calls, however they will not be bills. That theory is now dead in the water
-
What we have here if you follow me is a report of last Sunday's weather. Chocs seen Saturdays report far a sunny day,gone to the park and got wet. I look at Monday's newspaper and saw we had freak rainfall yesterday. In hind site then I'm glad I went to the pub...one is guessing what may happen,one tells you what did happen
Does what we have here, if you follow me, amount to TonyB, reading of itemised billing being introduced in 1987 and leaping to the unsustainable conclusion that the PCs for this complex new phone system were purchased, installed, tested, debugged and and the new system of billing trialled all in the same week. :D
-
How long did it take EP to finally release the phone logs, Hartley? Some 19 years, I believe and then only when they were compelled to do so by a court order.
It's impossible, however, to obtain documents held under PII with a court order. So the defence have no means whatsoever of obtaining such records.
That's not true Keira, they have every means of obtaining PII withheld documents, there is a whole application process associated with such requests. There is no guarentee that an application would be successful however.
Another confusion is the age of the case, nowadays PII withheld evidence is documented and listed, therefore a defence making an application would be aware of what is withheld but would not be aware of the contents of a withheld document.
In this case the use of PII is grossly overused, there is not a handy list of documents being withheld, any reference to a withheld phone bill is in Mikes head (unless he can show us otherwise). The use of the phrase 'PII' in this instance is incorrect, what Mike is actually trying to say is that the phone bill which he belives exist is being criminally kept away from the defence, it has nothing to do with PII which did not exist in it's current form in 1985.
-
If permanent itemised billing was introduced in the city during 1987 (though I'm sure I've read this occured in 1986)
1. When was the trial of this? 1985 to 1986?
2. When were the new PCs purchased, installed and tested?
Trailed for 6 months in the city of London from Jan 87
-
Does what we have here, if you follow me, amount to TonyB, reading of itemised billing being introduced in 1987 and leaping to the unsustainable conclusion that the PCs for this complex new phone system were purchased, installed, tested, debugged and and the new system of billing trialled all in the same week. :D
No this is Tonyb understanding that BT wouldn't use a small village where by chance this horrific crime occurred to test the future of there digital exchanges.
-
Events in Telecommunications History
1987
Manx Telecom Ltd came into operation as a wholly-owned subsidiary of British Telecom on 1 January, with a 20-year licence to operate the Isle of Man's telecommunications system.
Itemised billing was introduced on a trial basis in the City of London in January for six months. An £87million programme to provide itemised telephone bills for all customers was announced in December.
This is a section off the BT website. It's fairly clear, I think you will agree,prior to jan 1987 no residential lines had itemised billing. So the question is would a buisines? Without the technology of digital exchanges in place I would say No.
Now I looked at that site. Why didn't I see that?
-
That's not true Keira, they have every means of obtaining PII withheld documents, there is a whole application process associated with such requests. There is no guarentee that an application would be successful however.
Another confusion is the age of the case, nowadays PII withheld evidence is documented and listed, therefore a defence making an application would be aware of what is withheld but would not be aware of the contents of a withheld document.
In this case the use of PII is grossly overused, there is not a handy list of documents being withheld, any reference to a withheld phone bill is in Mikes head (unless he can show us otherwise). The use of the phrase 'PII' in this instance is incorrect, what Mike is actually trying to say is that the phone bill which he belives exist is being criminally kept away from the defence, it has nothing to do with PII which did not exist in it's current form in 1985.
Andrew Hunter MP, during Parliamentary debate on Bamber case Feb 2005
"With the Bamber case, the key issue has been, and remains, the non-disclosure of evidence to the defence. Early in 2004, Bamber's new defence team looked at the evidence again, and exhibit 29 caught their attention in particular. It was a document listing some radio messages from the scene of the crime. The defence wondered whether it might be the first page of a longer document rather than a complete document in itself, so they sought clarification. Essex constabulary was adamant that exhibit 29 was a whole document and had been available to the defence for the trial. Unconvinced, Bamber's defence team took the matter to court in March 2004. It was successful, and the police produced the entire document. Exhibit 29, it transpired, was not a single-page document, and Bamber's solicitors received by fax a 24-page summary of radio communications. They then took the unusual step of writing to both the trial judge and the chief prosecution counsel, inquiring if either had known at the time of the trial of the existence of the lengthier log of radio messages. Both replied that they had not.
On receiving the 24 pages, the defence immediately noticed that the first two pages had not only been re-written on different paper from the rest, but had been edited. A comparison with police witness statements revealed that several key radio messages that were made had been left out. Why? The defence therefore asked for the original document so that it could be sent for electrostatic document analysis testing, but Essex constabulary refused. The request has been repeated many times, and on each occasion the constabulary has refused.
-
I posted the following elsewhere TonyB, but you must have missed it.
New Scientist May 1983
"New Telehone Bills detail every call"
Article re BT's intention of introducing itemised phone bills by 1984.
Picture of itemised phoned bill.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=z0Z3DxacC9IC&pg=PA448&lpg=PA448&dq=New+Scientist,+itemised+phone+bills+may+1983&source=bl&ots=O3Cqf1k_R4&sig=3eQwKzoAvtpQX8-mbkW07g7-hEc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3klTT-jIMYij8gOis_DwBQ&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
The article states that BT intended to purchase the PCs with the technology for this. If the technology was available in 1984, even if itemised billing was delayed, or not fully introduced by then, there would presumably have been the ability to provide the police with itemised bills.
Yep that looks like my bill. Except mine are about 6 d/sided pages long. :(
-
"Is not the point that the CCRC may be evaluating submissions from Mr. Bamber's solicitor and has the power to request evidence, but the defence does not? The defence's submission to the CCRC is the weaker, because it does not have access, or powers to gain access, to the evidence that the police are allegedly denying it. "
Andrew Hunter MP, during Parliamentary debate on Bamber case Feb 2005
-
Does what we have here, if you follow me, amount to TonyB, reading of itemised billing being introduced in 1987 and leaping to the unsustainable conclusion that the PCs for this complex new phone system were purchased, installed, tested, debugged and and the new system of billing trialled all in the same week. :D
And,as you point out,a system such as this would take some time to be rolled out to the entire population.
-
I've lost track how many times you have cut and pasted a quote from Hunter to me.
It has nothing to do with what I posted, I'm not denying that evidence has been withheld, that is not the point I have made.
-
Trailed for 6 months in the city of London from Jan 87
Yes seems quite clear to me. Thanks Tony, good search. I couldn't find it to be sure.
-
Yes seems quite clear to me. Thanks Tony, good search. I couldn't find it to be sure.
Now I looked at that site. Why didn't I see that?
So what's your thoughts re itemised bills then Grahame?
-
I've lost track how many times you have cut and pasted a quote from Hunter to me.
It has nothing to do with what I posted, I'm not denying that evidence has been withheld, that is not the point I have made.
I can understand why you would prefer me not to post sections from this debate, Hartley, but these are highly valid in relation to any issue of non disclosure - which is what this issue boils down to.
These quotations have everything to do with what you've posted, since these establish, without a shadow of doubt, that substantial amounts of key evidence and the access of the defence to this has been deliberately and mysteriously witheld and obstructed by EP for many, many years.
-
So what's your thoughts re itemised bills then Grahame?
Well judging by what you have found and that it has been well documented, clearly it is doubtful they exist?
-
"Nearly 16 years after the White House farm murders, the defence first saw the second bundle of photographs. After nearly 19 years, the defence team discovered that there was a full radio log, a telephone log and an incident report, of which it had previously been unaware. It is the understatement of all understatements to say that such non-disclosure is deeply worrying. Even worse, it is still going on.
Bamber's defence team has repeatedly asked for access to the following: first, the notebooks and other papers of Inspector Jones, who headed the initial investigation and firmly believed in Bamber's innocence; secondly, the findings of the coroner who inquired into Inspector Jones's sudden death, which have never been made public; thirdly, the audio recordings of all telephone and radio messages from White House farm; fourthly, the audio recordings describing the scene of the crime; fifthly, the video recordings of the scene of the crime; and sixthly, the original radio and telephone messages log and incident report. All are still being withheld from the defence. On every occasion on which the defence team has asked for them, Essex constabulary has refused to provide them."
Andrew Hunter MP, during Parliamentary debate on Bamber case Feb 2005
Apologies, I shouls have attributed this debate, it's on:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=368.0
-
I can understand why you would prefer me not to post sections from this debate, Hartley, but these are highly valid in relation to any issue of non disclosure - which is what this issue boils down to.
These quotations have everything to do with what you've posted, since these establish, without a shadow of doubt, that substantial amounts of key evidence and the access of the defence to this has been deliberately and mysteriously witheld and obstructed by EP for many, many years.
I have no problem with anything you post, you have my complete blessing.
I have however, very clearly made the point that I wished to, in my earlier post directly relating to the theory that itemised phone records existed and are being withheld.
You can give your comment on what I posted if you want, but at this time on a pleasant Sunday afternoon, I'm not interested in being taken off onto a topic which I don't feel my input would be viewed constructively.
-
And,as you point out,a system such as this would take some time to be rolled out to the entire population.
Exactly, but that was not the point I made. My point was that police might access BT's new technological capability.
-
No this is Tonyb understanding that BT wouldn't use a small village where by chance this horrific crime occurred to test the future of there digital exchanges.
That small village comes under Maldon.
-
That small village comes under Maldon.
Is this where the digital exchanges were tested then?
-
As you have said before in another thread, if there was any truth behind the existance of itemised phone records at WHF on the 7th August 1985 then at some point over the last 26 years the defence would have presented this as a ground of appeal. Holding a bill under PII would not hide the fact that a bill existed.
It's pure fantasy and not really worth my time in refuting. Imo.
It was you, Hartley, who first raised the issue of witheld documents in this thread, I believe. I merely responded.
-
I can understand why you would prefer me not to post sections from this debate, Hartley, but these are highly valid in relation to any issue of non disclosure - which is what this issue boils down to.
These quotations have everything to do with what you've posted, since these establish, without a shadow of doubt, that substantial amounts of key evidence and the access of the defence to this has been deliberately and mysteriously witheld and obstructed by EP for many, many years.
They do nothing of the sort Keira. If you read closely hunter says that if what is 'alleged' to be withheld, then it would undermine the defence.
Just because hunter is an MP gives him so more validity than bamber himself.
-
Is this where the digital exchanges were tested then?
I did not suggest it was.
-
It was you, Hartley, who first raised the issue of witheld documents in this thread, I believe. I merely responded.
I think you are spoiling for a fight and I'm not playing game.
Have a wonderful rest of your day. x
-
They do nothing of the sort Keira. If you read closely hunter says that if what is 'alleged' to be withheld, then it would undermine the defence.
Just because hunter is an MP gives him so more validity than bamber himself.
Andrew Hunter MP asked for this debate following a thorough examination of the Bamber case. Hartley has at one time suggested that Hunter's comments are invalid because he is a Bamber supporter, but he only became a supporter of Jeremy's Appeal bid after examing the case. I hope you're not going down that road, Vic.
-
Trailed for 6 months in the city of London from Jan 87
Any chance of attributions and links, TonyB? It makes life a little easier :D
-
I did not suggest it was.
didn't say you did Choc, but the system must have been tested here for the police to have access to the Itemised bills for WHF. next step must be to prove the system was tested there,two years prior to London.I would of also thought a system such as this would be Lab tested for reliability prior to field tests,but i do admit i am speculating on that issue.
-
Any chance of attributions and links, TonyB? It makes life a little easier :D
bear with me ;)
-
Andrew Hunter MP asked for this debate following a thorough examination of the Bamber case. Hartley has at one time suggested that Hunter's comments are invalid because he is a Bamber supporter, but he only became a supporter of Jeremy's Appeal bid after examing the case. I hope you're not going down that road, Vic.
How long ago did Hunter say anything in support of Bamber?
-
How long ago did Hunter say anything in support of Bamber?
He still actively supports his campaign.
-
bear with me ;)
http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/Eventsintelecommunicationshistory/Eventsintelecommunicationshistory.htm
november 86 probably place to start...
-
http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/BTsHistory/Eventsintelecommunicationshistory/Eventsintelecommunicationshistory.htm
november 86 probably place to start...
Thanks, Tony!
-
didn't say you did Choc, but the system must have been tested here for the police to have access to the Itemised bills for WHF. next step must be to prove the system was tested there,two years prior to London.I would of also thought a system such as this would be Lab tested for reliability prior to field tests,but i do admit i am speculating on that issue.
If that is the case, well done to you for finding the details of this.
-
My point Keira is that just because an MP chooses to hold a debate does not give him any more validity than you or I. I've thoroughly reviewed the case and believe him guilty. You've thoroughly reviewed the case and believe him innocent. As he's an mp he can gain more publicity for his views than you or I, but his opinion is no more valid than you or I.
On the question of itemised billing, for WHF, this particular exchange was actually one of the last in the country to have the particular equipment required to provide itemised billing.
Also, when mike says that business customers had it first and WHF was a business, therefore it had itemised billing is, IMHO, misleading.
Business customers were the first to gain itemised billing but initially only if they had a BT exchange unit installed in their business, not as with WHF, which was a previously domestic line simply designated as a business one for accountancy reasons.
No itemised billing for local calls exists for WHF in 1985. No itemised billing for local calls is being withheld under Pii or any other reason.
Both defence and prosecution went down this route in 1986 and both know this is correct.
For whatever his reasons, mike has said he has local call itemisation for June and July 85, but wouldn't you know it, dodgy coppers have hidden August's. This is not true.
I do not understand why mike feels that he must bolster his arguments for bamber's innocence with fibs.
-
He still actively supports his campaign.
I don't doubt you NGB but could you point me to the last public support Andrew Hunter has made or is the support now private?
-
If mike had the itemised bill for that particular period, im sure they would be on the forum for all to see.
-
If that is the case, well done to you for finding the details of this.
sorry Choc i think youve misunderstood my post. I was surmising what would have to happen,now evidence has to be found to prove it
-
I don't doubt you NGB but could you point me to the last public support Andrew Hunter has made or is the support now private?
I am sorry but I am not sure when he last made a public statement. He appeared in the "Crimes which shook Britain" documentary and I recall some press coverage last year. I will try to find a reference to it. I know that he remains in regular contact with Jeremy Bamber.
-
First digital exchange opened in Hull Nov 1984. funnily enough called system X.....
-
DV8, posts like this do nothing for an argument you'd previously made very well.
Yep, that's a fair point. Take it down please mods. I should have kept those thoughts to myself.
-
Yep, that's a fair point. Take it down please mods. I should have kept those thoughts to myself.
Posts deleted.
-
First digital exchange opened in Hull Nov 1984. funnily enough called system X.....
British Telecom placed an order for around £100 million in March for an AXE 10 (System Y) digital switching system to provide a competitive alternative to System X. The contract was awarded through Thorn Ericsson.
The first AXE 10 exchange was opened the following year at Sevenoaks. As well as being an alternative to System X, introduction of AXE 10 exchanges into the network allowed the modernisation programme of the network to be speeded up. AXE 10 exchanges provided the same range of extra facilities known as Star Services (later known as Select Services) as Systems X, including code calling, repeat last call, three way calling, call diversion, call waiting, call barring, reminder call and charge advice.
Thats 1986 by the way. BT placed the order with Thorn Ericcson in 1985.
so ther are two types of digital exchanges, X & Y (you couldnt make it up...) I know that itemised billing is available on the later system but not if its available on the earlier system although it seems not,as charge advise was a service used on X where the operator would advise you of the cost of the call. the earliest the earlier system would of been installed is in Nov 84 and is the only possible digital exchange that could of been in use in that area
-
British Telecom placed an order for around £100 million in March (1984? If so, that article was correct) for an AXE 10 (System Y) digital switching system to provide a competitive alternative to System X. The contract was awarded through Thorn Ericsson.
The first AXE 10 exchange was opened the following year at Sevenoaks. As well as being an alternative to System X, introduction of AXE 10 exchanges into the network allowed the modernisation programme of the network to be speeded up. AXE 10 exchanges provided the same range of extra facilities known as Star Services (later known as Select Services) as Systems X, including code calling, repeat last call, three way calling, call diversion, call waiting, call barring, reminder call and charge advice.
Thats 1986 by the way. BT placed the order with Thorn Ericcson in 1985.
so ther are two types of digital exchanges, X & Y (you couldnt make it up...) I know that itemised billing is available on the later system but not if its available on the earlier system although it seems not,as charge advise was a service used on X where the operator would advise you of the cost of the call. the earliest the earlier system would of been installed is in Nov 84 and is the only possible digital exchange that could of been in use in that area
-
British Telecom placed an order for around £100 million in March for an AXE 10 (System Y) digital switching system to provide a competitive alternative to System X. The contract was awarded through Thorn Ericsson.
The first AXE 10 exchange was opened the following year at Sevenoaks. As well as being an alternative to System X, introduction of AXE 10 exchanges into the network allowed the modernisation programme of the network to be speeded up. AXE 10 exchanges provided the same range of extra facilities known as Star Services (later known as Select Services) as Systems X, including code calling, repeat last call, three way calling, call diversion, call waiting, call barring, reminder call and charge advice.
Thats 1986 by the way. BT placed the order with Thorn Ericcson in 1985.
so ther are two types of digital exchanges, X & Y (you couldnt make it up...) I know that itemised billing is available on the later system but not if its available on the earlier system although it seems not,as charge advise was a service used on X where the operator would advise you of the cost of the call. the earliest the earlier system would of been installed is in Nov 84 and is the only possible digital exchange that could of been in use in that area
Interesting piece, TonyB, well done and thank you for finding this
-
1985
Cellnet, the British Telecom and Securicor joint venture cellular radio service, was launched on 7 January. It replaced the existing radiophone service operated by British Telecom. Its competitor Racal Vodafone was also launched the same year.
The joint venture company was relaunched as BT Cellnet in 1999. In July 1999 BT announced it would be acquiring Securicor's minority stake in the joint venture.
The first new-style British Telecom shop opened in Southend-on-Sea High Street on 3 January, selling a wide range of telephones, business equipment and telephone accessories. The new shop was an extension of the existing chain of 53 phoneshops, mostly sited in department stores or in local telephone area offices.
The new speaking clock was inaugurated at 11 o'clock on 2 April when the voice of Brian Cobby replaced that of Pat Simmons, the voice of the clock for the previous 22 years. The new clock was digital and, with no moving parts, more reliable and accurate than the old equipment.
From 1 November it was possible to rent an exchange line alone from BT without having to pay rental for a telephone instrument.
Modernisation of the trunk network began with the opening of 'System X' exchanges in Birmingham, Coventry, Leeds and the City of London. The initial phase of the modernisation was completed in November 1988 with the opening of the 53rd 'System X' trunk exchange in Norwich. The last analogue trunk exchange at Thurso, Scotland was closed in July 1990 and the BT long-distance network thereby became totally digital, the first major system in the world to do so.
The first Stored Programme Control telex inland exchange was opened.
The first UK operational undersea optical fibre cable was laid, linking the Isle of Wight to the mainland across the Solent.
British Telecom trailed its first Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN).
Trials of the Linkline 0800 and 0345 services began on 12 November. An International 0800 service was opened from the United States.
Linkline was later marketed as Freefone and Lo-Call.
The Martlesham switched star cable TV and interactive services network was introduced in Westminster.
British Telecom placed an order for around £100 million in March for an AXE 10 (System Y) digital switching system to provide a competitive alternative to System X. The contract was awarded through Thorn Ericsson.
The first AXE 10 exchange was opened the following year at Sevenoaks. As well as being an alternative to System X, introduction of AXE 10 exchanges into the network allowed the modernisation programme of the network to be speeded up. AXE 10 exchanges provided the same range of extra facilities known as Star Services (later known as Select Services) as Systems X, including code calling, repeat last call, three way calling
-
http://www.britishtelephones.com/histuk.htm
Not an "official site" but good info
a better overview of the whole industry I thought
-
http://www.britishtelephones.com/histuk.htm
Not an "official site" but good info
a better overview of the whole industry I thought
Thank you for this, Tony
-
Choc, I don't for one minute deny that important documents are being held under pii that may help the defence. However, itemised billing simply isn't one of them as they simply do not exist in the form you believe. Now,MT states that the telephones were being tapped. That will be the only way to itemise the calls, however they will not be bills. That theory is now dead in the water
No, it is not, the itemised billing exists...
Police had means of obtaining these itemised bills...
-
It seems clear to me. BT did not have the technology with system X to produce itemised bills,that why they had call advise via an operator.System Y was developed with itemised calls as a requirement to subsequently bill. hence hey dropped X in favor of Y and dont run the two systems side by side. i'm sure X was cutting edge in its day but this was the era when you purchaced a computor from the shop,took it out of the box at home and it was obsolete...
-
It would be interesting to know , if the police in any other major inquiry before 1985 , identified a phone call from one place to another , or was this impossible before 1985 ?
-
No, it is not, the itemised billing exists...
Police had means of obtaining these itemised bills...
How?
-
Mike, prove us and the BT historians wrong by publishing June and julys itemised bills which you say you have. It will end the argument.
-
Mike, prove us and the BT historians wrong by publishing June and julys itemised bills which you say you have. It will end the argument.
2 chances, Bob Hope & No Hope...
-
2 chances, Bob Hope & No Hope...
;D
-
I must apologise for an error. I stated the first digital exchange (typeX) opened in Hull, Nov 1984. This is incorrect.The first type X digital exchange opened 26 Jan 1984 in Cheltenham. the Information on the type Y digital exchanges is correct. always like to admit my errors
-
2 chances, Bob Hope & No Hope...
And Bob's dead!
-
I don't doubt you NGB but could you point me to the last public support Andrew Hunter has made or is the support now private?
I would have though the words "actively" and "still" are explanatory enough, don't you Phil? If you need any more information the internet is your oyster. ;)
-
I would have though the words "actively" and "still" are explanatory enough, don't you Phil? If you need any more information the internet is your oyster. ;)
What's wrong with asking the person I was talking to? NGB seemed to have no problem answering and I was careful to state I didn't doubt what NGB had said!
-
Mike, prove us and the BT historians wrong by publishing June and julys itemised bills which you say you have. It will end the argument.
Do you believe that police did not have the technology or capability to trace phone calls locally made from one phone to another back in August 1985?
Yes, or no?
-
Completely different question mike. Please just post the claimed itemised bills with local calls on them.
-
Completely different question mike. Please just post the claimed itemised bills with local calls on them.
A record does exist which was obtained by the police, but there are some people who appear to be trying to argue that because itemized billing was not available to the public en masse back in August 1985, in that part of the UK, then it would be impossible for the police to obtain such information?
You all need to review your thinking...
-
It's a bit silly a concept in my view that the police couldn't trace individual calls. Surely the authorities have been tracing calls for years. For the purpose of espionage or counter terrorism. IRA were active in 1980's.
-
I remember that my mum had a stalker in the mid seventies and the police traced the calls in order to catch him.They traced them back to a phonebox.But they did catch him in the end,fortunately!
-
I remember that my mum had a stalker in the mid seventies and the police traced the calls in order to catch him.They traced them back to a phonebox.But they did catch him in the end,fortunately!
As soon as she told them , they went back and found were they were sent from , or they monitored the line after she told them ?
-
As soon as she told them , they went back and found were they were sent from , or they monitored the line after she told them ?
They monitored the line.Doesnt really help the argument does it. :-[
-
Do you believe that police did not have the technology or capability to trace phone calls locally made from one phone to another back in August 1985?
Yes, or no?
Yes. But the police didn't produce itemised bills on anyone's behalf. If you admit you were incorrect in your statements on the alleged itemised bills I'm sure we can move on and you can direct your efforts in a more fruitfull direction. Itemised billing simply didn't exist in the form you state Mike,you must face this fact.
-
Mike, this is what you posted last year.......
Reply #161 on: November 02, 2011, 10:34:PM »
Quote
The full itemised billing for whf, and 9 Head street, are currently withheld under pii, proving that a call was made from the scene to Jeremy's cottage, during the early hours of 7th August 1985...
-
Mike, this is what you posted last year.......
Reply #161 on: November 02, 2011, 10:34:PM »
Quote
The full itemised billing for whf, and 9 Head street, are currently withheld under pii, proving that a call was made from the scene to Jeremy's cottage, during the early hours of 7th August 1985...
Like I say, police obtained itemized billing for the relevant periods relating to both premises...
-
Police have never yet denied that they obtained itemized billing details for both the premises - if you can prove otherwise please direct me to this piece of evidence or information?
-
Yes. But the police didn't produce itemised bills on anyone's behalf. If you admit you were incorrect in your statements on the alleged itemised bills I'm sure we can move on and you can direct your efforts in a more fruitfull direction. Itemised billing simply didn't exist in the form you state Mike,you must face this fact.
The only person who must face facts is you...
Ask yourself why police requested billing details for the phones at whf?
Why would police be requesting something that didn't exist if it didn't exist, or relate to the phones at whf and 9 Head Street? What you are saying and what police requested and obtained are completely at odds with one another...
Do you think the police who handled this investigation were that incompetent?
-
The only person who must face facts is you...
Ask yourself why police requested billing details for the phones at whf?
Why would police be requesting something that didn't exist if it didn't exist, or relate to the phones at whf and 9 Head Street? What you are saying and what police requested and obtained are completely at odds with one another...
Do you think the police who handled this investigation were that incompetent?
So is it phone billing details, or itemised billing? We must get facts right. The last thing we want is a saga of two phone bills....
-
The only person who must face facts is you...
Ask yourself why police requested billing details for the phones at whf?
Why would police be requesting something that didn't exist if it didn't exist, or relate to the phones at whf and 9 Head Street? What you are saying and what police requested and obtained are completely at odds with one another...
Do you think the police who handled this investigation were that incompetent?
Again, you have changed things.
You quite clearly told everyone that you had the itemised billing for WHF for June and July 1985 and that August's was missing, you then said "I wonder why?"....
Now either you have them or not
-
Again, you have changed things.
You quite clearly told everyone that you had the itemised billing for WHF for June and July 1985 and that August's was missing, you then said "I wonder why?"....
Now either you have them or not
exactly. is it now billing details or itemised bills?
-
Just to remind Mike to post the itemised bills from June and July 1985
-
Just to remind Mike to post the itemised bills from June and July 1985
No need to remind me, I will be posting it soon, once the CCRC makes its decision (either way)...
-
AH is chairman of the Conserative Monday club. According to them he has been unwell.
Can't imagine a right wing tory going out on a limb for a convicted mass murderer unless he felt there was a strong poss of a MOJ.
Andrew Hunter is committed to trying to prove that Jeremy did not commit the murders for which he is currently convicted. I visited Andrew at his home on several occasions and shared information about this case with him, and although we have not recently been in touch with each-other I know that he is still very committed to the cause...
-
No need to remind me, I will be posting it soon, once the CCRC makes its decision (either way)...
just in case you'd forgot Mike....
Now's the time,according to yourself,to show me to be a clown after all.... :P
-
Yes mike, you said you'd post the itemised local calls bills after the ccrc decision. Could we see them then?
-
Yes mike, you said you'd post the itemised local calls bills after the ccrc decision. Could we see them then?
as ive said in the past, two chances....
-
Okay guys, I decided that all this debate was just going to go on and on for days so I thought I would do something about it and contacted BT directly to ask them if itemised billing would have been available in 1985 for bussiness and homes.
A member of their team is looking into it and will call me tommorow (or at least siad that he would but you know how bad BT can be) so I will posts whatever I'm told.
-
Welcome back Mat :)
-
Welcome back Mat :)
Thank you! :)
-
Do you think Mike is getting confused between Billing and Itemized? There are both different!
Well done Mat for getting in touch with BT I was going to suggest it, then it can be put to rest.....
Did you ask if this was done with a business line and residential? :)
-
Hey, Patti.
Yes, I asked about business and residential. I spoke with someone who seemd very knowledgeable so I am hopeful.
I also made it clear that I'm asking for a certian area and not just all of the U.K as I'm aware that different areas of the U.K recieved the serive at different points.
-
Hey, Patti.
Yes, I asked about business and residential. I spoke with someone who seemd very knowledgeable so I am hopeful.
I also made it clear that I'm asking for a certian area and not just all of the U.K as I'm aware that different areas of the U.K recieved the serive at different points.
Did you contact them by email or phone Matt?
Someone posted a history of BT the other day.....:)
-
By phone. I prefer to work voice to voice than email then you can hear the tone of the person you're talknig to and see if the are interested or are just trying to get rid of you.
-
By phone. I prefer to work voice to voice than email then you can hear the tone of the person you're talknig to and see if the are interested or are just trying to get rid of you.
Mat I always try to use email, that way you have written proof......:)
-
Mat I always try to use email, that way you have written proof......:)
BT have a reference library in London that is open to the public. You only need the date the local exchange was upgraded to digital to prove the debate,one way or another. Mike was in London a short while ago,( pictures in underground system following god knows who) I'd of thought it would of been worth a visit....
-
BT have a reference library in London that is open to the public. You only need the date the local exchange was upgraded to digital to prove the debate,one way or another. Mike was in London a short while ago,( pictures in underground system following god knows who) I'd of thought it would of been worth a visit....
Hi Tonyb...London is sort of a long way for me...otherwise I would go and have a look....Was it you that posted the history of BT? :)
-
Hi Tonyb...London is sort of a long way for me...otherwise I would go and have a look....Was it you that posted the history of BT? :)
I believe it was. I just dragged thru a few sites and found the info. It's in black and white. Itemised billing wouldn't of been available. What makes me so positive is mike has claimed on many occasions to have itemised bills prior to the murders but has failed,despite promises, to revel them. You must not get itemised bills confused with bills that itemise international calls. This is the type of bill that mike uses as " evidence " of itemised billing. Trust me,if I thought there was any chance of itemised billing I'd be in london searching archives.when I found proof of itemised billing for the period I'd of cracked the case and claim my million,if it's still available?
That's the problem,the itemised bill proves innocence and guilt surely?
-
Given the nature of the calls was it not possible to find the person at the other end to confirm two voices were different.
-
I believe it was. I just dragged thru a few sites and found the info. It's in black and white. Itemised billing wouldn't of been available. What makes me so positive is mike has claimed on many occasions to have itemised bills prior to the murders but has failed,despite promises, to revel them. You must not get itemised bills confused with bills that itemise international calls. This is the type of bill that mike uses as " evidence " of itemised billing. Trust me,if I thought there was any chance of itemised billing I'd be in london searching archives.when I found proof of itemised billing for the period I'd of cracked the case and claim my million,if it's still available?
That's the problem,the itemised bill proves innocence and guilt surely?
Sorry,innocence or guilt. Typo I'm afraid
-
Given the nature of the calls was it not possible to find the person at the other end to confirm two voices were different.
They can't agree the calls exist so I doubt they will recall the voices
-
I believe it was. I just dragged thru a few sites and found the info. It's in black and white. Itemised billing wouldn't of been available. What makes me so positive is mike has claimed on many occasions to have itemised bills prior to the murders but has failed,despite promises, to revel them. You must not get itemised bills confused with bills that itemise international calls. This is the type of bill that mike uses as " evidence " of itemised billing. Trust me,if I thought there was any chance of itemised billing I'd be in london searching archives.when I found proof of itemised billing for the period I'd of cracked the case and claim my million,if it's still available?
That's the problem,the itemised bill proves innocence and guilt surely?
In all fairness in 1985/86 you would think that would be the first thing your defence would do....to check if a call had been made to a said number. It obviously wasn't available at the time.....:)
-
With all due respect mat, these enquiries were made by both prosecution and defence in 1985 and in 2002. I think you will find that in 1985 there was no itemised billing of local calls at WHF whether from a business or domestic line. The D'arcy exchange was one of the last in the country to be modernised. Only calls going through the operator were itemised and these exist. Mike can not show us something which doesn't exist. I just wish he'd admit it.
-
Given the nature of the calls was it not possible to find the person at the other end to confirm two voices were different.
Hi Mertol. 27 years ago eh? You would have thought that we had the technology to identify a call......
America sent a man to the moon and we were able to make a call to Apollo 11.......I wont ever believe it in a million years....No Way......:)
-
With all due respect mat, these enquiries were made by both prosecution and defence in 1985 and in 2002. I think you will find that in 1985 there was no itemised billing of local calls at WHF whether from a business or domestic line. The D'arcy exchange was one of the last in the country to be modernised. Only calls going through the operator were itemised and these exist. Mike can not show us something which doesn't exist. I just wish he'd admit it.
+1.
-
With all due respect mat, these enquiries were made by both prosecution and defence in 1985 and in 2002. I think you will find that in 1985 there was no itemised billing of local calls at WHF whether from a business or domestic line. The D'arcy exchange was one of the last in the country to be modernised. Only calls going through the operator were itemised and these exist. Mike can not show us something which doesn't exist. I just wish he'd admit it.
It's not much work for me to do though and I'll be able to post concrete evidence either way and hopefully we'll all feel a little clearer.
-
Hi Mertol. 27 years ago eh? You would have thought that we had the technology to identify a call......
America sent a man to the moon and we were able to make a call to Apollo 11.......I wont ever believe it in a million years....No Way......:)
You see Patti my issue is this, its quite ok for mugford in court to start-stop-start -stop and sell her story to a jury with not one shred of proof jeremy said he planned it all earlier, yet investigating things like this would seem too much trouble ,i do believe it would have been quite simple to trace the reciever of the calls down did you not sign in those days for night duty?
-
Hey people.
I spoke with the contact at BT today, quite an interesting call.
Itemised billing wasn't available in that area for home phone lines even upon request. As for business lines, it was available - but you had to request it over the phone, it had only been in service for 3 months before the date of the murders and there was a charge each month.
-
A year ago, some different people were discussing this in much the same way.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,549.0.html
Perhaps after a year, we should stand back and take a long hard look at who is claiming to have access to the material.
-
You see Patti my issue is this, its quite ok for mugford in court to start-stop-start -stop and sell her story to a jury with not one shred of proof jeremy said he planned it all earlier, yet investigating things like this would seem too much trouble ,i do believe it would have been quite simple to trace the reciever of the calls down did you not sign in those days for night duty?
Hi Mertol. It would be interesting to find out if a telephone number came up from the caller at the exchange where PC West took the call....
The re-dial facility was available then....but not sure if telephone number came up when a call was received to the police......Another question, is would a number have come up if one dialed 999....:)
-
Hey people.
I spoke with the contact at BT today, quite an interesting call.
Itemised billing wasn't available in that area for home phone lines even upon request. As for business lines, it was available - but you had to request it over the phone, it had only been in service for 3 months before the date of the murders and there was a charge each month.
Hi Mat...One line into WHF....but Mike said their was a business line plus a residential.....This does not mean that there were two lines, it would mean that Nevill would receive two bills....one for business and one for residential....
Obviously BT haven't got that data available now, but it would be interesting to fins out if that data was applied for by the police.
I am making a list.....
1, Fawn phone phone....was this fully checked by experts to see if it worked?
2, Was all calls checked by BT at the request of the police?
3, One blue Citreon outside 9 Head Street? Did this belong to Matthew McDonald?
-
Hey people.
I spoke with the contact at BT today, quite an interesting call.
Itemised billing wasn't available in that area for home phone lines even upon request. As for business lines, it was available - but you had to request it over the phone, it had only been in service for 3 months before the date of the murders and there was a charge each month.
Mat,I do admire your efforts.However I do believe that you must prop up the information you have received via a phone call by posting some do cumentry evidence,so to speak. Although i am in agreement with most of your post without proof as opposed to hearsay it lacks a little credibility IMO.
-
but Mike said their was a business line plus a residential...
I don't recall that he said that, but I think he said it was a business line. I doubt that a single number could be for both business and residential at the same time, as the exchange wouldn't know which calls should be billed as business calls.
-
I don't recall that he said that, but I think he said it was a business line. I doubt that a single number could be for both business and residential at the same time, as the exchange wouldn't know which calls should be billed as business calls.
Mike definitely said it was a business line and showed a bill for July 1985. Not sure about the residential bit Patti.
-
Mat,I do admire your efforts.However I do believe that you must prop up the information you have received via a phone call by posting some do cumentry evidence,so to speak. Although i am in agreement with most of your post without proof as opposed to hearsay it lacks a little credibility IMO.
That's understandable. I obviously don't have proof as all I had was a phone call - however I didn't really do this for the forum it was more for my own benefit - so posters are advised to believe what they wish.
Or make the phone call themselves.
-
Mike definitely said it was a business line and showed a bill for July 1985. Not sure about the residential bit Patti.
I don't think he did, people have been asking him to for more than a year now. He did post a bill which showed international calls, but no local calls.
-
I don't think he did, people have been asking him to for more than a year now. He did post a bill which showed international calls, but no local calls.
Your right, sorry my memory let me down there I should have checked it.
-
That's understandable. I obviously don't have proof as all I had was a phone call - however I didn't really do this for the forum it was more for my own benefit - so posters are advised to believe what they wish.
Or make the phone call themselves.
Totally agree Mat.
-
No need to remind me, I will be posting it soon, once the CCRC makes its decision (either way)...
Can you clarify mike when you a posting the above?
Or even a little teaser..., post the bill without the itemised account details?
-
Can you clarify mike when you a posting the above?
Or even a little teaser..., post the bill without the itemised account details?
Hey Tony, You and i have been the most vocal about itemised bills since this forum evolved from the old one. I think you have to give a reasonable semblance of faith to the fact that the original defence team would have produced an itemised bill if it was available. They would have certainly looked into it with great detail, an amateur would have. We have both posted up the BT history which also shows that local itemisation didn't exist in 1985. Most people/ members accept that, there was no itemised phone record that showed any local calls made from WHF. It would be nice for Mike to either put this to bed or prove us wrong like he said he would. If not, its your turn to bump the thread in a month's time!!! ;)
-
Bloody hell, I cover the whole of the South East but on Monday i am working at the Old Parsonage, Head Street, Goldhanger. Right opposite where JB lived. What a small world.
-
According to some, it was not possible for the police to obtain itemised records of any telephone records made before the official introduction date...
Think again...
-
Mike, With the greatest respect. If you have the phone bill for WHF that you say you have. It is completely irrelevant what technology the Police had available as all the information needed would be in the phone bill. Just an observation.
-
Julie Mugford was tracked down by EP after she telephoned them from a business address , we know this as Mat told us and he saw the papers at the CCRC !! ;)
-
Mike, With the greatest respect. If you have the phone bill for WHF that you say you have. It is completely irrelevant what technology the Police had available as all the information needed would be in the phone bill. Just an observation.
and vice versa...
Unless you and everybody else subscribes to the view that police were not able to obtain such information prior to itemised phone billing coming on line later on...
-
and vice versa...
Unless you and everybody else subscribes to the view that police were not able to obtain such information prior to itemised phone billing coming on line later on...
I subscribe to that view, now prove me wrong by posting the itemised bill from July 1985 you say you have.
-
jon if Mat told us it will be correct as he had access to all the CCRC documents before Simon MacKay.
-
jon if Mat told us it will be correct as he had access to all the CCRC documents before Simon MacKay.
Did he really?
-
ngb I seem to have read he had access to them maybe through a colleague but I don,t believe everything I am told because if this information is correct somebody should be sacked for leaking information of such sensitivity.
-
and vice versa...
Unless you and everybody else subscribes to the view that police were not able to obtain such information prior to itemised phone billing coming on line later on...
I subscribe to the view that both the prosecution and defence would have explored every avenue in establishing whether the phonecall happened or not. To either prove or disprove Jeremy's alibi. So are you saying that the technology was available at the time to the Police but they denied having this technology to both the prosecution and the defence or just the defence team?
-
I subscribe to the view that both the prosecution and defence would have explored every avenue in establishing whether the phonecall happened or not. To either prove or disprove Jeremy's alibi. So are you saying that the technology was available at the time to the Police but they denied having this technology to both the prosecution and the defence or just the defence team?
This is something I've wondered about. I've always thought calls would be traceable somehow, if only for the purposes of counter terrorism etc.
-
Julie Mugford was tracked down by EP after she telephoned them from a business address , we know this as Mat told us and he saw the papers at the CCRC !! ;)
Did he?
-
Jackie you know if Mat said he saw the documents he did please accept that my dear.
-
I will prepared to be amazed Susie ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Jackie you are going to be amazed at the documents etc that he is ready to produce thought last night but I suppose I am wrong again!!!
-
I am prepared to give him the benefit of doubt ??? ??? ???
-
Jackie have you noticed everytime you post up pops Susan with a reply agreeing with you within 30seconds how strange is that and other people have noticed this not just silly me.
-
jon if Mat told us it will be correct as he had access to all the CCRC documents before Simon MacKay.
How could I have had access to the CCRC submissions that Simon worked on before him? Since he worked on them?
Nonsense.
-
So sorry Mat I must have misunderstood your post at this rate I will be on the naughty step till next week. I apologise for the error on my part. Forgiven.
-
This is something I've wondered about. I've always thought calls would be traceable somehow, if only for the purposes of counter terrorism etc.
Undoubtably calls have been able to be traced, intercepted, recorded etc. for many years prior to the murders. However,although I admit I have no first hand knowledge of this, prior to digital, unless the line in question was specificly targeted for interception there will be no way of tracing any calls, after the call is received or made. Of course I also stress I am only talking of local calls, not national or international calls...
That's my view,if the phone was bugged by any services at WHF or JBs cottage ( or both ) there will not be the stated itemised bill for the previous months in anyone's possession. There would have to be a " bugged" phone line. So who would be bugging the phone line?.
-
If itemised billing was indeed available, would one of the many legal geniuses who have acted on behalf of Jeremy over the last 26 and a bit years, not have used their considerable resources to show this to be the case?
-
If itemised billing was indeed available, would one of the many legal geniuses who have acted on behalf of Jeremy over the last 26 and a bit years, not have used their considerable resources to show this to be the case?
This is a good point. Hopefully, we as posters on this forum will have the good sense to not spend the next 26 years discussing the same.
-
The same prosecution legal eagles who are reaponsible for editing and retyping witness statements in the absence of witnesses, and who are responsible for withholding masses of evidence under Pii, cannot disprove the suggestion that a call was made from the scene to Jeremy's cottage at the material time, and these very same legal eagles could have esitedments, or retyped one in anybodies name in thier absence to say it could be proven, but something under the control and in possession of the DPP prevents them from doing so - ì wonder what that something could be?
-
The same prosecution legal eagles who are reaponsible for editing and retyping witness statements in the absence of witnesses, and who are responsible for withholding masses of evidence under Pii, cannot disprove the suggestion that a call was made from the scene to Jeremy's cottage at the material time, and these very same legal eagles could have esitedments, or retyped one in anybodies name in thier absence to say it could be proven, but something under the control and in possession of the DPP prevents them from doing so - ì wonder what that something could be?
Of course no one can prove something didn't happen - that is silly. JB needs to prove that it did, and proof of itemised billing such as the July 1985 bill would help him greatly.
-
This is a good point. Hopefully, we as posters on this forum will have the good sense to not spend the next 26 years discussing the same.
Yes I agree, that's why I've not really involved myself too much in this particular claim, my personal opinion (which I am entitled to have) is that it's a load of utter piffle. ::)
-
The same prosecution legal eagles who are reaponsible for editing and retyping witness statements in the absence of witnesses, and who are responsible for withholding masses of evidence under Pii, cannot disprove the suggestion that a call was made from the scene to Jeremy's cottage at the material time, and these very same legal eagles could have esitedments, or retyped one in anybodies name in thier absence to say it could be proven, but something under the control and in possession of the DPP prevents them from doing so - ì wonder what that something could be?
Not entirely accurate Mike.
You have in your possesion itemised bills for the two months prior to the murders
Its not the DPP preventing the release of those bills that would in turn PROVE the existence of a later itemised bill (that would prove(or disprove) the alledged phone call) and force the DPPs hand into releasing the Itemised bill for the date of the Murders to prove or disprove one way or another.
In my opinion,if you catch my drift...
-
Of course no one can prove something didn't happen - that is silly. JB needs to prove that it did, and proof of itemised billing such as the July 1985 bill would help him greatly.
Jeremy does not have to prove anything, he does not have to prove something happened, or that it did not happen, the onus to prove anything at all which supports any part of the prosecutions case, rests with the prosecution, and they could not prove that such a call was never made...
-
Jeremy does not have to prove anything, he does not have to prove something happened, or that it did not happen, the onus to prove anything at all which supports any part of the prosecutions case, rests with the prosecution, and they could not prove that such a call was never made...
On the contrary, the onus is very much on Jeremy to prove his innocence. I'd also suggest that he is not without a considerable incentive to do so.
The main issue here, is that you have claimed (falsely in my opinion) that you have itemised bills for the months prior to August 1985, which would therefore prove that itemised billing was available and did exist.
The reason why nobody believes you, is that after many challenges to do so, you have failed to post the bills on the forum, personally I can't understand why you would be reluctant to do so, there would be no downside for you, you would obtain considerable attention and support if you were able to produce them.
As alluded to above, I believe that the reason you have not posted them, is because they do not exist. I think that is a commonly held belief, even amongst those who do buy into the belief that Jeremy is innocent.
-
Yes Bridget it is silly to expect somebody to prove a thing did not happen prove it did.
-
Yes Bridget it is silly to expect somebody to prove a thing did not happen prove it did.
Prove what did? :)
-
Bridget you little tinker it is better to prove something happened than prove it did not happen can you understand what I am trying to say I can,t silly me.
-
Prove what did? :)
Exactly!!! ;D
-
Newchilled out Hartley My sentiments exactly.
-
Jeremy does not have to prove anything, he does not have to prove something happened, or that it did not happen, the onus to prove anything at all which supports any part of the prosecutions case, rests with the prosecution, and they could not prove that such a call was never made...
yes Mike,ridiculous but true
JB doesnt have to prove a thing
he can stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure for as long as he wants...
-
yes Mike,ridiculous but true
JB doesnt have to prove a thing
he can stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure for as long as he wants...
but contrary to your bleetings, I do not think he will be in prison much longer, I think he will get out...
-
but contrary to your bleetings, I do not think he will be in prison much longer, I think he will get out...
today,tommorow,sometime,never...
the choice seems to be yours Mike.
-
Hi NewChilledOutHartley - I agree totally with your comments. :)
-
today,tommorow,sometime,never...
the choice seems to be yours Mike.
Wait and see...
-
Wait and see...
thats the problem
all waiting and no see-ing... ;)
-
Hi NewChilledOutHartley - I agree totally with your comments. :)
whereas...
I completely disagree, there was no evidence to back up anything you say about this matter during the trial or any subsequent appeal it is all speculation on your part, I am afraid...
Point me in the direction of any relevant exhibit containing any evidence to support your view...
-
Mike your post doesn't make any sense, the post below is what is being agreed with by Gillian.
Nice try at deflection though. ::)
On the contrary, the onus is very much on Jeremy to prove his innocence. I'd also suggest that he is not without a considerable incentive to do so.
The main issue here, is that you have claimed (falsely in my opinion) that you have itemised bills for the months prior to August 1985, which would therefore prove that itemised billing was available and did exist.
The reason why nobody believes you, is that after many challenges to do so, you have failed to post the bills on the forum, personally I can't understand why you would be reluctant to do so, there would be no downside for you, you would obtain considerable attention and support if you were able to produce them.
As alluded to above, I believe that the reason you have not posted them, is because they do not exist. I think that is a commonly held belief, even amongst those who do buy into the belief that Jeremy is innocent.
-
Mike your post doesn't make any sense, the post below is what is being agreed with by Gillian.
Nice try at deflection though. ::)
How do we know whether or not Pamela Boutflour spoke to June Bamber that night at 10pm, if no records exist?
-
Pam Boutflour said she did.
-
whereas...
I completely disagree, there was no evidence to back up anything you say about this matter during the trial or any subsequent appeal it is all speculation on your part, I am afraid...
Point me in the direction of any relevant exhibit containing any evidence to support your view...
This is now simple
Mike,
Point me in the direction of any relevant exhibit containing any evidence to support your view...
The photo or itemised bill should do the trick nicely.....
-
Mike I am sure I read somewhere that BT confirmed that Jeremy had made a call from a telephone box at 5am ish on the 7th Aug?
If they could do that then I am sure they could have tracked a call from WHF that night....I read the history of itemised calls and there was none at that time.....Billing yes, but the bills did not have itemised calls on them.....Not sure about a business line. :)
-
It's quite simple mike.
You claimed you had them, then stalled until after the ccrc decision, now you're stalling again. We are not children. Either put up or admit you don't have them.
Same with your quite ridiculous story about the photo on the bed with one wound. You are treating intelligent people as fools.
-
The telephone information are in a document AD.C.I Ainsley. There must have been a check done to determine that the office telephone was used by an officer of TFG at a particular time.....Which I find strange, because why did they not determine the time Jeremy phoned the police and Julie...Odd.
-
It's quite simple mike.
You claimed you had them, then stalled until after the ccrc decision, now you're stalling again. We are not children. Either put up or admit you don't have them.
Same with your quite ridiculous story about the photo on the bed with one wound. You are treating intelligent people as fools.
Unfortunately we're also treating fools as intelligent people. :-[
-
Mike I am sure I read somewhere that BT confirmed that Jeremy had made a call from a telephone box at 5am ish on the 7th Aug?
If they could do that then I am sure they could have tracked a call from WHF that night....I read the history of itemised calls and there was none at that time.....Billing yes, but the bills did not have itemised calls on them.....Not sure about a business line. :)
I'm not saying you're wrong but the 5 am call has never been in dispute, in fact I think the police drove him to the box. Why would bt be asked to confirm it?
-
It's quite simple mike.
You claimed you had them, then stalled until after the ccrc decision, now you're stalling again. We are not children. Either put up or admit you don't have them.
Same with your quite ridiculous story about the photo on the bed with one wound. You are treating intelligent people as fools.
you are making a fool of yourself, without any help from me...
-
you are making a fool of yourself, without any help from me...
Deja vu? ::)
-
Patti forgive my ignorance but why would Jeremy make a call from a telephone box.
-
you are making a fool of yourself, without any help from me...
Actually I think most people on here would agree with me on this, whatever side of the argument they're on.
Where are they both then?
-
Patti forgive my ignorance but why would Jeremy make a call from a telephone box.
He wanted to call Julie.
-
It's quite simple mike.
You claimed you had them, then stalled until after the ccrc decision, now you're stalling again. We are not children. Either put up or admit you don't have them.
Same with your quite ridiculous story about the photo on the bed with one wound. You are treating intelligent people as fools.
Didn't you suggest you were going to post last night?
-
Mike I am sure I read somewhere that BT confirmed that Jeremy had made a call from a telephone box at 5am ish on the 7th Aug?
If they could do that then I am sure they could have tracked a call from WHF that night....I read the history of itemised calls and there was none at that time.....Billing yes, but the bills did not have itemised calls on them.....Not sure about a business line. :)
The call to Julie in London from the phone box, was long distance (trunk). The phone box would charge as per whether the call was local/ trunk or international. All trunk and international calls could be itemised at the time, but not local calls.
-
The call to Julie in London from the phone box, was long distance (trunk). The phone box would charge as per whether the call was local/ trunk or international. All trunk and international calls could be itemised at the time, but not local calls.
Hi Si :) I think you are right on that.... ;D
-
Hi Si :) I think you are right on that.... ;D
Mmm. Back to local itemissed bills then...
-
Tony, saw there had been a new post in the thread, built myself up to be proved wrong......but it's you!! No itemised bills yet again....
-
Tony, saw there had been a new post in the thread, built myself up to be proved wrong......but it's you!! No itemised bills yet again....
Sorry chap. Try better next time... ;D
-
Do you think we'll ever find out who 'z' is, Tony?
-
Patti forgive my ignorance but why would Jeremy make a call from a telephone box.
Allegedly according to JM's diary it states
'5.40 am - phone - Dougie answered - got me up - Jeremy in call box - "Don't go to work a Panda car will pick you up" - I'll explain when you get home - can't talk now cos I've only 1 10p. Hung up
-
Hi Vidvic - I totally agree with your comments made in post #169. :)
-
Do you think we'll ever find out who 'z' is, Tony?
God only knows (and mike?)
I'm not sure it's a figment of the imaginination,perhaps someone on the periphery,whose involvement and knowledge has been somewhat embellished.
I personally have no axe to grind on that issue, I just object to the obvious bullshit. Im sure it's bullshit.
-
For the attention of all members and visitors:-
Please note that the CCRC decision is not yet final, and as such those who are trying to force my hand because I said I would undertake certain actions once it was given, they should think long and hard about how they are wrongly interpreting what I have been saying...
It's not over yet...
-
No need to remind me, I will be posting it soon, once the CCRC makes its decision (either way)...
So it's now final decision?
When do you anticipate this then Mike?
When you say final is this the final decision that JB is allowed a retrial?
When all avenues are exhausted and he's incarcerated with no further chance of appeal?
Please clarify for us, Lemmings and all...
-
So it's now final decision?
When do you anticipate this then Mike?
When you say final is this the final decision that JB is allowed a retrial?
When all avenues are exhausted and he's incarcerated with no further chance of appeal?
Please clarify for us, Lemmings and all...
Excuse me...
CCRC are currently considering representations made by Jeremy's current legal team about whether or not the case should be referred to the court of appeal, based on the new evidence obtained in Arizona, how do you expect me to anticipate what the CCRC are going to do?
We all know its new evidence and we all know it tends to suggest that a silencer was not used in the shooting of Sheila, now was it unlawful for the CCRC to reject such submissions without seeking to call its own experts to rebutt it?
-
Excuse me...
CCRC are currently considering representations made by Jeremy's current legal team about whether or not the case should be referred to the court of appeal, based on the new evidence obtained in Arizona, how do you expect me to anticipate what the CCRC are going to do?
We all know its new evidence and we all know it tends to suggest that a silencer was not used in the shooting of Sheila, now was it unlawful for the CCRC to reject such submissions without seeking to call its own experts to rebutt it?
maybe i'm being thick here,Im not sure that it should be refered to as "evidence" if it only "tends to suggest" I'd be a lot happier if it "proved",if only beyond a reasonable doubt....
-
So to get this straight.,
You can post hundreds of pages of all manner of documents before now, but the itemised billing being published, would in some way jeopardise the ccrc decision??
-
So to get this straight.,
You can post hundreds of pages of all manner of documents before now, but the itemised billing being published, would in some way jeopardise the ccrc decision??
quite the contrary
it would prove the existence of itemised bills held under pii or whatever.
-
quite the contrary
it would prove the existence of itemised bills held under pii or whatever.
case closed.....
-
case closed.....
itemised bill will prove innocence or guilt,unless a 3rd party was involved,which is another arguement...
-
Something else I don't understand is when mike travelled hundreds of miles to meet Z in different locations, to avoid tracking obviously, Z ended up taking this photo to the CCRC offices in Birmingham. The CCRC, obviously corrupt, did nothing with it, but mike had this photo all along. So isn't z a little pissed off with mike now, as he jeopardised his identity for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Just asking?
-
Something else I don't understand is when mike travelled hundreds of miles to meet Z in different locations, to avoid tracking obviously, Z ended up taking this photo to the CCRC offices in Birmingham. The CCRC, obviously corrupt, did nothing with it, but mike had this photo all along. So isn't z a little pissed off with mike now, as he jeopardised his identity for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Just asking?
Different photograph...
-
Different photograph...
Aaaaah, the make believe one rather than the totally made up one, that makes sense, thank you for the clarification. :P