Jeremy Bamber Forum

JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on December 25, 2013, 01:47:AM

Title: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 25, 2013, 01:47:AM
...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 25, 2013, 01:50:AM
...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 25, 2013, 01:51:AM
...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 25, 2013, 01:52:AM
...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 25, 2013, 01:52:AM
...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 25, 2013, 01:53:AM
...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 25, 2013, 02:05:AM
Imagine, for one moment that the handset of the telephone at the scene had not been replaced upon its cradle, but had simply been placed upon the kitchen worktop?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Alias on December 25, 2013, 02:38:AM
How come Ann Eaton thought Jeremy did it from GET GO? Taking notes from day 1 How does that make sense?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on December 25, 2013, 04:17:PM
How come Ann Eaton thought Jeremy did it from GET GO? Taking notes from day 1 How does that make sense?



Wishful thinking of what lay ahead for them,financially.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Steve_uk on December 25, 2013, 08:17:PM
I don't see the "musical phones" remark attributed by housekeeper Jean Boutell,but given that the telephones were moved around those last few days and also given the disruption to the telephone network by the lightning strike there is still Jeremy's remark to her about the digital telephone in the kitchen not working,when Jean knew full well that that particular telephone had been operational in the days before the murders. One can only surmise that Jeremy had unplugged the kitchen telephone and hidden it under magazines in order to bring down the dial face telephone from the master bedroom so as to deprive his parents of a telephone and lifeline in that room.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on December 25, 2013, 08:25:PM
I don't see the "musical phones" remark attributed by housekeeper Jean Boutell,but given that the telephones were moved around those last few days and also given the disruption to the telephone network by the lightning strike there is still Jeremy's remark to her about the digital telephone in the kitchen not working,when Jean knew full well that that particular telephone had been operational in the days before the murders. One can only surmise that Jeremy had unplugged the kitchen telephone and hidden it under magazines in order to bring down the dial face telephone from the master bedroom so as to deprive his parents of a telephone and lifeline in that room.






Steve,read Jean Boutells' statement,,it's all there about musical phones,because they were shifted around so much.

( Did you enjoy your Christmas dinner ?)
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 08:55:AM
My understanding regarding the digital phone found amongst some magazines in the corner of the kitchen, is that when Jeremy spoke to the house cleaner, and told her that it was "one of ours", that he was referring to it as being a replacement which had recently been given to the Bambers due to the original one being damaged in an earlier lightening strike (I think in July 1985). Jeremy told me, that the digital phone being spoken about, was not the original phone, but a replacement one...

During discussions with him, I gathered that the replacement phone usually fitted in the main kitchen, had been unplugged a day or so before the shootings occurred, as a result of another lightening strike which damaged Ralphs portable phone, which was duly collected by a GPO engineer, without being replaced. From what I could gather, or at least my understanding of the situation, is that the replacement digital phone was unplugged from the kitchen socket merely as a precaution, and put to one side, whilst Ralph / June brought the round finger dial phone downstairs from the bedroom and it was plugged into the kitchen socket.

Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 09:02:AM
My understanding regarding the digital phone found amongst some magazines in the corner of the kitchen, is that when Jeremy spoke to the house cleaner, and told her that it was "one of ours", that he was referring to it as being a replacement which had recently been given to the Bambers due to the original one being damaged in an earlier lightening strike (I think in July 1985). Jeremy told me, that the digital phone being spoken about, was not the original phone, but a replacement one...

During discussions with him, I gathered that the replacement phone usually fitted in the main kitchen, had been unplugged a day or so before the shootings occurred, as a result of another lightening strike which damaged Ralphs portable phone, which was duly collected by a GPO engineer, without being replaced. From what I could gather, or at least my understanding of the situation, is that the replacement digital phone was unplugged from the kitchen socket merely as a precaution, and put to one side, whilst Ralph / June brought the round finger dial phone downstairs from the bedroom and it was plugged into the kitchen socket...

I gathered from my discussions with Jeremy regarding these matters, that the Bambers suspected that the upstairs office and downstairs kitchen socket were vulnerable to the risk of lightning strikes, and this was the reason the round finger dial phone had been brought downstairs, simply because there was less a risk of that phone becoming damaged in the event of a further lightening strike, since very little could go wrong with the round finger phone, such as the plungers on the cradle becoming stuck. Another digital phone normally plugged in at the upstairs office had been damaged, and was the actual phone which got replaced...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 09:19:AM
I also find the following very interesting:-
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 09:23:AM
I also find the following very interesting:-

(See Above)...

Based upon this, and proving the criteria mentioned had been met, Jeremy might have to wait for up to a minute or two after he replaced the handset of his telephone upon its cradle, before being able to make a separate call out using his own phone...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 09:24:AM
Now, also consider this:-
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on December 26, 2013, 09:32:AM
The telephone exchange system wasn't as it is now as I can remember in the 80's. It was slower then to be routed through,even with a 999 call. To try and get an international call was like talking to a sponge.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 09:34:AM
Now, in the context of Jeremy having received the call from his father, which was cut dead (for whatever reason), Jeremy thus attempts to call his father back at the scene, but gets an engaged tone...

He attempts to call his father back, several times...

Each time he attempts to do this, he is met by an engaged tone...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 09:38:AM
Now, in the context of Jeremy having received the call from his father, which was cut dead (for whatever reason), Jeremy thus attempts to call his father back at the scene, but gets an engaged tone...

He attempts to call his father back, several times...

Each time he attempts to do this, he is met by an engaged tone...

Lets say, for example, that Jeremy tried four times to re-establish contact with dad at the scene, does this mean that those attempts resulted in up to 8 minutes of delay, in accordance with the following:-
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 26, 2013, 09:42:AM
The telephone exchange system wasn't as it is now as I can remember in the 80's. It was slower then to be routed through,even with a 999 call. To try and get an international call was like talking to a sponge.
Well it was pre digital lookout so everything was slower but we just accepted it as it was all we knew.  Hard to remember how the whole thing worked tho.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 09:43:AM
The problem I see with this, however, is whether or not, it becomes possible for the phone originally going dead at the point of Ralph making contact with Jeremy at say 3:25am, and the subsequent engaged tone each time Jeremy tried to re-establish contact with dad at the scene, as being part of the same 'force release' period?

If not, then the handset of the telephone at the scene, must have either been replaced upon its cradle, or someone must have depressed the cradle whilst the handset was still off the hook, with the potential for someone at the scene to make a different telephone call before Jeremy attempted to re-establish contact with dad at the scene...

The telephone call to police from the scene, timed at 3:26am, fits the criteria pefectly...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 10:02:AM
What I find to be incredibly significant regarding the content of the 3:26am call to the police from the scene,  is the following:-
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 10:09:AM
A great deal has been made by police, and their supporters, to suggest that the 3;26am log contents, are merely a duplication of Jeremy's call in log 3:36am, and that this has arose because of a discrepancy in the time keeping in different departments at police headquarters, but that explanation is nothing but a blatant lie...

It can be shown to be a lie, because in Jeremy's call to police (see log 3:36am), he never makes any mention of his fathers gun collection of shotguns and .410's...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 10:15:AM
Both logs (3:26 and 3:36am) are inextricably linked to one another, but are not a reference to the same call made by Jeremy to police...

The timing of both individual calls, fit perfectly into the grand scheme of things, proving that there were and must have been two calls made to police, not just one...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 10:17:AM
Both logs (3:26 and 3:36am) are inextricably linked to one another, but are not a reference to the same call made by Jeremy to police...

The timing of both individual calls, fit perfectly into the grand scheme of things, proving that there were and must have been two calls made to police, not just one...

First call (3:26am) made by Ralph from the scene to police, second call made by Jeremy from his cottage to police...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 10:24:AM
First call (3:26am) made by Ralph from the scene to police, second call made by Jeremy from his cottage to police...

In addition to the fact that Jeremy never made any mention to police during his 3:36am call to police from his cottage, about his father having a collection of shotguns and .410's, deployment of the occupants of CA07 to the scene at 3:35am, one minute before Jeremy's call to police was made, also fits in perfectly with them being deployed to the scene at that stage, as a result of Ralph's earlier call. Additionally, an operator was requested at a very earlier stage to check the line by police, who reported back that the phone had been left off the hook...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 10:32:AM
Even more significant...

According to the contents of Jeremy's log (3:36am), the occupants of CA07 are not deployed to the scene in connection with his call, but the occupants of CA05, were...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 10:39:AM
Occupants of CA07 must have been deployed to the scene as a result of Ralph Bambers call (3:26am) from the scene to police, not Jeremy's call (3:36am), arriving there at 3:48am...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 10:43:AM
Occupants of CA05 deployed to scene as a result of Jeremy's 3:36am call to police, arriving there at 4:23am:-
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 10:55:AM
We now know, that the court may have been significantly misled regarding the deployment of the occupants CA07 to the scene, and the suggestion that en route there, they overtook Jeremy in his own car, who was portrayed as slow timing towards the scene...

Yet, if the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the scene as a result of Ralph Bambers call (3:26am) to police, less significance could have been placed upon Bambers behavior, particularly since the occupants of CA05 (who had been deployed to the scene as a result of Jeremys call at 3:36am) did not arrive at the scene, until 4:23am - it makes a big difference being able to accurately work out which police officers were deployed to the scene, since it now becomes clear that when the occupants of CA07 overtook Jeremy en route to the scene, they were not responding to his call to police (3:36am), but they were responding to Ralph Bambers earlier call (3:26am)...

Under these circumstances, the fact that the occupants of CA07 overtook Jeremy in his car en route to the scene, had less of a significance in trying to portray him in a poor light...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 11:04:AM
The thing I can't get my head around is that if the log were written in accordance with ONLY Jeremy's call - why does one state Sheila's age as 27 (Jeremy's call) and the other as 26 (Neville's call)? How could that get lost in translation? It doesn't even sound the same!!


Hi Caroline,

I think this difference could be put down to an operational matter - for example, imagine that Ralph and his family were under a protection program involving special branch, which had been on going for some months, and in those circumstances, Sheila's age may have been recorded as 26 years, from the point when the family fell under the protection scheme. When was it Sheila's birthday? How old was she when she died on 7th August 1985? Alternatively, the age difference may show up because of the different interpretations adopted by Ralph (in his call) and Jeremy (in his call), where Ralph meant that Sheila was in her 27th year, and Jeremy mentioned that she was 26 years on her last birthday...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 11:07:AM


Hi Caroline,

I think this difference could be put down to an operational matter - for example, imagine that Ralph and his family were under a protection program involving special branch, which had been on going for some months, and in those circumstances, Sheila's age may have been recorded as 26 years, from the point when the family fell under the protection scheme. When was it Sheila's birthday? How old was she when she died on 7th August 1985? Alternatively, the age difference may show up because of the different interpretations adopted by Ralph (in his call) and Jeremy (in his call), where Ralph meant that Sheila was in her 27th year, and Jeremy mentioned that she was 26 years on her last birthday...

I agree, that 27 does not remotely sound like 26 years, so there has to be some other explanation for this discrepancy between both logs...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: grahameb on December 26, 2013, 11:09:AM
A great deal has been made by police, and their supporters, to suggest that the 3;26am log contents, are merely a duplication of Jeremy's call in log 3:36am, and that this has arose because of a discrepancy in the time keeping in different departments at police headquarters, but that explanation is nothing but a blatant lie...

[/color=red]It can be shown to be a lie, because in Jeremy's call to police (see log 3:36am), he never makes any mention of his fathers gun collection of shotguns and .410's...[/color]
That is a good point Mike.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 11:10:AM
I agree, that 27 does not remotely sound like 26 years, so there has to be some other explanation for this discrepancy between both logs...

You cannot explain this discrepancy away by claiming its a duplicated record of the same call, recorded separately involving a clock that was 10 minutes fast or slow...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 26, 2013, 11:11:AM

Hi Caroline,
I think this difference could be put down to an operational matter - for example, imagine that Ralph and his family were under a protection program involving special branch, which had been on going for some months, and in those circumstances, Sheila's age may have been recorded as 26 years, from the point when the family fell under the protection scheme. When was it Sheila's birthday? How old was she when she died on 7th August 1985? Alternatively, the age difference may show up because of the different interpretations adopted by Ralph (in his call) and Jeremy (in his call), where Ralph meant that Sheila was in her 27th year, and Jeremy mentioned that she was 26 years on her last birthday...
Or it could simply be that fathers and brothers aren't that hot on remembering birthdays and ages of family members. I know my husband always asks me how old our children are.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 11:21:AM
That is a good point Mike.

Hi Grahame,

There is, however, some evidence that upon arrival of CA07 (3:48am) and Jeremy (3:52am) at the scene, there was some exchange of information regarding Mr Bambers (senior) gun collection of shotguns, and .410's, when PS Bews and PC Myall asked Jeremy who his sister was more likely to be upset at seeing, and to shoot at? This was mentioned to Jeremy by police before Bews / Myall and Jeremy set off to have a look around the perimeter of the farmhouse...

This took place at around 4am...

So, it should be obvious to most that there was a delay of about 24 minutes, before Jeremy made any mention of his fathers gun collection to the occupants of CA07, and that this did not get mentioned by Jeremy until police raised the question at the scene, long after Jeremy himself had made his 3:36am call to police, as per the contents of log 3:36am...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 11:25:AM
Or it could simply be that fathers and brothers aren't that hot on remembering birthdays and ages of family members. I know my husband always asks me how old our children are.

Hi maggie,

another good point, which falls into the melting pot...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 11:28:AM
Hi Grahame,

There is, however, some evidence that upon arrival of CA07 (3:48am) and Jeremy (3:52am) at the scene, there was some exchange of information regarding Mr Bambers (senior) gun collection of shotguns, and .410's, when PS Bews and PC Myall asked Jeremy who his sister was more likely to be upset at seeing, and to shoot at? This was mentioned to Jeremy by police before Bews / Myall and Jeremy set off to have a look around the perimeter of the farmhouse...

This took place at around 4am...

So, it should be obvious to most that there was a delay of about 24 minutes, before Jeremy made any mention of his fathers gun collection to the occupants of CA07, and that this did not get mentioned by Jeremy until police raised the question at the scene, long after Jeremy himself had made his 3:36am call to police, as per the contents of log 3:36am...

Bearing this in mind, why add reference to Mr Bamber (seniors) gun collection of shotguns and .410's, onto the back end of Ralph Bambers 3:26am phone log, but fail to make any mention of it on Jeremy's phone log timed at 3:36am?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 26, 2013, 11:29:AM
Hi maggie,

another good point, which falls into the melting pot...
Yes Mike Sheila was 27, so Neville was on the ball  but makes total sense to me that Jeremy thought she was 26. I would think that was normal for a brother to not quite know his sister's age.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 11:31:AM
Yes Mike Sheila was 27, so Neville was on the ball  but makes total sense to me that Jeremy thought she was 26. I would think that was normal for a brother to not quite know his sister's age.

I agree with that, maggie...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 11:35:AM
Why isn't there any mention of the deployment of occupants CA07 in Jeremy's 3:36am phone log, only Bonnets 3:26am, log?

There are other discrepancies involving the occupants of CA07, which raise suspicion regarding their involvement at the scene...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 11:39:AM
Why isn't there any mention of the deployment of occupants CA07 in Jeremy's 3:36am phone log, only Bonnets 3:26am, log?

There are other discrepancies involving the occupants of CA07, which raise suspicion regarding their involvement at the scene...

CA07 occupants were involved (1) - when mention was made by the raid team, of two bodies having been found upon entry, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female. (2) - Bews and Myall (CA07) were involved in the sighting of the silhouetted figure at the bedroom window, which has subsequently been explained away as having been nothing but a trick of light. Additionally, (3) - PS Saxby (CA07) received a complaint from Jeremy at the scene, at which stage Jeremy accused police of shooting dead all his family, when armed forced their way into the farmhouse...

At 07:38am, CA07 passed the following information to the control room from the scene - so by that / this stage, CA07 occupants were fully aware that two bodies were found upon entry to the premises, not one body, mistakenly identified as one dead male and one dead female...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 11:51:AM
Careful study of the content of the above log, reveals other telling features which cannot easily be ignored - since, far from there having been some sort of a mistake, where police originally saw what was believed to be a dead female behind the door in the kitchen, which turned out to be the body of Ralph Bamber, if that be the case, why do CA07 mention one dead male, before mentioning one dead female, in the message they pass from the scene, to the control room?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 12:04:PM
Even more significantly, is the FACT that at the time the occupants of CA07 were relaying a message from the scene to the control room, that two bodies had been found upon entry to the premises, more precisely, the body of "one dead male, and one dead female,  found upon entry to the premises", Inspector Norman back in the control room was receiving confirmation of the same via the open exchange line from the scene, as evidenced by examination of the police document upon which these details were recorded...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 12:10:PM
So, not only did the occupants of CA07 relay information from the scene at 7:38am, that the raid team had discovered the bodies of a dead male and a dead female upon entry to the premises, but the control room had the benefit of the open exchange line from the kitchen phone at the scene, to confirm that two bodies had been found in that paert of the farmhouse, at the same time as CA07's radio message...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 12:18:PM
I have noted, also, that in neither phone log (3:26 or 3:36am) is there any record of an internal call between PC 1990 and Malcolm Bonnet, having been made, only reference to information being received via the exchange line in one (3:26am), and the exchange line and radio, in the other (3:36am)...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 12:21:PM
I have noted, also, that in neither phone log (3:26 or 3:36am) is there any record of an internal call between PC 1990 and Malcolm Bonnet, having been made, only reference to information being received via the exchange line in one (3:26am), and the exchange line and radio, in the other (3:36am)...

This strongly suggests that one log is not some sort of a duplication of the other, or vice versa, as a result of information passed onto one to another, involving a clock at police head quarters being 10 minutes fast, or slow, but that each of these logs refers to separate calls made and received via the exchange lines from the scene (3;26am), and Jeremy's cottage (3:36am)...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 12:48:PM
Pamela Boutflour witness statement:- (2 pages, undated)...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 26, 2013, 04:05:PM
The problem . . .  engaged tone each time Jeremy tried . . . part of the same 'force release' period?

If not, then the handset of the telephone at the scene must have either been replaced upon its cradle, or someone must have depressed the cradle whilst the handset was still off the hook . . .

The telephone call to police from the scene, timed at 3:26am, fits the criteria pefectly...
A "force-release" might have occurred, but only if Jeremy's description of what he did was inaccurate. He said he tried to dial back after the line went dead, without mentioning delaying for a minute or two. Without that delay, no "force-release" occurred, as Jeremy must have obtained a dial tone in order to dial out and get an engaged tone.

That leaves three possibilities: (1) The call to JB was cut off accidentally, (2) it was cut off deliberately (possibly to allow another call), (3) it was cut off deliberately, but by someone else (such as Sheila) in the same room.

The telephone call to police from the scene, timed at 3:26am, fits the criteria pefectly...
It fits, but doesn't explain why it took 9 minutes to send out a car. That's quite a long time, considering the urgent nature of the call.

. . . in Jeremy's call to police (see log 3:36am), he never makes any mention of his fathers gun collection of shotguns and .410's...
Pc West may not have recorded it, but that doesn't prove Jeremy didn't give him the information, perhaps later on in his call. It would be logical for Pc West to ask JB about this, as a gun had already been mentioned. Did you specifically ask Jeremy (during your discussions with him in prison, or subsequently) whether he told Pc West what weapons were at WHF? If you did, and JB said he couldn't remember doing so, did you then ask him whether he was certain that he hadn't done so?

The timing of both individual calls, fit perfectly into the grand scheme of things, . . .
Not quite. The 3:26 call was logged as coming from "CD (1990)" (Pc West) via exchange line, but Pc West gave JB no indication that he (Pc West) had already received a call about the same matter just 10 minutes earlier. Also, nothing in Pc West's log suggests he had already received a related call, or that MB had told him about a related call (which might reasonably be expected if the 3:26 call went direct to MB, rather than via Pc West, even though MB's log stated it came via Pc West). The 3:36 log mentions two cars (one as a "unit", the other as CA5), but their departure times are given only in MB's log. Even if MB's log is ignored, and JB's dad had called MB direct, one would expect that MB would mention this to Pc West when Pc West spoke to him, so Pc West would still have known about the previous call whilst on the line to JB.

Under these circumstances, the fact that the occupants of CA07 overtook Jeremy in his car en route to the scene, had less of a significance in trying to portray him in a poor light...
Why? There's no obvious connection between the exact departure time of CA07 and whether JB was shown in a poor light. Wasn't it only the suggestion that JB was driving rather slowly that could be taken as portraying him in a poor light?

There is, however, some evidence that upon arrival of CA07 (3:48am) and Jeremy (3:52am) at the scene, . . .
It's unlikely that these times are both correct, as it wouldn't have taken Jeremy four minutes to catch up with the police. I think the later time is just an estimate anyway, as I don't recall that any log records the time when Jeremy arrived. Even if Jeremy arrived at 3:50, he still had just enough time to do so after calling Pc West at 3:36, even if that call lasted 6 minutes. Neither that call's duration nor JB's average speed is known accurately.

Or it could simply be that fathers and brothers aren't that hot on remembering birthdays and ages of family members. I know my husband always asks me how old our children are.
You're right, it's the kind of mistake a 'family member' might make.
I disagree. If JB thought Sheila was 26, that would mean he thought Sheila was only 1 1/2 years older than him. I think it's much more likely that JB simply made a mistake. If JB hasn't yet been asked about this specific point, it's high time he was. Whatever the reason for the error, the different logged ages suggest that two calls to the police occurred.

Why isn't there any mention of the deployment of occupants CA07 in Jeremy's 3:36am phone log, . . .
There is - the log mentions "unit + duty PS" as being sent.

. . .  the control room had the benefit of the open exchange line from the kitchen phone at the scene, to confirm that two bodies had been found . . .
The open exchange line probably wouldn't have helped, as there's nothing to suggest that any comments made at the time regarding how many bodies were found in the kitchen were audible via that line.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 26, 2013, 04:18:PM
I agree Reader, I didn't mean JB  believed Sbeila was younger than she actually was just that he maxe a mistake. Sheila was only just 27 and it was the middle of the night, so understandable mistake to make.imo
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 26, 2013, 04:28:PM
There was a quite lengthy thread about Sheila's birth year - didn't it eventually conclude that Sheila was born in 1957, making both of the above ages incorrect?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 26, 2013, 04:39:PM
There was a quite lengthy thread about Sheila's birth year - didn't it eventually conclude that Sheila was born in 1957, making both of the above ages incorrect?
According to her pm Sheila was born in 1958 Reader . That would make her 27 on 18th july 1985.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: grahameb on December 26, 2013, 04:50:PM
Hi Grahame,

There is, however, some evidence that upon arrival of CA07 (3:48am) and Jeremy (3:52am) at the scene, there was some exchange of information regarding Mr Bambers (senior) gun collection of shotguns, and .410's, when PS Bews and PC Myall asked Jeremy who his sister was more likely to be upset at seeing, and to shoot at? This was mentioned to Jeremy by police before Bews / Myall and Jeremy set off to have a look around the perimeter of the farmhouse...

This took place at around 4am...

So, it should be obvious to most that there was a delay of about 24 minutes, before Jeremy made any mention of his fathers gun collection to the occupants of CA07, and that this did not get mentioned by Jeremy until police raised the question at the scene, long after Jeremy himself had made his 3:36am call to police, as per the contents of log 3:36am...
Yes but the time on the second so called copy was still 3.36 wasn't it? Not 4am.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 26, 2013, 05:01:PM
I gather that 1958 was recorded, maggie, but in the thread I mentioned, the discussion was based on dates recorded at around the time of her birth and adoption.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 05:39:PM
There was a quite lengthy thread about Sheila's birth year - didn't it eventually conclude that Sheila was born in 1957, making both of the above ages incorrect?

Death Certificate provides that Sheila's date of birth was 18th July 1958, making her 27 years of age at the time of her death, on 7th August 1985...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 05:46:PM
A "force-release" might have occurred, but only if Jeremy's description of what he did was inaccurate. He said he tried to dial back after the line went dead, without mentioning delaying for a minute or two. Without that delay, no "force-release" occurred, as Jeremy must have obtained a dial tone in order to dial out and get an engaged tone.

That leaves three possibilities: (1) The call to JB was cut off accidentally, (2) it was cut off deliberately (possibly to allow another call), (3) it was cut off deliberately, but by someone else (such as Sheila) in the same room.


I believe that the phone connection from the scene to Jeremy at his cottage was, (2) it was cut off deliberately (possibly to allow another call), and that the reason why Jeremy's attempt to re-establish contact with his father at the scene, was met with an engaged tone, is because Ralph was speaking to police in accordance with the contents of phone log, 3 ;26am, at that time, or on those occasions...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 05:51:PM

It fits, but doesn't explain why it took 9 minutes to send out a car. That's quite a long time, considering the urgent nature of the call.


If one of the clocks was about 10 minutes faster, or slower than the other, at police headquarters, the delay of 9 minutes we are talking about might be put down to error...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 05:57:PM

Pc West may not have recorded it, but that doesn't prove Jeremy didn't give him the information, perhaps later on in his call. It would be logical for Pc West to ask JB about this, as a gun had already been mentioned. Did you specifically ask Jeremy (during your discussions with him in prison, or subsequently) whether he told Pc West what weapons were at WHF? If you did, and JB said he couldn't remember doing so, did you then ask him whether he was certain that he hadn't done so?


Jeremy says he was never asked by PC West about his fathers gun collection, and he never volunteered any such information to him during his call to police. He was first asked about which type of weapons were present inside the farmhouse by the police he met upon arrival at the scene, and did not provide a comprehensive list of the shotguns, .410's and .22 rifles, until after the arrival of the first group of firearms officers to the scene, until after 5am...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 06:01:PM

Not quite. The 3:26 call was logged as coming from "CD (1990)" (Pc West) via exchange line, but Pc West gave JB no indication that he (Pc West) had already received a call about the same matter just 10 minutes earlier. Also, nothing in Pc West's log suggests he had already received a related call, or that MB had told him about a related call (which might reasonably be expected if the 3:26 call went direct to MB, rather than via Pc West, even though MB's log stated it came via Pc West). The 3:36 log mentions two cars (one as a "unit", the other as CA5), but their departure times are given only in MB's log. Even if MB's log is ignored, and JB's dad had called MB direct, one would expect that MB would mention this to Pc West when Pc West spoke to him, so Pc West would still have known about the previous call whilst on the line to JB.


A call between PC West and MB would have taken place via an 'internal line' connection, not by way of an 'exchange line' ...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 06:15:PM

Why? There's no obvious connection between the exact departure time of CA07 and whether JB was shown in a poor light. Wasn't it only the suggestion that JB was driving rather slowly that could be taken as portraying him in a poor light?


It was suggested during the trial, that the act of overtaking Jeremy by the occupants of CA07 en route to the scene, may be significant in that it showed Jeremy to have been deliberately slow timing with a view to trying to make sure that police arrived at the scene before he did, he knowing that police had already been dispatched to the scene, because he had been told as much by the person who had instructed him to go to the scene, but not to approach the premises until police arrived there. If the contents of both phone logs had been made available to the defense during the trial, otherwise they would have been able to shed some doubt upon whether or not the occupants of CA07 who overtook Jeremy en route to the scene, had been dispatched there as a result of Jeremy's call to police, or as a result of police being made aware of the unfolding drama at the scene from another source. At best, it could only be argued that the occupants of CA05 had been dispatched to the incident as a result of Jeremy's call, and those police officers did not arrive at the scene until 4;23am, or some 35 minutes after Jeremy himself had arrived there (3:48am)...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 06:24:PM

It's unlikely that these times are both correct, as it wouldn't have taken Jeremy four minutes to catch up with the police. I think the later time is just an estimate anyway, as I don't recall that any log records the time when Jeremy arrived. Even if Jeremy arrived at 3:50, he still had just enough time to do so after calling Pc West at 3:36, even if that call lasted 6 minutes. Neither that call's duration nor JB's average speed is known accurately.


It is a fact, that Jeremy phoned the police, that he then left his cottage to go to the scene, that en route to the scene the vehicle which he was traveling in, was overtaken by the occupants of patrol car CA07, and that Jeremy arrived at the scene after CA07 did...

Jeremy was not asked about the type of weapons stored at the farm until after his arrival at the scene, and prior to when  two police officers, and himself, carried out a recce of the farmhouse...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 06:32:PM

There is - the log mentions "unit + duty PS" as being sent.


The unit which was dispatched, clearly being CA05, with inclusion of +duty PS, added later - identity of police officers who travelled to the scene in CA05, may have included a duty PS...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 06:47:PM

The open exchange line probably wouldn't have helped, as there's nothing to suggest that any comments made at the time regarding how many bodies were found in the kitchen were audible via that line.

I should think use of the open exchange line at the scene, was very useful since in order for the occupants of CA07 to be able to relay information from inside the premises to them outside, the raid team would have to relay that information upon coming across the two bodies in the region of the kitchen - these radio messages would be audible enough to be picked by the phone off the hook, since the kitchen at whf was not overly large, I should therefore think staff who were monitoring the open exchange line from the scene at the time of entry could easily hear what was being spoken about by the raid team as they stumbled upon both bodies. A dog could be heard to be barking via the exchange line, and in one of the logs it makes mention of voices being overheard when police forcefully entered the premises...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 26, 2013, 07:09:PM
If, as you've suggested separately, the police had difficulty entering the kitchen and the first officer to do so found Sheila very much alive and shot her, it's quite likely that things were rather chaotic initially, with a deliberately somewhat misleading message eventually being sent back from outside the kitchen, after discussion as to what should be revealed at that stage. If the police knew the telephone line was being monitored, they might have been rather careful about what they said within range of it.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 26, 2013, 09:51:PM
If, as you've suggested separately, the police had difficulty entering the kitchen and the first officer to do so found Sheila very much alive and shot her, it's quite likely that things were rather chaotic initially, with a deliberately somewhat misleading message eventually being sent back from outside the kitchen, after discussion as to what should be revealed at that stage. If the police knew the telephone line was being monitored, they might have been rather careful about what they said within range of it.

You are correct about that / this, the truth of what took place would be recorded on the audio tape as and when it was occurring, but the messages relayed by CA07 to the control room, from the raid team inside the kitchen, would be sent over the radio out of synchronization with what actually took place - despite this overlap, I believe the recording on the audio tape matches the detail eventually recorded in the logs...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: grahameb on December 26, 2013, 10:28:PM
You are correct about that / this, the truth of what took place would be recorded on the audio tape as and when it was occurring, but the messages relayed by CA07 to the control room, from the raid team inside the kitchen, would be sent over the radio out of synchronization with what actually took place - despite this overlap, I believe the recording on the audio tape matches the detail eventually recorded in the logs...
Could be why the tapes have "mysteriously" disappeared. If they were ever played and they did not match up with what were later written in the logs, or that which was said in court there would be an almighty uproar and police heads would roll.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 27, 2013, 02:35:AM
Could be why the tapes have "mysteriously" disappeared. If they were ever played and they did not match up with what were later written in the logs, or that which was said in court there would be an almighty uproar and police heads would roll.

Hi Grahame,

I think there is some truth in what you say...

The claim that the audio tapes upon which the eavesdrop via the line at the scene was obtained had been destroyed after a month, seems too far fetched, particularly when Jeremy had made a very serious complaint upon being told that all his family inside the farmhouse were dead, which caused him to say to PS Saxby, (occupant of CA07) that police must have shot and killed them all when they forced their way in...

Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 27, 2013, 02:38:AM
Hi Grahame,

I think there is some truth in what you say...

The claim that the audio tapes upon which the eavesdrop via the line at the scene was obtained had been destroyed after a month, seems too far fetched, particularly when Jeremy had made a very serious complaint upon being told that all his family inside the farmhouse were dead, which caused him to say to PS Saxby, (occupant of CA07) that police must have shot and killed them all when they forced their way in...

In view of such a serious complaint being made, the audio tape recordings we are speaking about would be the obvious evidence with which to refute such an allegation, so police would hardly seek or allow these to be destroyed, unless of course, there was some truth in what Jeremy had complained about...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 27, 2013, 07:16:AM
The unit which was dispatched, clearly being CA05, with inclusion of +duty PS, added later - identity of police officers who travelled to the scene in CA05, may have included a duty PS...
It's not that clear, as CA05 was sent from a considerable distance (probably Chelmsford), whereas CA07 was based at Witham, so it makes sense for Pc West's log to mention "CW informed" (i.e., Witham informed) and then on the same line state that a car has been despatched. The log doesn't say that Pc West arranged for that car to be sent. On a separate line, the log continues "CA05 to scene" (misspelt), but it doesn't clarify who sent CA05 and this line needn't be regarded as merely a continuation of the previous line. Let's consider a possible scenario...

Imagine that you are MB, working at HQIR in Chelmsford. You have received a call regarding (or possibly from) Mr Bamber at WHF, saying his daughter has gone beserk, etc. You spend several minutes dealing with this, including contacting Witham to have car CA7 sent to WHF at 3:35. A minute later, possibly whilst you're still filling in your log, Pc 1990 (i.e. Pc West) calls you to say Jeremy Bamber has just called in about his father at WHF. The logical immediate response would be to tell Pc 1990 that you've only just been in touch with Witham and a patrol car has already been sent to WHF. Because of the second call, and while Pc West is still on the line, a second car, CA05, is also sent (even though it's not near WHF and will take ages to arrive). In this way, both MB and Pc West know about both cars, allowing both MB and Pc West to log the dispatch of both cars.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 27, 2013, 09:12:AM
In view of such a serious complaint being made, the audio tape recordings we are speaking about would be the obvious evidence with which to refute such an allegation, so police would hardly seek or allow these to be destroyed, unless of course, there was some truth in what Jeremy had complained about...

The truth which must have been recorded on the audio tape from the eavesdrop, must have got some information concerning what bodies, or body was found, when the raid team first entered the kitchen - audio evidence which supports either the account given in the police logs, or the other version produced by way of police witness statements. In those circumstances, police would not destroy the evidence on the audio tapes obtained as a result of the eavesdrop. In particular, we have that message, timed at 07:38am, passed to Inspector Norman from the occupants of CA07 at the scene, who in turn are relaying  messages passed at the scene by the raid team who have just entered the kitchen, messages which are being passed from the raid team in house, to the control room in a nearby outbuilding, which clearly refers to the discovery of one dead male, and one dead female found upon entry to the kitchen. At this stage, the raid team must have passed such a message from within the scene to the PS Adams who was located at the forward control point in a nearby outbuilding. The occupants of CA07 must have been privy to those messages, and as a result CA07 contacted the control room (Inspector Norman) to inform him that two dead bodies had been found, in particular, the body of one dead male, and one dead female. It must be clear to everyone by that stage, that there had been two bodies downstairs in the kitchen, and that several different people, some at the scene, others in the control room, and perhaps others elsewhere, that there was two bodies downstairs in the kitchen at the scene by 7.38am, at that time...

Furthermore...

Staff in the control room also had the benefit of the eavesdrop via the open telephone link through the kitchen telephone, with its handset off the hook...

It is recorded in one of the police logs, that at the time of entry into the premises, that five loud knocks could be heard, and the sound of voices. The audio recordings which existed covering this period was crucial in helping to determine (at a later stage) whether or not the account recorded in police logs regarding the discovery of two bodies in the kitchen upon entry by the raid team, or the other version of events as mentioned in the witness statements given later on by members of the raid team regarding the same entry. Added to this, is the fact that Jeremy Bamber upon being told by police at the scene that everyone inside the farmhouse was dead, accused police of shooting them all when armed officers went in...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 27, 2013, 09:28:AM
The truth which must have been recorded on the audio tape from the eavesdrop, must have got some information concerning what bodies, or body was found, when the raid team first entered the kitchen - audio evidence which supports either the account given in the police logs, or the other version produced by way of police witness statements. In those circumstances, police would not destroy the evidence on the audio tapes obtained as a result of the eavesdrop. In particular, we have that message, timed at 07:38am, passed to Inspector Norman from the occupants of CA07 at the scene, who in turn are relaying  messages passed at the scene by the raid team who have just entered the kitchen, messages which are being passed from the raid team in house, to the control room in a nearby outbuilding, which clearly refers to the discovery of one dead male, and one dead female found upon entry to the kitchen. At this stage, the raid team must have passed such a message from within the scene to the PS Adams who was located at the forward control point in a nearby outbuilding. The occupants of CA07 must have been privy to those messages, and as a result CA07 contacted the control room (Inspector Norman) to inform him that two dead bodies had been found, in particular, the body of one dead male, and one dead female. It must be clear to everyone by that stage, that there had been two bodies downstairs in the kitchen, and that several different people, some at the scene, others in the control room, and perhaps others elsewhere, that there was two bodies downstairs in the kitchen at the scene by 7.38am, at that time...

Furthermore...

Staff in the control room also had the benefit of the eavesdrop via the open telephone link through the kitchen telephone, with its handset off the hook...

It is recorded in one of the police logs, that at the time of entry into the premises, that five loud knocks could be heard, and the sound of voices. The audio recordings which existed covering this period was crucial in helping to determine (at a later stage) whether or not the account recorded in police logs regarding the discovery of two bodies in the kitchen upon entry by the raid team, or the other version of events as mentioned in the witness statements given later on by members of the raid team regarding the same entry. Added to this, is the fact that Jeremy Bamber upon being told by police at the scene that everyone inside the farmhouse was dead, accused police of shooting them all when armed officers went in...

Clearly, the following police log message entries are inextricably linked:-
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 27, 2013, 09:34:AM
Jeremy says he was never asked by PC West about his fathers gun collection, and he never volunteered any such information to him during his call to police.
Pc West testified in court that he asked Jeremy whether either his sister or his father had access to any firearms. Additionally, according to the court transcript, Pc West said "I asked him did anyone have access to any firearms and he told me his father had a collection of .410 12 bore shotguns and .22 rifles." If Jeremy knew that wasn't true, why wasn't it disputed in court?

Pc West went on to say in court "I spoke to an officer on the personal radio link between ourselves and Witham Police Station relayed the message that I had received from Mr. Bamber in order that they could respond to it." This seems to clash with MB's timings. Pc West had already said in court that after listening to Jeremy (and putting him on hold), he needed to speak to HQIR first, to find out which police station covered WHF. It's unlikely that he could have done all this within one minute, yet MB logged that cars were sent at 3:35 and 3:36. MB logged car CA05 as being sent at 3:36, but CA05 almost certainly wasn't controlled from Witham. Possibly, CA05's departure time of 3:36 wasn't revealed at the trial and wasn't known by Jeremy or the defence at the time.

Pc West also testified that he had put Jeremy on hold for about 3 minutes and had then informed Jeremy (who now sounded more concerned) that a unit from Witham was attending. He went on to testify that he told Jeremy "the car from Witham won't take long." This wasn't disputed in court. As car CA05 was not from Witham, and would take a long time to arrive, Pc West must have been talking about car CA07, which had been sent at 3:35, before Jeremy called. Hence Pc West must have known about car CA07 as well as car CA05 by the time he completed his log. He presumably decided it was best not to tell Jeremy that the situation at WHF was already being dealt with before Jeremy had called. Even if Jeremy's dad never called and Pc West logged 3:36 incorrectly, it's still clear that Pc West knew about both cars before completing his log, because he wrote CA05 in his log, but testified that he told Jeremy that a car from Witham "won't take long", which must have been a reference to car CA07.

That's why I find that it's both plausible and likely that Pc West's log refers to both car CA07 and car CA05.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 27, 2013, 09:51:AM
Pc West testified in court that he asked Jeremy whether either his sister or his father had access to any firearms. Additionally, according to the court transcript, Pc West said "I asked him did anyone have access to any firearms and he told me his father had a collection of .410 12 bore shotguns and .22 rifles." If Jeremy knew that wasn't true, why wasn't it disputed in court?


It is truly amazing that PC West did not record any of this in his phone log (3.36am):-
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 27, 2013, 09:55:AM
Yet...

It gets mentioned in Malcolm Bonnets log (3:26am):-
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 27, 2013, 09:57:AM
Where is it recorded, or when was PC West supposed to have relayed to MB the fact that Jeremy had spoken to PC West about his fathers collection of 12 bores and .410's?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 27, 2013, 10:01:AM
Where is it recorded, or when was PC West supposed to have relayed to MB the fact that Jeremy had spoken to PC West about his fathers collection of 12 bores and .410's?

The contents of both police logs (3:36 and 3:26am) do not match up, and cannot be shown to be a true record of Jeremy's call to police, albeit relayed from West to Bonnet. How strange, that although West received Jeremys call, which he supposedly relayed to MB, that the timing of PC Wests log (3:36am) occurs after MB's log (3:26am)?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 27, 2013, 10:22:AM
The contents of both police logs (3:36 and 3:26am) do not match up, and cannot be shown to be a true record of Jeremy's call to police, albeit relayed from West to Bonnet. How strange, that although West received Jeremys call, which he supposedly relayed to MB, that the timing of PC Wests log (3:36am) occurs after MB's log (3:26am)?

More importantly...

The contents of this log, appear to be timed wrongly, and details about the BEWS, Myall and Bamber recce of the house omitted altogether. Additionally, contents recorded on the reverse of front page (3:36am) log, not on a proper form designed to record such details - producing grounds for suspecting that these details may have been re-written, and the original form containing the original details including details about the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window, deliberately withheld...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 27, 2013, 06:31:PM
Additionally, contents recorded on the reverse of front page (3:36am) log, not on a proper form designed to record such details - producing grounds for suspecting that these details may have been re-written, and the original form containing the original details including details about the sighting of the figure at the bedroom window, deliberately withheld...
Mentioning these logs together tends to confuse, as it takes careful reading to realize that the only connection between them that you are suggesting is that both may have been rewritten, with the originals being withheld, thereby remaining secret.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 27, 2013, 07:07:PM
Mentioning these logs together tends to confuse, as it takes careful reading to realize that the only connection between them that you are suggesting is that both may have been rewritten, with the originals being withheld, thereby remaining secret.
I find this explanation from the Official Website, along with the video explain things quite clearly.

http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/nevill-s-call-to-police
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 27, 2013, 07:49:PM
I find this explanation from the Official Website, along with the video explain things quite clearly.
Unfortunately, the official website's version is not believable. For example, Pc West asked for, and obtained, in court a copy of his log. Using that log, he confirmed in court that his log gives Sheila's age as 27 (in response to a specific question by the defence). If Malcolm Bonnett's log had been produced in the trial (or seen by the defence), the judge and jury would have had access to it. Also, the defence would have noticed that it gives Sheila's age as 26.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 27, 2013, 09:03:PM
Where is it recorded, or when was PC West supposed to have relayed to MB the fact that Jeremy had spoken to PC West about his fathers collection of 12 bores and .410's?
The form Pc West used features a box that contains 7 options for the information source: 999 (even though 999 calls were routed to HQIR, not the room at Chelmsford police station where Pc West worked), Internal Line, Exchange Line, Direct Alarm, Radio, Verbal Report, and Officer's Report.

In contrast, the form that Malcom Bonnett used features a box that contains only 4 options for the information source: 999, Exchange Line, Radio, and Private Wire.

If Pc West used an internal line to contact MB, MB had no "Internal Line" option to circle on his form. The fact that MB circled "Exchange Line" is therefore not significant.

MB's log states "Message passed to CD by the son of Mr Bamber, after the phone went dead. Mr Bamber has a collection of shotguns and ·410's. As CD refers to the control room at Chelmsford police station, not HQIR (where radio reports from WHF were received), this effectively asserts that the information was passed via Pc West. However, there's no indication as to when this occurred. In contrast, Pc West said at JB's trial (according to the court transcript) "I asked him did anyone have access to any firearms and he told me his father had a collection of .410 12 bore shotguns and .22 rifles."
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: curiousessex on December 27, 2013, 10:01:PM
After 03.50am and when Jeremy had arrived at White House Farm on the morning of 7th August 1985 Jeremy was specifically asked why he had not dialled 999, Jeremy said he did not think it would make any difference to the time it would have taken for the police to arrive.

When Jeremy received an alleged telephone call from Nevill on the morning of 7th August 1985 Jeremy says the line when dead, he tried to call his father back immediately and he had used the memory redial facility on his telephone. Jeremy says he repeatedly got the engaged tone when trying to ring Nevill back.

It later transpires that Jeremy had received an alleged telephone call from Nevill and then Jeremy decides to ring Julie at between 02.58 am and 03.12 am before ringing the police. Jeremy confirms it was only later he rings the police but not by dialling 999 but by having looked up the telephone number for Chelmsford Police.

Why would Jeremy detail, at just after 03.50 am that the reason he had not dialled 999 was because he did not think it would make any difference to the time it would have taken for the police to arrive yet within the previous 60 minutes Jeremy's actions were making a significant difference to the time it would take the police to arrive at White House Farm?

Was Jeremy trying to hide something?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: grahameb on December 27, 2013, 10:41:PM
After 03.50am and when Jeremy had arrived at White House Farm on the morning of 7th August 1985 Jeremy was specifically asked why he had not dialled 999, Jeremy said he did not think it would make any difference to the time it would have taken for the police to arrive.

When Jeremy received an alleged telephone call from Nevill on the morning of 7th August 1985 Jeremy says the line when dead, he tried to call his father back immediately and he had used the memory redial facility on his telephone. Jeremy says he repeatedly got the engaged tone when trying to ring Nevill back.

It later transpires that Jeremy had received an alleged telephone call from Nevill and then Jeremy decides to ring Julie at between 02.58 am and 03.12 am before ringing the police. Jeremy confirms it was only later he rings the police but not by dialling 999 but by having looked up the telephone number for Chelmsford Police.

Why would Jeremy detail, at just after 03.50 am that the reason he had not dialled 999 was because he did not think it would make any difference to the time it would have taken for the police to arrive yet within the previous 60 minutes Jeremy's actions were making a significant difference to the time it would take the police to arrive at White House Farm?

Was Jeremy trying to hide something?
(1) Do you have any idea what he was hiding? (2) Do you think it would have made any difference if he had dialed 999? (3) Is all this business about not dialing 999 just a red herring?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: curiousessex on December 27, 2013, 10:54:PM
(1) Do you have any idea what he was hiding? (2) Do you think it would have made any difference if he had dialed 999? (3) Is all this business about not dialing 999 just a red herring?

(1) Maybe the truth
(2) Ringing Julie before the police when having just received an alleged telephone call from a father who sounded terrified will make a difference to the time the police arrive.
(3) In the face of an unexpected emergency I would say most people would instinctively dial 999 as opposed to getting the telephone directory and then looking up the telephone number of a particular police station so contact with the police can be made. The process of looking up the required telephone number as opposed to just dialing 999 will make a difference to the time the police arrive.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: grahameb on December 28, 2013, 10:23:AM
(1) Maybe the truth
(2) Ringing Julie before the police when having just received an alleged telephone call from a father who sounded terrified will make a difference to the time the police arrive.
(3) In the face of an unexpected emergency I would say most people would instinctively dial 999 as opposed to getting the telephone directory and then looking up the telephone number of a particular police station so contact with the police can be made. The process of looking up the required telephone number as opposed to just dialing 999 will make a difference to the time the police arrive.
Bearing that in mind. That dialing 999 would make a difference to the time the police arrived: (1) What difference would it had made how fast the police arrived seeing he's already killed the whole family? (2) Why then was he travelling so slowly (according to the police) if he didn't expect the police to arrive very quickly. He could have just started out later? I admit that if that was any of my family I would have dialed 999. In fact I found myself watching a break-in once and I immediately dialed 999 and not the other none critical emergency number. It was nothing serious. It was just kids breaking into an old derelict house. So I didn't think it warrented a full blown 999 call. But for the life of me I couldn't think of the other number. The police turned up about half hour later anyway. ::)
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 10:29:AM
Morning Grahame

had Jeremy Bamber been guilty of murdering his entire family why invent any phone calls at all.  He would have had time to clean himself up and get rid of anything that would incriminate him and wait in his bed for somebody to contact him.  Had the phone calls not happened which I think they did what did he achieve by making all this up as it seems this is the most incrimating evidence against him according to posters who think he is guilty.  Just does not make sense to me or ring true.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: grahameb on December 28, 2013, 10:31:AM
Morning Grahame

had Jeremy Bamber been guilty of murdering his entire family why invent any phone calls at all.  He would have had time to clean himself up and get rid of anything that would incriminate him and wait in his bed for somebody to contact him.  Had the phone calls not happened which I think they did what did he achieve by making all this up as it seems this is the most incrimating evidence against him according to posters who think he is guilty.  Just does not make sense to me or ring true.
Presicely my view Susan. The phone call is superfluous. Why make it if it was true?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 10:48:AM
Grahame  I have put this to the guilty posters and they have said he made it up to give himself an alibi which really is quite laughable if it was not such a sad tragic incident :( the phone calls happened and I suspect somewhere the proof is there. The guilty supporters really don't have much to argue about other than the phone calls his behaviour after and before the funerals if he cried it was crocodile tears if he smiled he was wrong he could not win :(Had I committed these horrendous murders I would have left the  scene and made sure I left NOTHING behind to incriminate me gone home to bed and waited to be contacted failing that arrived at the farm next morning as per usual  and discover the horrendous scene.  I am sure Adam will be waiting in the wings to attack me and my post ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 28, 2013, 12:07:PM
And why would Bonnet choose to paraphrase instead of just writing what West told him? More to the point, why didn't anyone ask him?

Good point, Caroline...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: tyler on December 28, 2013, 12:58:PM
I can see the guilters point as to why JB would make up a telephone call as an alibi of sorts. It could have been the start of setting the scene that Sheila was responsible. However,this,to me,all falls flat where Bews states that JB wanted the police to enter the farmhouse straight away. Obviously if they had of done (and victims were all dead) time of death would have been established and it would have been game over for a 'guilty' JB. Jeremy cannot take the blame for the raid team taking 'hours' to enter the farmhouse. If all was quiet,no movement etc,they would have gone in as soon as it was light (as planned). EP believed it was a hostage situation. Something must have led them to believe that this was case,hence the loudspeaker attempts,back up raid team summoned etc?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jan on December 28, 2013, 01:30:PM
I can see the guilters point as to why JB would make up a telephone call as an alibi of sorts. It could have been the start of setting the scene that Sheila was responsible. However,this,to me,all falls flat where Bews states that JB wanted the police to enter the farmhouse straight away. Obviously if they had of done (and victims were all dead) time of death would have been established and it would have been game over for a 'guilty' JB. Jeremy cannot take the blame for the raid team taking 'hours' to enter the farmhouse. If all was quiet,no movement etc,they would have gone in as soon as it was light (as planned). EP believed it was a hostage situation. Something must have led them to believe that this was case,hence the loudspeaker attempts,back up raid team summoned etc?

this is a very good point - there was no way he could have known the police would wait for hours - even though he mentioned the guns - they could have back up there straight away and gone in to try and rescue the poor children. Because whatever the scenario they would not have KNOWN that they were dead.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 01:48:PM
this is a very good point - there was no way he could have known the police would wait for hours - even though he mentioned the guns - they could have back up there straight away and gone in to try and rescue the poor children. Because whatever the scenario they would not have KNOWN that they were dead.



Jansus, this is a point I've raised numerous times when "guilters" insist that Jeremy "kept" the police, ALL who were there, from entering by telling them stories of "nutters" with guns. They credit him with being an all powerful orator along the lines of Churchill when it suits their purpose.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 01:53:PM
this is a very good point - there was no way he could have known the police would wait for hours - even though he mentioned the guns - they could have back up there straight away and gone in to try and rescue the poor children. Because whatever the scenario they would not have KNOWN that they were dead.
Absolutely, tyler/jansus the guilter's have strange reasoning, how could Jeremy have had the slightest idea when the police would enter WHF.  I understand the point about the phone call and the alibi but it falls down as why would he draw so much attention to himself.  If he wanted to keep them out of WHF surely the thing to do would be to keep quiet til the morning, the only way he could have been sure the time of death would not be significant.  As it was it made no difference as the police CHOSE not to enter til morning. 
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 02:08:PM
Absolutely, tyler/jansus the guilter's have strange reasoning, how could Jeremy have had the slightest idea when the police would enter WHF.  I understand the point about the phone call and the alibi but it falls down as why would he draw so much attention to himself.  If he wanted to keep them out of WHF surely the thing to do would be to keep quiet til the morning, the only way he could have been sure the time of death would not be significant.  As it was it made no difference as the police CHOSE not to enter til morning.



Yes Maggie, what better way of ensuring that the police didn't go IN to the house than by making certain they didn't go TO the house.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 02:09:PM
Exactly. It was silly making up this alibi.

He probably would not have heard the downstairs phone. If he did he would not have answered it within three to five rings meaning Neville would have left a message saying 'come quickly, Sheila has gone crazy & she's got the gun' before being cut off.  Oh sorry I forgot Jeremy turned his answering machine off that night.



Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 02:15:PM
Hello  Adam How do you know Jeremy turned his answering machine off that night and how do you know his answering machine did not have a message on from Ralph Bamber the police removed it for examination ;) ;) ;) Adam I am not saying this happened I am saying this could have happened ;D  Keep an open mind Adam.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 02:16:PM
Do not see what difference it makes whether the police entered WHF straight away or not. Everyone was dead.

For Jeremy I suppose the longer it lasted, the better. He could play the worried son & spend longer implicating his 'nutter' sister. The more dramatic it is, raid team etc, the more it looks like there is someone dangerous inside. Jeremy himself claimed he saw movement inside, or was that Bews ? Either way it was agreed it was a trick of the light.

If Jeremy was planning this, he would know that the police would get the raid team in when there is a gun/hostage situation. Meaning a long delay while Jeremy was innocently outside WHF with the police.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 02:18:PM
Hello Maggie/april  I still cannot accept Jeremy would have made up this story of the phones calls reasons being too risky and don't think Jeremy had the type of brain that could think of this.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 02:25:PM
If someone like Barbara Wilson had found the bodies, Jeremy would still be a suspect.

He would still have no alibi & a motive. The relatives would still not believe it & Jeremy would still have told Mugford the same things & reacted with indifference. Sheila would have still been shot twice & Neville would be lying in the kitchen after putting up a fight for life.

Getting a call from Neville gives him alibi which cannot be disproved. Sadly it cannot be proved either.

Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 02:26:PM
Exactly. It was silly making up this alibi.

He probably would not have heard the downstairs phone. If he did he would not have answered it within three to five rings meaning Neville would have left a message saying 'come quickly, Sheila has gone crazy & she's got the gun' before being cut off.  Oh sorry I forgot Jeremy turned his answering machine off that night.
Hi Adam, have you figured out why Sheila's age was different on each of the logs?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 02:32:PM
If someone like Barbara Wilson had found the bodies, Jeremy would still be a suspect.

He would still have no alibi & a motive. The relatives would still not believe it & Jeremy would still have told Mugford the same things & reacted with indifference. Sheila would have still been shot twice & Neville would be lying in the kitchen after putting up a fight for life.

Getting a call from Neville gives him alibi which cannot be disproved. Sadly it cannot be proved either.
Hi Adam, Brett Collins who was very close to Jeremy after the murders stated that Jeremy was in a bad way, just because he didn't wear sackcloth and ashes does not mean he wasn't in shock. You have no idea how Jeremy was after the murders as you weren't there and Brett was.  Someone I know lost a close relative to suicide about a week before Christmas  but she was out partying over Christmas and being seen to be having a good time.  Shock causes different reactions at different times to different people.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 02:37:PM
The phone call from Neville rounds the potential suspects down to two.

However if Jeremy had not phoned the police, there would only be three realistic suspects. Sheila & Jeremy being the main ones.

Jeremy would be a suspect for the reasons just mentioned.

No one would think it was some random stranger. Why would a random stranger break in, massacre everyone and not take anything ?  Then leave by shutting the kitchen window behind him. Why would a stranger leave the gun by Sheila ?

The third  suspect would be the person who found the bodies. Barbara Wilson perhaps ? !

Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: grahameb on December 28, 2013, 02:37:PM
Grahame  I have put this to the guilty posters and they have said he made it up to give himself an alibi which really is quite laughable if it was not such a sad tragic incident :( the phone calls happened and I suspect somewhere the proof is there. The guilty supporters really don't have much to argue about other than the phone calls his behaviour after and before the funerals if he cried it was crocodile tears if he smiled he was wrong he could not win :(Had I committed these horrendous murders I would have left the  scene and made sure I left NOTHING behind to incriminate me gone home to bed and waited to be contacted failing that arrived at the farm next morning as per usual  and discover the horrendous scene.  I am sure Adam will be waiting in the wings to attack me and my post ;D ;D ;D
Well it clearly was not an alibi was it. If anyone believes that then they are greater fools than I thought they were. ::) In fact it would have been a greater alibi if he had NOT phoned. How stupid can guilters be? So blined by their scenarios that they cannot look at things logically. And they call Bamber intelligent and then foolish. A contradiction in terms.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 02:43:PM
Adam how do you know everyone was dead when Jeremy arrived at WHF with the police were you present.  I think you will find that was not the case and time may answer the question.  You make such bold statements black or white with you Adam no grey area ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 02:47:PM
The phone call from Neville rounds the potential suspects down to two.

However if Jeremy had not phoned the police, there would only be three realistic suspects. Sheila & Jeremy being the main ones.

Jeremy would be a suspect for the reasons just mentioned.

No one would think it was some random stranger. Why would a random stranger break in, massacre everyone and not take anything ?  Then leave by shutting the kitchen window behind him. Why would a stranger leave the gun by Sheila ?

The third  suspect would be the person who found the bodies. Barbara Wilson perhaps ? !
Why do the two phone logs, one supposed to be a copy of another give Sheila different ages?  Do you have a theory on that Adam?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 02:48:PM
Well it clearly was not an alibi was it. If anyone believes that then they are greater fools than I thought they were. ::) In fact it would have been a greater alibi if he had NOT phoned. How stupid can guilters be? So blined by their scenarios that they cannot look at things logically. And they call Bamber intelligent and then foolish. A contradiction in terms.
Pretty poor alibi which puts you slap bang in the frame imo. ;)
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 02:49:PM
Hi Grahame  I agree with you the phone calls seemed to have incriminated Jeremy more than given him an alibi.  Lets have the truth about these phone calls as I suspect unto now we have not had it. :'(
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 02:53:PM
Adam how do you know everyone was dead when Jeremy arrived at WHF with the police were you present.  I think you will find that was not the case and time may answer the question.  You make such bold statements black or white with you Adam no grey area ;D

Sorry Crispy was still alive. Jeremy when asked by Jones on the night whether he wanted to take the dog said -

'You must be joking, I won't have that animal near my house, damaging all my stereo equipment. Get rid of it. Have it put down . I hate the fucking thing'.

Jones was surprised at Jeremys response.

Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 02:56:PM
Hi Grahame  I agree with you the phone calls seemed to have incriminated Jeremy more than given him an alibi.  Lets have the truth about these phone calls as I suspect unto now we have not had it. :'(
As far as I can see, Jeremy did put himself centre stage by claiming there was a phone call which couldn't be proven.  If it was him who committed the murders he would not have done that, am pretty sure. 
If you had just killed 5 people including 2 young nephews and you were even half human you would need time to clean up gather your wits, calm down, maybe eat and have a sleep.  You would NOT surely dash home, half clean up, ring the police and present yourself back at WHF cool as a cucumber in double quick time.  It's a crazy idea and almost impossible imo.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 02:57:PM
Adam I agree Julie would not have been happy if Jeremy's equipment had been damaged ;D Ann did not want the poor old dog and Jeremy asked her if she would take it to the Vet and have the doggie put to sleep and that is all Crispy must have been fit for as a Vet would not have given the injection. Jeremy and Crispy were not the best of buddies at least he told the truth.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 03:01:PM
Hello Maggie I agree too ridiculous to even contemplate Jeremy making up such a story about phone calls he did not have the cunning for this kind of thinking.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 03:01:PM
Overall, the phone call from Neville is not a bad idea.

It created several hours of mayhem outside WHF where Sheila apparently had the gun & was still alive, or had killed everyone. Once the raid team enter the house, what do they see ? A dead Sheila with a gun by her !

The police knew nothing about Jeremy.  They believed Jeremys father would phone him if Jeremys own sister was going crazy. Why would Jeremy lie ?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 03:05:PM
As far as I can see, Jeremy did put himself centre stage by claiming there was a phone call which couldn't be proven.  If it was him who committed the murders he would not have done that, am pretty sure. 
If you had just killed 5 people including 2 young nephews and you were even half human you would need time to clean up gather your wits, calm down, maybe eat and have a sleep.  You would NOT surely dash home, half clean up, ring the police and present yourself back at WHF cool as a cucumber in double quick time.  It's a crazy idea and almost impossible imo.

He did have time to clean up. And phone Mugford.

Eat & have a sleep ? He would be much too focused to do that.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 03:06:PM
Sorry Crispy was still alive. Jeremy when asked by Jones on the night whether he wanted to take the dog said -

'You must be joking, I won't have that animal near my house, damaging all my stereo equipment. Get rid of it. Have it put down . I hate the fucking thing'.

Jones was surprised at Jeremys response.
Adam Jeremy had just been told that 5 members of his family were dead.  Once again he cannot win as he keeps wandering from your script.  He has every right to say what he wants even if you don't like it.  I believe Ann Eaton didn't want poor old Crispy anyway and she had him put down.

You still haven't answered the question about the discrepancies about the two logs.  Any ideas.  You seem to be so sure of everything else, you are very quiet about this  ;D ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 03:08:PM
Adam I agree Julie would not have been happy if Jeremy's equipment had been damaged ;D Ann did not want the poor old dog and Jeremy asked her if she would take it to the Vet and have the doggie put to sleep and that is all Crispy must have been fit for as a Vet would not have given the injection. Jeremy and Crispy were not the best of buddies at least he told the truth.

So Julie indirectly takes the blame for Crispy's death ?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 03:12:PM
Adam I am very surprised at Jeremy's response imagine swearing like that to a police officer what is the world coming to. ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 03:13:PM
Adam Jeremy had just been told that 5 members of his family were dead.  Once again he cannot win as he keeps wandering from your script.  He has every right to say what he wants even if you don't like it.  I believe Ann Eaton didn't want poor old Crispy anyway and she had him put down.

You still haven't answered the question about the discrepancies about the two logs.  Any ideas.  You seem to be so sure of everything else, you are very quiet about this  ;D ;D

I would have thought a mumbled 'yes'or 'no' in between shock & tears would have been more appropriate. Jeremy knew exactly why he did not want Crispy & exactly what could be done with him.

You have asked me this several times & I have answered.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 03:16:PM
I would have thought a mumbled 'yes'or 'no' in between shock & tears would have been more appropriate. Jeremy knew exactly why he did not want Crispy & exactly what could be done with him.

You have asked me this several times & I have answered.
Where's the answer Adam, I seem to have missed it, sorry  :)
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 03:19:PM
Maybe Neville phoned the police ! And EP are lying when they say they never received a call from Neville.

What is you're explanation ?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 03:20:PM
I would have thought a mumbled 'yes'or 'no' in between shock & tears would have been more appropriate. Jeremy knew exactly why he did not want Crispy & exactly what could be done with him.

You have asked me this several times & I have answered.
You are still writing a script for Jeremy and he just refuses to stick to it which is your proof he's guilty.  You seem to have no idea at all about the different ways traumatised people respond to the sudden violent death of one person never mind all 5 members of your only family.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 03:21:PM
I would have thought a mumbled 'yes'or 'no' in between shock & tears would have been more appropriate. Jeremy knew exactly why he did not want Crispy & exactly what could be done with him.

You have asked me this several times & I have answered.




Frankly Adam, I'm not certain how much joy I would have felt in learning that my whole family was dead and their dog which I'd never liked was being dumped on me.........................however, I find it very strange that Sheila's age was quoted differently on two separate logs. I wonder what answer you can provide for this.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: gringo on December 28, 2013, 03:22:PM
Maybe Neville phoned the police ! And EP are lying when they say they never received a call from Neville.

What is you're explanation ?
But if Nevill called the police then Jeremy is innocent . Have you changed sides ?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 03:25:PM
You are still writing a script for Jeremy and he just refuses to stick to it which is your proof he's guilty.  You seem to have no idea at all about the different ways traumatised people respond to the sudden violent death of one person never mind all 5 members of your only family.

To be fair Jeremy was upset for a few minutes.

Then he drove back to his cottage,  cooked himself a nice brekkie before saying to Jones & Clark, 'Lets get on with it. I am ready to start when you are'.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 03:27:PM
Maybe Neville phoned the police ! And EP are lying when they say they never received a call from Neville.

What is you're explanation ?
That is hardly an answer.  I was asking about the discrepancies in the two ages quoted for Sheila in two logs one of which was supposed to have been copied word for word.
You know what I think, I believe that one of the logs was a report of when Neville phone the police and one was from when Jeremy phoned the police.  Surprisingly Jeremy got Sheila's age correct and unsurprisingly Neville didn't.  It's not unusual for Dads to forget the age of their children and he was in a hurry.  Why don't you watch the video and read about the logs on the Official website.  Then you can maybe form an opinion.  I have given you the link earlier. ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 03:30:PM
To be fair Jeremy was upset for a few minutes.

Then he drove back to his cottage,  cooked himself a nice brekkie before saying to Jones & Clark, 'Lets get on with it. I am ready to start when you are'.



Explain "nice brekkie"
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: gringo on December 28, 2013, 03:33:PM
Maybe Neville phoned the police ! And EP are lying when they say they never received a call from Neville.

What is you're explanation ?
So you're explanation of why the logs differ is that maybe Nevill called EP.
   The rest of the log goes on to state that his daughter has the gun but this doesn't alter your belief that Jeremy is guilty ?
   What you have just offered is not an explanation unless you believe JB innocent .
   Can you give an explanation of the age discrepancy on the logs which doesn't contradict what you are otherwise claiming?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 03:39:PM
That is hardly an answer.  I was asking about the discrepancies in the two ages quoted for Sheila in two logs one of which was supposed to have been copied word for word.
You know what I think, I believe that one of the logs was a report of when Neville phone the police and one was from when Jeremy phoned the police.  Surprisingly Jeremy got Sheila's age correct and unsurprisingly Neville didn't.  It's not unusual for Dads to forget the age of their children and he was in a hurry.  Why don't you watch the video and read about the logs on the Official website.  Then you can maybe form an opinion.  I have given you the link earlier. ;D

I have seen the video.

Discrepancies in logs 28 years old. ... :-\

When the relatives approached the police, why didn't the police tell them Neville had phoned them ? The police believed Jeremy at first.

Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 03:41:PM
I have seen the video.

Discrepancies in logs 28 years old. ... :-\

When the relatives approached the police, why didn't the police tell them Neville had phoned them ? The police believed Jeremy at first.
The discrepancies are between Nevill saying Sheila was 26 and Jeremy saying she was 27, or her age was changed by someone from 27 to 26 on one of the copies ......... why? ....... why?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Patti on December 28, 2013, 03:45:PM
The phone call from Neville rounds the potential suspects down to two.

However if Jeremy had not phoned the police, there would only be three realistic suspects. Sheila & Jeremy being the main ones.

Jeremy would be a suspect for the reasons just mentioned.

No one would think it was some random stranger. Why would a random stranger break in, massacre everyone and not take anything ?  Then leave by shutting the kitchen window behind him. Why would a stranger leave the gun by Sheila ?

The third  suspect would be the person who found the bodies. Barbara Wilson perhaps ? !

I agree and I think most of us agree that it was not a stranger shooting and it was a more intimate/personal killing.

In order to establish what happened you first have to go back and revisit the crime scene; go back to the beginning.  You have to carry out forensics and treat is as a crime scene.  Its so important to gather the correct evidence and its equally important to seal off the area to avoid contamination.

The windows were checked and there is no doubt about that. Taff Jones and a colleague went round the house and all windows and doors were locked from the inside.  A forensic team came in on the 8th and found no evidence to support anyone had entered the house or got out via the windows.  Another forensic team did a further extensive search of the windows September 8th to the 10th and again found nothing.

By late September the pressure was placed on the police by a third party who insisted that Sheila could not have used a rifle and shot her family.

A 3rd extensive examination took place of the windows on the 1st of October where according to Elliott he found a catch in the downstairs bathroom that had been scratched. See his account in the 2002 COA.

Yet, the exhibit was labelled RWC/8 If you look into this you will find that Elliot mislead the COA for he was not the one that had found this catch, Cook found it on the 28th September and had taken the catch from the window and had it labelled RWC/8 So what was Elliott and his team looking at on the 1st of October? 

I find this totally unacceptable that 2 forensic teams failed to establish that the windows had not been used to gain access to the farm and nor did they establish and exit from any window in the house. 

Yet, they knew Jeremy had entered the farm via a window on the 16th of September after the first 2 forensic examinations....So, on the 3rd examination it was established that the downstairs bathroom window had been used.  Of course it had been used, Jeremy left a note on the 16th to BW to ask her to secure the window....The police knew he had gained entry, because at this point he was being watched. 

This is evidence at its best that concludes that the windows at WHF had not been used prior to the murders...No one got in and no one got out of those windows or doors...So there is only one conclusion and that is that whoever pulled the trigger that night was inside the house.   ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: gringo on December 28, 2013, 03:50:PM
I'll take that as a 'no' you can;t think of an alternative so, as gringo has pointed out, that would make Jeremy Innocent?
That is hardly an answer.  I was asking about the discrepancies in the two ages quoted for Sheila in two logs one of which was supposed to have been copied word for word.
You know what I think, I believe that one of the logs was a report of when Neville phone the police and one was from when Jeremy phoned the police.  Surprisingly Jeremy got Sheila's age correct and unsurprisingly Neville didn't.  It's not unusual for Dads to forget the age of their children and he was in a hurry.  Why don't you watch the video and read about the logs on the Official website.  Then you can maybe form an opinion.  I have given you the link earlier. ;D
Looks like we have a new member of the innocent camp.
    We believe that two calls were made to police that night (one from Jeremy and one from Nevill) and Adam agrees. It is also our contention that EP covered up Nevill's call (which would exonerate Jeremy) and again Adam is in agreement.
    However, with a leap of logic unfathomable by reason alone , Adam somehow manages to believe all of the above except for JB's innocence.
    Would you care to expand on the above and enlighten us , Adam? taking care to answer the question asked .
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 03:59:PM
Well of course they are, they can hardly be two weeks old!!

The relatives were 'told' that ALL of the evidence pointed to Sheila.

If you have an alternative explanation of the log discrepancies, we would welcome hearing it??




And whilst you're about it, perhaps you'd also explain "nice brekkie"
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: gringo on December 28, 2013, 04:02:PM
I have seen the video.

Discrepancies in logs 28 years old. ... :-\

When the relatives approached the police, why didn't the police tell them Neville had phoned them ? The police believed Jeremy at first.
If something is covered up then obviously the discrepancies don't come to light until years later . The discrepancies existed at the time but were hidden hence they are now 28 years old, but I fail to see why the age of the logs has any bearing on their validity .
     At what age does evidence become invalidated ?
     How do you know what EP did or didn't tell the relatives ?
     
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: gringo on December 28, 2013, 04:06:PM
Well of course they are, they can hardly be two weeks old!!

The relatives were 'told' that ALL of the evidence pointed to Sheila.

If you have an alternative explanation of the log discrepancies, we would welcome hearing it??
Missed your reply and raised the same point ,Caroline, so Adam can avoid the same point twice now :D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 04:13:PM



And whilst you're about it, perhaps you'd also explain "nice brekkie"

Jeremy annonced he was 'starving' when he arrived back at the cottage. I am sure he was. It had been a long night.

His brekkie was fried bacon, toast & coffee. Mmmm. He of course made the detectives a cuppa. Once the food was safely in his stomach he was ready to tell the detectives all about that 'nutter' Sheila & Nevilles urgent phone call.

The police not believing for one second that Jeremy could, would or did massacre his own family
 
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Patti on December 28, 2013, 04:16:PM
Thinking about it, this is a really good point!! If the call from Nevill never happened, why were they trying to prove how quick you could make the cycle ride from WHF to Goldhanger? If the call didn't take place - what would the point of that have been?

That's a valid point...Just what was the purpose of it?   ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 04:16:PM
Well of course they are, they can hardly be two weeks old!!

The relatives were 'told' that ALL of the evidence pointed to Sheila.

If you have an alternative explanation of the log discrepancies, we would welcome hearing it??

All evidence pointed to Sheila. EP, the DPP, judge, jury, appeal courts & CCRC must have missed something.

The relatives still did not believe did it.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 04:16:PM
Well of course they are, they can hardly be two weeks old!!

The relatives were 'told' that ALL of the evidence pointed to Sheila.

If you have an alternative explanation of the log discrepancies, we would welcome hearing it??
Do you have an alternative explanation, Adam, would be really good to hear it. We have open minds and are willing to consider any alternative theories as to why Sheila's age was changed on the logs. :)
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 04:22:PM
They were trying to prove that the journey could be done in-between the two calls -  then they said there was only ever one call? Why would the question of two calls have been an issue way back then?  ??? ??? ??? ???
Good thought Caroline, I thought the question of Nevill calling the police as well as Jeremy only came to light when the second log was discovered.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 28, 2013, 04:23:PM
The missing sections of the wireless message logs are shown below:-
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 04:24:PM
Jeremy annonced he was 'starving' when he arrived back at the cottage. I am sure he was. It had been a long night.

His brekkie was fried bacon, toast & coffee. Mmmm. He of course made the detectives a cuppa. Once the food was safely in his stomach he was ready to tell the detectives all about that 'nutter' Sheila & Nevilles urgent phone call.

The police not believing for one second that Jeremy could, would or did massacre his own family




I wonder to whom he announced he was "starving." He would hardly have satisfied it with a couple of rashers of bacon and one crust of bread.............................but thanks for your thoughts on which you seem to have expanded the "breakfast" facts in order NOT to fully answer/expand on the log discrepancies OR how you've finally come to accept that Nevill may, after all. have made that call to the police.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Patti on December 28, 2013, 04:27:PM
They were trying to prove that the journey could be done in-between the two calls -  then they said there was only ever one call? Why would the question of two calls have been an issue way back then?  ??? ??? ??? ???

Do you think they were desperate to try and prove that Jeremy could have got back to Goldhanger after the Call from his father?  If so this would mean that the supposed call to Mugford at 3am could never have taken place at the time they told the court? Or am I missing something?  :-\ ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 04:28:PM
Adam you have quoted at least twice now on the forum that Jeremy was worried Crispy would chew his equipment and damage it.  If this had happened Julie would not have been too keen to visit not saying it was her fault at all but Jeremy would have been considering her ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 04:30:PM
My explanation is what I said before.

Jeremy phoned Julie for a chat.

Jeremy dialled Chelmsford police station (it did not occur to him to dial 999). Chelmsford police station was miles away ???

Jeremy told PC West about the 'mysterious' (judges words) phone call Neville had made saying 'come quickly, Sheila has gone crazy & she has got the gun'. Luckily, or unluckily Jeremy had switched off the answering machine, so brave Jeremy could answer the phone &  save the day. Although he wanted the police to pick him up !

PC West phoned Witham police station which was 7 miles nearer. The police like to save time when there are nutters with guns involved.

I assume both West & Bonnett filled out call logs. There are differences. So what ?


Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 04:31:PM
Adam you have quoted at least twice now on the forum that Jeremy was worried Crispy would chew his equipment and damage it.  If this had happened Julie would not have been too keen to visit not saying it was her fault at all but Jeremy would have been considering her ;D ;D ;D ;D

That is it.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 04:33:PM
Adam that is what ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 04:33:PM
Do you think they were desperate to try and prove that Jeremy could have got back to Goldhanger after the Call from his father?  If so this would mean that the supposed call to Mugford at 3am could never have taken place at the time they told the court? Or am I missing something?  :-\ ;D ;D ;D ;D
They may very well have been Patti, makes you think.  I believe they were desperate to pin this on him however they could, also could mean that they knew Mugford's phone call didn't take place at 3pm.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 28, 2013, 04:36:PM
The missing sections of the wireless message log, were covered by the introduction of information re-written on blank pieces of paper, excluding the damning information contained in the original sections of the wireless message log, duly removed:-
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Patti on December 28, 2013, 04:36:PM



I wonder to whom he announced he was "starving." He would hardly have satisfied it with a couple of rashers of bacon and one crust of bread.............................but thanks for your thoughts on which you seem to have expanded the "breakfast" facts in order NOT to fully answer/expand on the log discrepancies OR how you've finally come to accept that Nevill may, after all. have made that call to the police.

Hi Lovely April..:)

I thought it was family and the police that had encouraged Jeremy to eat something.  I think its normal that others will tell you to have something to eat in such tragic circumstances.  I know when my mum died my it was one of the first things my aunt asked me.."Have you eaten" I said no...but she insisted that I must eat....I'm not sure, but I think some people see eating as making things better.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 04:38:PM
My explanation is what I said before.

Jeremy phoned Julie for a chat.

Jeremy dialled Chelmsford police station (it did not occur to him to dial 999). Chelmsford police station was miles away ???

Jeremy told PC West about the 'mysterious' (judges words) phone call Neville had made saying 'come quickly, Sheila has gone crazy & she has got the gun'. Luckily, or unluckily Jeremy had switched off the answering machine, so brave Jeremy could answer the phone &  save the day. Although he wanted the police to pick him up !

PC West phoned Witham police station which was 7 miles nearer. The police like to save time when there are nutters with guns involved.

I assume both West & Bonnett filled out call logs. There are differences. So what ?
So you say 'so what?' to everything that doesn't fit in with your theory do you.
Have you given one thought to the various reasons why there are discrepancies in the 2 police logs.  These logs may get an innocent man out of prison but you just say 'so what?' because it doesn't fit in with your theory of what happened that night.   Do you call that justice Adam?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Patti on December 28, 2013, 04:40:PM
My explanation is what I said before.

Jeremy phoned Julie for a chat.

Jeremy dialled Chelmsford police station (it did not occur to him to dial 999). Chelmsford police station was miles away ???

Jeremy told PC West about the 'mysterious' (judges words) phone call Neville had made saying 'come quickly, Sheila has gone crazy & she has got the gun'. Luckily, or unluckily Jeremy had switched off the answering machine, so brave Jeremy could answer the phone &  save the day. Although he wanted the police to pick him up !

PC West phoned Witham police station which was 7 miles nearer. The police like to save time when there are nutters with guns involved.

I assume both West & Bonnett filled out call logs. There are differences. So what ?

I have often wondered why the word gun and not rifle. :) :) :) :)
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 04:42:PM
If you read my 'Judges possible Curious Coincidences' thread you will see there are a lot of 'curious coincidences' which fit with Jeremy being guilty.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 04:45:PM
Adam read it and don't agree with you at all ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 28, 2013, 04:46:PM
Who deployed the occupants of CA07?

PC West (3:36am), or MB (3:26am)...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 04:48:PM
Adam read it and don't agree with you at all ;D

That is a shame as I thought we were starting to agree with each other.

I just agreed that Jeremy was thinking of Julie when he said 'put it down' when asked about Crispy.

Young love,  :)
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 04:50:PM
Hi Lovely April..:)

I thought it was family and the police that had encouraged Jeremy to eat something.  I think its normal that others will tell you to have something to eat in such tragic circumstances.  I know when my mum died my it was one of the first things my aunt asked me.."Have you eaten" I said no...but she insisted that I must eat....I'm not sure, but I think some people see eating as making things better.... ;D ;D ;D ;D




Patti HI and :-* Something in my mind told me that was how it was. Just shows you that Adam is very practiced in telling lies, doesn't it. He does it with SUCH confidence...................and there was silly me giving him the benefit of the doubt. Tut tut. Smacked wrists for April, eh!
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 04:50:PM
Hi Patti  it is very British in the worst possible circumstances a cup of tea will make it better especially with lots of sugar good for shock. I think people are trying to help and this is the only way they know.  I think Jeremy was given a drop of brandy outside WHF and it made him vomit.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 04:51:PM
I've read it and that has nothing to do with the question you're being asked. YOU SAID the phone call is the mist important aspect. So, you must have an alternative explanation??

I just gave an answer.

Is this all you are going to go on about whenever I post ? Two call logs from two different people in different buildings. Both apparently lying for the last 28 years, along with the rest of the EP.

Seems you & Jeremy are going for the technicality. Good luck.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 04:54:PM



Patti HI and :-* Something in my mind told me that was how it was. Just shows you that Adam is very practiced in telling lies, doesn't it. He does it with SUCH confidence...................and there was silly me giving him the benefit of the doubt. Tut tut. Smacked wrists for April, eh!

Why would I come on a forum & tell lies.

I discuss the facts, give opinions, create scenarios & give information (rather than telling people to research it themselves).

The facts are there, Jeremy has been in prison for 28 years.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 04:55:PM
Adam pity Julie did not think of young love when she sold him down the river ;D had she done it before the murders or IMMEDIATELY following I would have found her statement a little more credible.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 28, 2013, 04:55:PM
Who deployed the occupants of CA07?

PC West (3:36am), or MB (3:26am)...

Assuming Clock was 10 minutes fast in PC Wests scenario, the occupants of CA07 could not have been deployed any sooner than say two to three minutes into the call received from Jeremy Bamber (3:36 / 3:26am), which puts the decision to deploy CA07 at either 3:38am in PC Wests time zone event, or at 3:28am in MB's time zone event - but the fact that CA07 were deployed at 3:35am, does not equate if the clocks were 10 minutes apart, since if you apply that to MB's time zone event, it would still have meant that the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the incident at 3:25am...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on December 28, 2013, 04:56:PM
The family and Julie didn't believe Jeremy to be innocent because all had a vested interest once a guilty verdict was given. This was something which wasn't drilled into the judge and jury at the time.
All they saw were £SD signs,which clouded their visions of it being anything other than a guilty verdict. Their minds were already made up,,,and why the police believed any of them before a thorough forensic  investigation,beats me. 
EP have a lot to answer to !
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 04:56:PM
My explanation is what I said before.

Jeremy phoned Julie for a chat.

Jeremy dialled Chelmsford police station (it did not occur to him to dial 999). Chelmsford police station was miles away ???

Jeremy told PC West about the 'mysterious' (judges words) phone call Neville had made saying 'come quickly, Sheila has gone crazy & she has got the gun'. Luckily, or unluckily Jeremy had switched off the answering machine, so brave Jeremy could answer the phone &  save the day. Although he wanted the police to pick him up !

PC West phoned Witham police station which was 7 miles nearer. The police like to save time when there are nutters with guns involved.

I assume both West & Bonnett filled out call logs. There are differences. So what ?




"So what" Adam!!! SO WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Evidence may be withheld which means an innocent man has spent nearly 30 years in prison and all you can say is "SO WHAT" In my eyes it makes you a disgrace.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 04:57:PM
Adam we agree on something Jeremy has been in prison for is it 29 years so why are you trying to prove his guilt :'(
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 04:57:PM
Hi Patti  it is very British in the worst possible circumstances a cup of tea will make it better especially with lots of sugar good for shock. I think people are trying to help and this is the only way they know.  I think Jeremy was given a drop of brandy outside WHF and it made him vomit.

Jeremy went into the field & appeared to vomit.

I believe Jeremy himself said nothing came up. Anyway Mugford said Jeremy knew of a way he could make himself sick. But that Mugford has also been lying for 28 years. Hasn't she ?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 28, 2013, 04:58:PM
Assuming Clock was 10 minutes fast in PC Wests scenario, the occupants of CA07 could not have been deployed any sooner than say two to three minutes into the call received from Jeremy Bamber (3:36 / 3:26am), which puts the decision to deploy CA07 at either 3:38am in PC Wests time zone event, or at 3:28am in MB's time zone event - but the fact that CA07 were deployed at 3:35am, does not equate if the clocks were 10 minutes apart, since if you apply that to MB's time zone event, it would still have meant that the occupants of CA07 had been deployed to the incident at 3:25am...

CA07 were still deployed to the incident one minute (3:25am) before MB's phone log was commenced, at 3:26am...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 04:59:PM
I just gave an answer.

Is this all you are going to go on about whenever I post ? Two call logs from two different people in different buildings. Both apparently lying for the last 28 years, along with the rest of the EP.

Seems you & Jeremy are going for the technicality. Good luck.
Adam, if Neville made that phone call to the police, Jeremy would not be off on a technicality, he would be innocent.  You seem to want to keep Jeremy in prison even if he's innocent.  That is very strange imo.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Alias on December 28, 2013, 05:01:PM
Adam pity Julie did not think of young love when she sold him down the river ;D had she done it before the murders or IMMEDIATELY following I would have found her statement a little more credible.

I would also believe her more if her statements hadn´t CHANGED. In her initial statement she said that Jeremy had called her at 3:30 sounding worried, like he didn´t know what to do. He said that something was wrong at home. - Nothing about: Everything is going well. That came later.... hmmmm
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 05:03:PM



"So what" Adam!!! SO WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Evidence may be withheld which means an innocent man has spent nearly 30 years in prison and all you can say is "SO WHAT" In my eyes it makes you a disgrace.

What evidence withheld ?

EP are not obliged to supply anything further unless instructed by law. Thought Jeremy had millions of documents in his cell. He's been appealing for the last 28 years.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 05:04:PM
Jeremy went into the field & appeared to vomit.

I believe Jeremy himself said nothing came up. Anyway Mugford said Jeremy knew of a way he could make himself sick. But that Mugford has also been lying for 28 years. Hasn't she ?



Given that the food he'd eaten from the previous night would have been digested there would have been nothing for him to vomit. Never heard of dry retching, Adam?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 28, 2013, 05:06:PM
CA07 were still deployed to the incident one minute (3:25am) before MB's phone log was commenced, at 3:26am...

How could the occupants of CA07 have been deployed to the incident at the scene at 3:35am (3:25am), if the two phone logs (3:36 and 3:26am) were born out of the same call to police made by Jeremy?

Impossible...

Yet, if the line at whf was being monitored by special branch, and Ralph had made the call to Jeremy at around 3:25am, this would be the perfect explanation to account for why the occupants of CA07 were deployed to the scene, before Jeremy's call to police at 3:36am (PC West version), or 3:26am (MB version)...

CA07 may have been deployed to the incident as a result of special branch intervention...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 05:08:PM
Hello lookout  probably the rellies convinced themselves Jeremy was guilty as it was very much to their advantage for him to be so.  Don't put Julie in this category she was saving her own neck and saw an opportunity to make money out of the tragedy lets be honest had she known of Jeremy's intentions for nearly a year she could have prevented it and when he was found guilty she should have been charged as an accessory and jailed
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 05:09:PM
Adam, if Neville made that phone call to the police, Jeremy would not be off on a technicality, he would be innocent.  You seem to want to keep Jeremy in prison even if he's innocent.  That is very strange imo.

If Bonnett or anyone from Witham police station says he received a call from Neville, then Jeremy is innocent. So far no one has.

However PC West received a call from Jeremy. I agree with everyone there.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on December 28, 2013, 05:10:PM
Hello lookout  probably the rellies convinced themselves Jeremy was guilty as it was very much to their advantage for him to be so.  Don't put Julie in this category she was saving her own neck and saw an opportunity to make money out of the tragedy lets be honest had she known of Jeremy's intentions for nearly a year she could have prevented it and when he was found guilty she should have been charged as an accessory and jailed



Hi Susan,,JM was nothing but an opportunist in every way. They're bad people in my estimation.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 05:13:PM
april Jeremy was given a drop of brandy when the bodies of his family had been discovered and this is what made him vomit and was probably just the liquid. Most people know how to make themselves vomit fingers down throat hey ho vomit try it Adam.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 05:14:PM
lookout people without a soul IMO :(
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 05:15:PM
april Jeremy was given a drop of brandy when the bodies of his family had been discovered and this is what made him vomit and was probably just the liquid. Most people know how to make themselves vomit fingers down throat hey ho vomit try it Adam.

No thanks.

Jeremy went into the field alone to ( appear to) vomit.

Or to collect his thoughts ?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Alias on December 28, 2013, 05:17:PM
april Jeremy was given a drop of brandy when the bodies of his family had been discovered and this is what made him vomit and was probably just the liquid. Most people know how to make themselves vomit fingers down throat hey ho vomit try it Adam.

Why did the police have brandy with them?  :o
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 05:17:PM
Adam it is quite obvious Jeremy has found new evidence.  Watch this space then you can start a new thread ;D we will all read it ;D Maybe Mason Doyle has found new evidence buy the book when it is published in Spring.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 05:20:PM
Why did the police have brandy with them?  :o
Think it was whisky not brandy?  Maybe they got it from the house?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Alias on December 28, 2013, 05:20:PM
Think it was whisky not brandy?  Maybe they got it from the house?

From the crime scene...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 05:21:PM
Hello Alias they liked a little tipple behind the bushes when on night duty ;D ;D ;D ;D not really sure if they carried brandy in their first aid box I will find out for you.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 05:21:PM
Adam it is quite obvious Jeremy has found new evidence.  Watch this space then you can start a new thread ;D we will all read it ;D Maybe Mason Doyle has found new evidence buy the book when it is published in Spring.

Hope the new evidence is better than before.

At one appeal the judges said 'the more we look at this case, the more we believe the jury were right'.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 05:24:PM
Adam I am sure you are aware nothing is written in stone ;D the Jury thought the evidence presented to them when the Birmingham 6 Guildford 4 and Cardiff 3 were charged in Court and you are now aware what happened in those cases.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 05:26:PM
Maggie you could be right I always think brandy as I like it hate whisky.  They got it from somewhere and it made Jeremy vomit.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 05:28:PM
Adam no he did not he did vomit behind the police car infront of the police how else would they know.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 05:29:PM
Maggie you could be right I always think brandy as I like it hate whisky.  They got it from somewhere and it made Jeremy vomit.
Think neat brandy or whisky on an empty stomach at 5am would make anyone retch.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 05:31:PM
Think neat brandy or whisky on an empty stomach at 5am would make anyone retch.





Yet again, one is given cause to question what comes out of Julie's mouth!!!!!
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 05:33:PM
Alias at that time it was considered 4 murders and one suicide so was not considered a crime scene and Maggie is right they would have got it from the house for medicinal purposes.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 05:35:PM
Hope the new evidence is better than before.

At one appeal the judges said 'the more we look at this case, the more we believe the jury were right'.





ONE.............out of how many?..................or even, how many asked?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on December 28, 2013, 05:42:PM
Why did the police have brandy with them?  :o




Stan Jones enjoyed a tipple----------------or two !
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on December 28, 2013, 05:44:PM
He carried a hip-flask. On duty ! ( do as I say not as I do, was his motto )
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 05:45:PM
No thanks.

Jeremy went into the field alone to ( appear to) vomit.

Or to collect his thoughts ?



I'm certain that someone would be willing to do it for you. Adam!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and why the (appear to)? Is it outside of the limits of you imagination to take on board that even IF he'd killed his family, the memories if the sights, sounds, smells and tastes of death would still be with him, under which circumstances, without food in his stomach he may well have retched till he bled. He certainly wouldn't have needed to pretend or "(appear to)"
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 05:48:PM
april very well said Adam has not got a clue what he is talking about in this instance ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on December 28, 2013, 05:54:PM
It's a normal reflex to vomit at bad news. Bad news makes me nauseous,then I get hunger pangs. Everyone's different.
I felt this way this morning when told that a best friends' husband had died in his sleep this morning. I'm still not right yet,as I got a dreadful shock. My friend got a bigger shock when the police followed the ambulance. 
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 05:57:PM
april very well said Adam has not got a clue what he is talking about in this instance ;D




Susan, I don't know if it's lack of imagination OR lack of life experience, but lack of the latter will certainly ensure lack of the former.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 05:59:PM
lookout death and shock can affect everyone so differently. Some people cry some laugh it is just different ways of releasing emotions.  Some people go off their food others comfort eat some vomit some don't.  Adam has so much to learn about life.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 06:03:PM
It's a normal reflex to vomit at bad news. Bad news makes me nauseous,then I get hunger pangs. Everyone's different.
I felt this way this morning when told that a best friends' husband had died in his sleep this morning. I'm still not right yet,as I got a dreadful shock. My friend got a bigger shock when the police followed the ambulance.
Omg lookout what a dreadful shock for your friend.  Hope she is OK. x
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: tyler on December 28, 2013, 06:06:PM
Going back to why the police timed the route by bicycle,wasn't this because they thought that maybe Jeremy had made the call (whf to goldhanger) cycled home and then phoned the police? This tells me that they KNEW a call HAD been made from whf to golhanger. Btw,sip of whisky was given to JB by Dr.Craig from his hip flask.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on December 28, 2013, 06:11:PM
Omg lookout what a dreadful shock for your friend.  Hope she is OK. x




Maggie,,she's beside herself as you can imagine. V rang me just before, as she'd nipped to Irby to see her. The mans' mother is still alive which makes it worse. Only saw him on Monday,and he always looked well. He had a big 60th bash in Liverpool last year. Thankyou for your thoughts,Maggie.x
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: maggie on December 28, 2013, 06:19:PM
Going back to why the police timed the route by bicycle,wasn't this because they thought that maybe Jeremy had made the call (whf to goldhanger) cycled home and then phoned the police? This tells me that they KNEW a call HAD been made from whf to golhanger. Btw,sip of whisky was given to JB by Dr.Craig from his hip flask.
Thanks for that tyler, so Dr Craig had a hip flask  :-\
Yes I agree, they must have known there were 2 phone calls at that time.  ::)
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 06:21:PM
lookout that is so sad he was young and it makes it worse if it is unexpected.  Your friend will be glad of your support and I know you will be there for her. xxx
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on December 28, 2013, 06:35:PM
It's a normal reflex to vomit at bad news. Bad news makes me nauseous,then I get hunger pangs. Everyone's different.
I felt this way this morning when told that a best friends' husband had died in his sleep this morning. I'm still not right yet,as I got a dreadful shock. My friend got a bigger shock when the police followed the ambulance.



Lookout, I'm so sorry. I know that just doesn't sound enough, but it's all there is. I'm always struck by a feeling of utter helplessness at times like this when the VERY best and ALL that's possible is just being there if it's called for, which I'm certain you will be. xxx
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: grahameb on December 28, 2013, 06:37:PM
The discrepancies are between Nevill saying Sheila was 26 and Jeremy saying she was 27, or her age was changed by someone from 27 to 26 on one of the copies ......... why? ....... why?
The discrepances are not 28 years old. The second log was found years after the first and that showed the discrepances.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on December 28, 2013, 06:40:PM
Thankyou,girls.x
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: grahameb on December 28, 2013, 06:42:PM
Going back to why the police timed the route by bicycle,wasn't this because they thought that maybe Jeremy had made the call (whf to goldhanger) cycled home and then phoned the police? This tells me that they KNEW a call HAD been made from whf to golhanger. Btw,sip of whisky was given to JB by Dr.Craig from his hip flask.
Ah yes thehip flask. It is a pity that Dr. Craid was an alcoholic (well know). Perhaps if he were sober we would have accurate times of death to compare the order of deaths. But he just could not be bothered.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Alias on December 28, 2013, 06:47:PM
Ah yes thehip flask. It is a pity that Dr. Craid was an alcoholic (well know). Perhaps if he were sober we would have accurate times of death to compare the order of deaths. But he just could not be bothered.

So he was drunk? Do we know that?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 06:48:PM
Grahame did not know that about the Dr. what a pity we did not have times of deaths it would have proved Sheila died much later than the rest of the family.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on December 28, 2013, 07:13:PM
Grahame did not know that about the Dr. what a pity we did not have times of deaths it would have proved Sheila died much later than the rest of the family.




I read somewhere that Dr Craig estimated Sheilas' death between 08.30 to 08.45am,that is,and not 3am as was first thought.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: grahameb on December 28, 2013, 07:14:PM
So he was drunk? Do we know that?
No. But I do. He was my doctor. I can't say that he was drunk that night. But unfortunately alcoholism brings with it many other symptoms and moodiness is one of them. The very fact that he couldn't be bothered to time the deaths accurately indicates this.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: grahameb on December 28, 2013, 07:18:PM



I read somewhere that Dr Craig estimated Sheilas' death between 08.30 to 08.45am,that is,and not 3am as was first thought.
He times the deaths from when he got there approximately. All of them the same time if I remember correctly?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Alias on December 28, 2013, 07:19:PM
No. But I do. He was my doctor. I can't say that he was drunk that night. But unfortunately alcoholism brings with it many other symptoms and moodiness is one of them. The very fact that he couldn't be bothered to time the deaths accurately indicates this.

Nothing about this case surprises me anymore!
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on December 28, 2013, 07:30:PM
Sorry to hear that Lookout!! X




I know,Caroline,,so sad. Thankyou.x (1986 when we all first met at work )
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Patti on December 28, 2013, 08:15:PM
It's a normal reflex to vomit at bad news. Bad news makes me nauseous,then I get hunger pangs. Everyone's different.
I felt this way this morning when told that a best friends' husband had died in his sleep this morning. I'm still not right yet,as I got a dreadful shock. My friend got a bigger shock when the police followed the ambulance.

Are you OK? xxxx
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: gringo on December 28, 2013, 08:34:PM
Yes it was - I remembered while cooking dinner BUT as you say, regardless of which call they were focusing on, it would seem to give weight to the idea that they knew a phone call had been made or why would 'timing' be important. DI Wilkinson was the officer who worked out the timings using various routes. Without taking the call(s) into consideration the timings aren't important because we don't know the time of death of anyone who died that night.
You can only really come to the conclusion that EP are aware of the call from WHF to Goldhanger, Caroline. As you say the timings are irrelevant otherwise.
    Is it possible that Bonnet received the information,which is clearly from Nevill, via other police/special branch ? We know that phones were tapped and that surveillance was ongoing and it would make sense of the paraphrasing . If Nevill's call was intercepted then the message would be passed on in exactly the way it was . This would also explain the discrepancy of cars being sent to attend before any calls were made to police.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: grahameb on December 28, 2013, 09:22:PM
Grahame did not know that about the Dr. what a pity we did not have times of deaths it would have proved Sheila died much later than the rest of the family.
He may of course have estimated Sheila's death at around 8am and just for sake of laziness estimated the others also at that time. If the 8am estimate it correct, them Jeremy could not have possible killed them because he was with the police at the time. I wonder why the court did not pick up on that discrepancy at the trial?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: susan on December 28, 2013, 09:24:PM
Grahame probably nobody told them the times of death if they did it would have been much earlier than 8 a.m.  Very slap happy carry on indeed.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Adam on December 28, 2013, 09:46:PM
It's a normal reflex to vomit at bad news. Bad news makes me nauseous,then I get hunger pangs. Everyone's different.
I felt this way this morning when told that a best friends' husband had died in his sleep this morning. I'm still not right yet,as I got a dreadful shock. My friend got a bigger shock when the police followed the ambulance.

Jeremy did not vomit. He said nothing came up. Mugford said Jeremy knew how to make himself sick. It obviously did not work this time.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Steve_uk on December 29, 2013, 12:48:AM
Mugford said that he thought about the death of a dog he loved as he had witnessed it being killed in a an accident. But that's Mugford - she also said that she and Susan Battersby attended the bank alone to confess their fraudulent spending spree. Turns out, they were escorted by a police officer - on his day off!! :)
This allegation was dismissed at the 2002 Appeal,though I do agree it's all rather mysterious.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 29, 2013, 10:15:AM
. . . the discrepancy of cars being sent to attend before any calls were made to police.
MB logged CA07 as being sent at 03:35, which was well after the time he logged for when Pc West contacted him. However, Pc West's log shows that Jeremy called him at 03:36.

Let's consider the possibility that Pc West logged a time of 03:36 incorrectly, when he should have written 03:26. The logs then reflect one call and confirm that Pc West contacted MB quite quickly after Jeremy called. MB's log still shows that 9 minutes elapsed before the first car (CA07) was sent, but Pc West told Jeremy that the police had been sent to WHF specifying that they were from Witham, and so would arrive quite soon. How could Pc West know that a car was sent from Witham unless he stayed on the line to MB for nearly nine minutes until MB told him?

At court, Pc West testified he kept Jeremy on hold for about 3 minutes. Jeremy estimated that he was on hold for about 4 minutes when questioned by the police. That's nothing like long enough for MB to know that a car from Witham was available. Hence the single call scenario doesn't fit with the evidence even if it's accepted that Pc West logged the time of Jeremy's call incorrectly. In the two call scenario, MB already knew that car CA07 was on its way when Pc West called, and another car (CA05) was sent almost immediately. MB then continued to talk to Pc West for a couple more minutes and possibly noted information that Pc West supplied about the weapons at WHF (though Jeremy doesn't recall giving Pc West that information). Anyway, by the time Pc West got back to Jeremy in this scenario, he knew about both cars and what he told Jeremy was therefore truthful and made sense.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jan on December 29, 2013, 10:38:AM
This allegation was dismissed at the 2002 Appeal,though I do agree it's all rather mysterious.

the sworn statement from the bank manager is on this site and had been posted up before .
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: gringo on December 29, 2013, 03:37:PM
MB logged CA07 as being sent at 03:35, which was well after the time he logged for when Pc West contacted him. However, Pc West's log shows that Jeremy called him at 03:36.

Let's consider the possibility that Pc West logged a time of 03:36 incorrectly, when he should have written 03:26. The logs then reflect one call and confirm that Pc West contacted MB quite quickly after Jeremy called. MB's log still shows that 9 minutes elapsed before the first car (CA07) was sent, but Pc West told Jeremy that the police had been sent to WHF specifying that they were from Witham, and so would arrive quite soon. How could Pc West know that a car was sent from Witham unless he stayed on the line to MB for nearly nine minutes until MB told him?

At court, Pc West testified he kept Jeremy on hold for about 3 minutes. Jeremy estimated that he was on hold for about 4 minutes when questioned by the police. That's nothing like long enough for MB to know that a car from Witham was available. Hence the single call scenario doesn't fit with the evidence even if it's accepted that Pc West logged the time of Jeremy's call incorrectly. In the two call scenario, MB already knew that car CA07 was on its way when Pc West called, and another car (CA05) was sent almost immediately. MB then continued to talk to Pc West for a couple more minutes and possibly noted information that Pc West supplied about the weapons at WHF (though Jeremy doesn't recall giving Pc West that information). Anyway, by the time Pc West got back to Jeremy in this scenario, he knew about both cars and what he told Jeremy was therefore truthful and made sense.
Hi Reader, there is the possibility of only one call to police(from Jeremy) but that the messages were received from different sources hence the so called paraphrasing.
      It is a recorded fact that Jeremy was under surveillance (including telephone intercepts) and also that Nevill was under some threat, and that some monitoring of WHF was ongoing (including panic alarm fitted ). It is therefore reasonable to assume that when Nevill called Jeremy, EP immediately became aware of the situation at WHF via intercept.
     Whoever intercepted the call would then pass on details to police HQ . This would explain the so called paraphrasing as the interceptor would pass the message as Nevill having called and that his daughter had got the gun, not that Nevill called Jeremy telling him his sister had the gun.
     Also, given the ongoing surveillance, it is reasonable to assume that intelligence on the family was held and this would include ages which offers an explanation for the age discrepancy on the two logs.
    It is possible therefore that the two logs do refer to the same call and that police were already responding to the situation at WHF when Jeremy called because Nevill's call to Jeremy was intercepted.
    This would also explain why the police investigated the possibility of whether it was possible to get from WHF to Goldhanger in time to make both calls. As Caroline pointed out earlier ,it does strongly indicate that EP are certainly aware of at least one call from WHF otherwise there would be no point .
    I am open to the possibility that Nevill also called the police but do not believe the police explanations as they are not credible . The discrepancies have no reasonable explanations if we are to believe that the Bonnett log is simply a paraphrasing of Wests.
   
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 29, 2013, 06:08:PM
As far as released records are concerned, it isn't known whether the telephone line at WHF or at 9 Head St was on intercept on the night in question, or, if it was, whether it was being intercepted by BT on behalf of the police or direct by the police (which would have been somewhat unusual). Also, there's no released record that confirms a panic alarm was fitted then. Even if there was, it wouldn't be related to interception of the line. The main reason for doubting your scenario is that MB's log (as released) states nothing that specifically suggests its first paragraph was based on any direct source other than Pc West. If the police used intelligence already held that included ages, why would Sheila's age from that source be incorrect? If Nevill didn't speak to the police, how come MB's log uses the word "berserk", whereas PC West used "crazy" (which is what Jeremy said his dad used)? Your scenario doesn't help explain why there was a 9-minute gap according to MB's log between when he started the log and when the first car was sent.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 29, 2013, 06:32:PM
Hi Reader, there is the possibility of only one call to police(from Jeremy) but that the messages were received from different sources hence the so called paraphrasing.
      It is a recorded fact that Jeremy was under surveillance (including telephone intercepts) and also that Nevill was under some threat, and that some monitoring of WHF was ongoing (including panic alarm fitted ). It is therefore reasonable to assume that when Nevill called Jeremy, EP immediately became aware of the situation at WHF via intercept.
     Whoever intercepted the call would then pass on details to police HQ . This would explain the so called paraphrasing as the interceptor would pass the message as Nevill having called and that his daughter had got the gun, not that Nevill called Jeremy telling him his sister had the gun.
     Also, given the ongoing surveillance, it is reasonable to assume that intelligence on the family was held and this would include ages which offers an explanation for the age discrepancy on the two logs.
    It is possible therefore that the two logs do refer to the same call and that police were already responding to the situation at WHF when Jeremy called because Nevill's call to Jeremy was intercepted.
    This would also explain why the police investigated the possibility of whether it was possible to get from WHF to Goldhanger in time to make both calls. As Caroline pointed out earlier ,it does strongly indicate that EP are certainly aware of at least one call from WHF otherwise there would be no point .
    I am open to the possibility that Nevill also called the police but do not believe the police explanations as they are not credible . The discrepancies have no reasonable explanations if we are to believe that the Bonnett log is simply a paraphrasing of Wests.
   

This is a plausible account, particularly since if when Ralph made his call to Jeremy (around 3.25am) and the line at whf was being monitored, and the distress call was intercepted, causing those responsible for eavesdropping of the call to contact police HQ, might this have been the reason or cause for the line going dead between Ralph and Jeremy (temporarily), and which led to the line producing an engaged tone by the time Jeremy tried to re-establish contact with Ralph, upon redialing...

Phone records exist concerning Ralphs call being recorded as being received by police at 3:26am, some 10 minutes before Jeremy himself made the call to PC West at 3:36am, which has been presented as a true record of the call made to Jeremy by Ralph Bamber (about 10 minutes earlier). In your explanation, the paraphrased account in MB's (3:26am) phone log record, could easily be an account of Ralph's call to Jeremy intercepted by the spooks, couched in terms passed on by them, which would be the perfect explanation to account for the grammatical differences recorded in the two logs...

It is also likely...

if the spooks had been monitoring the phone line at whf as part of a protection program, or if the drugs squad had been monitoring it as part of an ongoing international drug investigation, it might account for why Sheila's age was given as 26 years of age, with Sheila's birthday falling on 18th July (less than a month before her death), when in fact she was 27...

It will therefore be necessary to establish the date when threats to kill Ralph Bamber and his family were
 made, when and if a protection program involving special branch was put into operation, and or, if there was any sort of drugs operation ongoing into whf and Jeremy / Sheila / Freddie the coke, and others, at the material time...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 29, 2013, 06:42:PM
As far as released records are concerned, it isn't known whether the telephone line at WHF or at 9 Head St was on intercept on the night in question, or, if it was, whether it was being intercepted by BT on behalf of the police or direct by the police (which would have been somewhat unusual). Also, there's no released record that confirms a panic alarm was fitted then. Even if there was, it wouldn't be related to interception of the line. The main reason for doubting your scenario is that MB's log (as released) states nothing that specifically suggests its first paragraph was based on any direct source other than Pc West. If the police used intelligence already held that included ages, why would Sheila's age from that source be incorrect? If Nevill didn't speak to the police, how come MB's log uses the word "berserk", whereas PC West used "crazy" (which is what Jeremy said his dad used)? Your scenario doesn't help explain why there was a 9-minute gap according to MB's log between when he started the log and when the first car was sent.

MB's phone log (3:26am) contains information received via "the exchange line", it does not say how many pieces of the various bits of information recorded there, were received at different times, but it becomes obvious that there must have been several contacts between MB and other sources in order to end up with everything recorded upon the log at completion. If the main body of information was received from a source which had intercepted the call made by Ralph to Jeremy at about 3:25am, the exchange line would have to be used to relay that intelligence to MB, at (3:26am) that time...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 29, 2013, 07:42:PM
MB's log gives Pc 1990 (Pc West's number) as the initial source, and the box containing that detail doesn't show any sign of alteration. Either way, both Pc West and MB must have been aware that JB was not the first source.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 29, 2013, 08:03:PM
MB's log gives Pc 1990 (Pc West's number) as the initial source, and the box containing that detail doesn't show any sign of alteration. Either way, both Pc West and MB must have been aware that JB was not the first source.

Hi Reader,

There is no guarantee that (1990) was recorded alongside CD when the main body of the phone message was received from CD. It could well be that as the information contained upon the form was evolving, and PC West had contacted MB after Jeremy had eventually got around to contacting police at 3:36am, that (1990) was added alongside the original sender details of CD...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 29, 2013, 08:15:PM
I also would like to question the following entry, concerning to which part of phone log 3:26am, it refers to...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 29, 2013, 08:18:PM
The fact is, that Jeremy did not pass any message to CD at all - which leads me to conclude that this section of the phone log, is referring to information given to police by Jeremy at the scene, regarding the guns kept inside whf by his father, a collection of shotguns and .410's...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 29, 2013, 08:20:PM
The fact is, that Jeremy did not pass any message to CD at all - which leads me to conclude that this section of the phone log, is referring to information given to police by Jeremy at the scene, regarding the guns kept inside whf by his father, a collection of shotguns and .410's...

information which was given to police by Jeremy at the scene, was passed to CD - collection of shotguns and .410's...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jan on December 29, 2013, 08:22:PM
Jeremy did not vomit. He said nothing came up. Mugford said Jeremy knew how to make himself sick. It obviously did not work this time.

crass comment - clutching at straws.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 29, 2013, 08:26:PM
When the occupants of CA07 passed the situation report from the scene, culminating in a request to send out the firearms unit, to whom was that call passed to - "CD" by any chance, or "MB"?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 29, 2013, 08:29:PM
When the occupants of CA07 passed the situation report from the scene, culminating in a request to send out the firearms unit, to whom was that call passed to - "CD" by any chance, or "MB"?

If the situation report from CA07 at the scene was passed to "CD", requesting the attendance of the firearms team, it may well have been at the same time that CA07 passed information given to them by Jeremy regarding his fathers collection of guns, shotguns, and .410's...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Roch on December 29, 2013, 08:31:PM
The fact is, that Jeremy did not pass any message to CD at all - which leads me to conclude that this section of the phone log, is referring to information given to police by Jeremy at the scene, regarding the guns kept inside whf by his father, a collection of shotguns and .410's...

That's what I always thought
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 29, 2013, 08:41:PM
That's what I always thought

Hi Roch,

Yes, I believe this is the correct interpretation - the problem with the entire contents of MB's 3.26am phone log, are that it does not record all the information received at the same time, various parts of the logs content is recorded at different times, the log is evolving with the passing of time, with information coming in and being recorded from several different sources, not just PC West, or Jeremy Bamber via some third party...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 29, 2013, 09:22:PM
There is no guarantee that (1990) was recorded alongside CD when the main body of the phone message was received from CD.
Normal procedure would be for the caller to provide their identity so that it could be noted. It would be strange for MB to write CD without also writing the caller's name or number at the same time.

The fact is, that Jeremy did not pass any message to CD at all
That's not established fact - it's an opinion. CD refers to the control room at Chelmsford Police Station, where Pc West was working. Pc West stated he asked Jeremy about the guns at WHF. He also stated that Jeremy gave him details of them, although it seems these weren't written into his log.

When the occupants of CA07 passed the situation report from the scene, culminating in a request to send out the firearms unit, to whom was that call passed to - "CD" by any chance, or "MB"?
The report was almost certainly sent to HQIR, where MB was working - there was no reason to pass it to CD, and there's no evidence that CD received such a report or request from the scene. You are proposing this mainly because Jeremy doesn't recall telling Pc West about the various weapons kept at WHF. The simplest explanation is that Jeremy did do so, but later forgot that he had done so. He was asked again about this at the scene, and that's apparently what stuck in his memory.

If the situation report from CA07 at the scene was passed to "CD", requesting the attendance of the firearms team, it may well have been at the same time that CA07 passed information given to them by Jeremy regarding his fathers collection of guns, shotguns, and .410's...
It would have made much more sense for this request to be made to HQIR. There's no good evidence that any information was passed direct from the scene to CD, and there was no reason for that to occur.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: gringo on December 30, 2013, 02:20:AM
This is a plausible account, particularly since if when Ralph made his call to Jeremy (around 3.25am) and the line at whf was being monitored, and the distress call was intercepted, causing those responsible for eavesdropping of the call to contact police HQ, might this have been the reason or cause for the line going dead between Ralph and Jeremy (temporarily), and which led to the line producing an engaged tone by the time Jeremy tried to re-establish contact with Ralph, upon redialing...

Phone records exist concerning Ralphs call being recorded as being received by police at 3:26am, some 10 minutes before Jeremy himself made the call to PC West at 3:36am, which has been presented as a true record of the call made to Jeremy by Ralph Bamber (about 10 minutes earlier). In your explanation, the paraphrased account in MB's (3:26am) phone log record, could easily be an account of Ralph's call to Jeremy intercepted by the spooks, couched in terms passed on by them, which would be the perfect explanation to account for the grammatical differences recorded in the two logs...

It is also likely...

if the spooks had been monitoring the phone line at whf as part of a protection program, or if the drugs squad had been monitoring it as part of an ongoing international drug investigation, it might account for why Sheila's age was given as 26 years of age, with Sheila's birthday falling on 18th July (less than a month before her death), when in fact she was 27...

It will therefore be necessary to establish the date when threats to kill Ralph Bamber and his family were
 made, when and if a protection program involving special branch was put into operation, and or, if there was any sort of drugs operation ongoing into whf and Jeremy / Sheila / Freddie the coke, and others, at the material time...
As far as released records are concerned, it isn't known whether the telephone line at WHF or at 9 Head St was on intercept on the night in question, or, if it was, whether it was being intercepted by BT on behalf of the police or direct by the police (which would have been somewhat unusual). Also, there's no released record that confirms a panic alarm was fitted then. Even if there was, it wouldn't be related to interception of the line. The main reason for doubting your scenario is that MB's log (as released) states nothing that specifically suggests its first paragraph was based on any direct source other than Pc West. If the police used intelligence already held that included ages, why would Sheila's age from that source be incorrect? If Nevill didn't speak to the police, how come MB's log uses the word "berserk", whereas PC West used "crazy" (which is what Jeremy said his dad used)? Your scenario doesn't help explain why there was a 9-minute gap according to MB's log between when he started the log and when the first car was sent.
Thanks for replies Mike and Reader.
     MB's log as you say has nothing to indicate any direct source other than West but the paraphrasing and age difference is more problematical if we believe that West is the sender, which leaves us looking for alternative explanations which seem more plausible. Your reasoning would also rule out the call being from Nevill for the same reason.
    Police intelligence on the ages could quite easily be wrong as Mike observed (was Sheila 26 when the surveillance began ?)
   If the call was intercepted I could quite easily imagine the message being passed on in such a way. It is conceivable that when passing on details of the intercept that it was phrased something like ," have just received intelligence via intercept that Nevill Bamber's daughter has got hold of one of his guns and is going berserk."
     The 9 minute gap rather than being an anomaly in this scenario is in fact supportive . The log was started at 3.26 and then Bonnett has to receive and write down the message before sending a car and 8 or 9 minutes is not an unreasonable length of time to do this.
     It is certainly a problem with the one call scenario that a car is sent before the call is even received.
     I don't claim that the above is definitely what happened but it makes more sense of the discrepancies in my opinion.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on December 30, 2013, 06:51:AM
Normal procedure would be for the caller to provide their identity so that it could be noted. It would be strange for MB to write CD without also writing the caller's name or number at the same time.
That's not established fact - it's an opinion. CD refers to the control room at Chelmsford Police Station, where Pc West was working. Pc West stated he asked Jeremy about the guns at WHF. He also stated that Jeremy gave him details of them, although it seems these weren't written into his log.
The report was almost certainly sent to HQIR, where MB was working - there was no reason to pass it to CD, and there's no evidence that CD received such a report or request from the scene. You are proposing this mainly because Jeremy doesn't recall telling Pc West about the various weapons kept at WHF. The simplest explanation is that Jeremy did do so, but later forgot that he had done so. He was asked again about this at the scene, and that's apparently what stuck in his memory.
It would have made much more sense for this request to be made to HQIR. There's no good evidence that any information was passed direct from the scene to CD, and there was no reason for that to occur.

Hi Reader,

the log (3:26am) under scrutiny may be a re-write of the original version, introduced later on, in the same way that crucial messages in the original wireless message logs have been re-written on blank pieces of paper in a substitution exercise...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on December 31, 2013, 01:48:PM
. . . Your reasoning would also rule out the call being from Nevill for the same reason.
Yes, that is so. If Pc West did receive two calls, one from Nevill and then one from Jeremy, it's slightly surprising that his log of Jeremy's call doesn't refer to the previous call, and he presumably logged the previous call separately - it would be interesting to compare that log with MB's log.

Police intelligence on the ages could quite easily be wrong as Mike observed (was Sheila 26 when the surveillance began?)
It's possible. I would think the police would normally try to verify an age by finding the date of birth, but that might have been difficult as Sheila was adopted.

The 9 minute gap rather than being an anomaly in this scenario is in fact supportive. The log was started at 3.26 and then Bonnett has to receive and write down the message before sending a car and 8 or 9 minutes is not an unreasonable length of time to do this.
Priority should be given to sending a car once the need for one is evident. If necessary, MB could have signalled other person to do so. Even if he didn't, 8 or 9 minutes is a really long time in my opinion, given the obvious urgency of dealing with someone who has gone berserk and possesses a firearm.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on January 02, 2014, 10:22:PM
"Hello, is that Malcolm Bonnert, Hi, Dastardly, here, Ralph Bamber has just alert his son, Jeremy, to the fact that his daughter has got hold of one of his guns, and has gone berserk, can you send a unit to the scene ASAP, please, ta, thanks, okey dokey, chow, adios"...

"By jove, I did something Mutley, I actually did something"...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Undecided on February 23, 2014, 03:32:PM
Now, also consider this:-
Apologies, if this has been addressed already (but its a long thread and I haven’t managed to take in  everything yet)
But, could a disconnect of the external line into the house have been used to accomplish the same 2 minute "forced release" ? and was this ever investigated ? If the phone line had been disabled would this have registered at the exchange ? Could the line have been disabled prior to the murders and reconnected later ?
One often sees remote farm houses with a single line telephone cable running over farm land fields. 
How far was the next junction box from WHF ?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: mike tesko on February 23, 2014, 05:33:PM
Anybody else got any ideas on this possibility...
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 21, 2014, 04:32:AM
Bump to be added to the archive for Jean Bouttell if someone is able to do so.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on October 22, 2014, 12:21:AM
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=19537;image)
If the above log is 'genuine', it was mostly written by Pc West. I have no idea why someone else wrote two of the entries. According to the log, Pc West was told by the informant, who must have been Jeremy, about the various shotguns and rifles at WHF, and then Jeremy was asked to go to WHF.

. . . could a disconnect of the external line into the house have been used to accomplish the same 2 minute "forced release"?
No. It's theoretically possible for the line to have been accessed 'externally', but very unlikely. If the line had been disconnected externally, any use of the line would end immediately, so the line wouldn't seem to be engaged.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 22, 2014, 12:26:AM
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=732.0;attach=19537;image)
If the above log is 'genuine', it was mostly written by Pc West. I have no idea why someone else wrote two of the entries. According to the log, Pc West was told by the informant, who must have been Jeremy, about the various shotguns and rifles at WHF, and then Jeremy was asked to go to WHF.
No. It's theoretically possible for the line to have been accessed 'externally', but very unlikely. If the line had been disconnected externally, any use of the line would end immediately, so the line wouldn't seem to be engaged.

You are years late.  That is one of the additional pages of West's records from the day of the murders.  That is why weeks ago I made you specify whether you meant the C1 page of the log or the additioanl pages he filled out.

Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on October 22, 2014, 01:22:AM
I know what it seems to be, but I don't know why it has some entries by someone else. Also, I don't know why mike tesko ignores it when claiming that PcWest's log doesn't show the guns at WHF. Clearly, it does, so the matter of interest is whether the log was faked later on. At present, it seems to be genuine.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 22, 2014, 02:32:AM
I know what it seems to be, but I don't know why it has some entries by someone else. Also, I don't know why mike tesko ignores it when claiming that PcWest's log doesn't show the guns at WHF. Clearly, it does, so the matter of interest is whether the log was faked later on. At present, it seems to be genuine.

The same reason Bonnett's had other entries- there was a shift change.  It is the scond page of West's log the C1 page is the first.

Mike ignores anything that is inconvenient to his arguments. He is still insisting there was an alarm plugged into the phone socket in the bedroom even though there was no such thing as a portable alarm in those days to plug into the phone socket.  There would be an alarm panel and a phone line would be run to that alarm panel.  They needed a different phone line for it.  In the 1990s is when they perfected a syste to be able to use a single house line for both phone use and the alarm.

Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on October 22, 2014, 03:19:PM
Alarms didn't require a separate telephone line. Alarm panels are normally hardwired, but would still work if plugged into a socket. A panic alarm that is intended to be plugged into a socket and doesn't involve an alarm panel is theoretically possible, but whether it was in use in 1985 is another matter.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 22, 2014, 03:39:PM
Alarms didn't require a separate telephone line. Alarm panels are normally hardwired, but would still work if plugged into a socket. A panic alarm that is intended to be plugged into a socket and doesn't involve an alarm panel is theoretically possible, but whether it was in use in 1985 is another matter.

They required a separate line.  All a burglar had to do was call the house and the alarm would not be able to dial out.  In the 1990s they invented a way to use the same line so that the phone could be in use and yet still dial an ARC.  The phone could be ringing from someone calling or even actually in use with people talking and still the line can simultaneously be used to signal the ARC.  The original BT Redcare was the first such system and was not invented until the 1990s.

They would wire a new phone line to an alarm panel.  The mobile alarm panels Mike is talking about than can be plugged in the regular phone outlet are post 1985 inventions.


Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on October 22, 2014, 04:05:PM
They didn't "require" a separate line. Yes, a burglar could disable the alarm, but that's possible even with a separate line by simply cutting the line externally!
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 22, 2014, 04:09:PM
And why wasn't the line cut ? Jeremy knew of the amount of phones inside the farmhouse and that they'd be easy to grab in an emergency being strategically placed, in the bedroom for starters. The kitchen,on entry,etc etc.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on October 22, 2014, 04:12:PM
And why wasn't the line cut ? Jeremy knew of the amount of phones inside the farmhouse and that they'd be easy to grab in an emergency being strategically placed, in the bedroom for starters. The kitchen,on entry,etc etc.




Because if one is trying to convince the world that murder/suicide occurred within a family situation, which of them would cut the telephone wires first?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 22, 2014, 04:14:PM
Using the words of Jeremy------------that's what you'd have to establish.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on October 22, 2014, 04:18:PM
Using the words of Jeremy------------that's what you'd have to establish.




Er, I don't think it's necessary to prove the hypothetical, Lookout. It's hard enough trying to prove facts ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on October 22, 2014, 04:18:PM
The same reason Bonnett's had other entries - there was a shift change.  It is the second page of West's log the C1 page is the first.
A shift change that affected Pc West at what time? Anyway, how would a shift change account for the fact that Pc West's entry for 0422 is inbetween the entries for 0417 and 0431 (which weren't written by Pc West)?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 22, 2014, 04:20:PM



Er, I don't think it's necessary to prove the hypothetical, Lookout. It's hard enough trying to prove facts ;D





 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on October 22, 2014, 04:26:PM
By the way, the Redcare system referred to will try the cellular network if the landline is cut, but that's possible only in areas with reception. There are still many remote farms that aren't covered now, let alone when Redcare was introduced.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 22, 2014, 11:58:PM
The same reason Bonnett's had other entries- there was a shift change.  It is the scond page of West's log the C1 page is the first.

Mike ignores anything that is inconvenient to his arguments. He is still insisting there was an alarm plugged into the phone socket in the bedroom even though there was no such thing as a portable alarm in those days to plug into the phone socket.  There would be an alarm panel and a phone line would be run to that alarm panel.  They needed a different phone line for it.  In the 1990s is when they perfected a syste to be able to use a single house line for both phone use and the alarm.
The alarm was I believe installed after the murders? I do in fact know where the alarm button was/is and it wasn't/isn't in the bedroom. Unfortunately I can't tell you where it is because I was told in confidence and it could put the family in danger if the public knew.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on October 23, 2014, 09:07:AM
The alarm was I believe installed after the murders? I do in fact know where the alarm button was/is and it wasn't/isn't in the bedroom. Unfortunately I can't tell you where it is because I was told in confidence and it could put the family in danger if the public knew.



Er, isn't that rather like closing the stable door AFTER the event? My friends' had alarms, fitted by the police, installed in every room of their home until the danger was passed after which they were removed.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 23, 2014, 09:22:AM


Er, isn't that rather like closing the stable door AFTER the event? My friends' had alarms, fitted by the police, installed in every room of their home until the danger was passed after which they were removed.
Well yes it is isn't it? But Vidvic told me that it was. Perhaps after such a horrific event the family felt vulnerable? I know there was a relative in the home where my wife worked. She was slightly schizophrenic and she was absolutely terrified that Bamber would escape and come after her.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on October 23, 2014, 09:31:AM
Well yes it is isn't it? But Vidvic told me that it was. Perhaps after such a horrific event the family felt vulnerable? I know there was a relative in the home where my wife worked. She was slightly schizophrenic and she was absolutely terrified that Bamber would escape and come after her.


But I don't imagine alarms are installed for "perceived" threats :D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Caroline on October 23, 2014, 10:11:AM
Well yes it is isn't it? But Vidvic told me that it was. Perhaps after such a horrific event the family felt vulnerable? I know there was a relative in the home where my wife worked. She was slightly schizophrenic and she was absolutely terrified that Bamber would escape and come after her.

You're not talking about a panic alarm are you?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 23, 2014, 10:25:AM
You're not talking about a panic alarm are you?
Well yes Caroline. That is the impression Vic gave me. He even told me that there is a button to be pressed. I should imagine though that they also have a conventional burglar alarm, possibly connected to an alarm company?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: andrea on October 23, 2014, 10:29:AM
I had a panic alarm installed around 15 years ago.

The main unit was upstairs in my bedroom, but there were two buttons, one in the bedroom and one one downstairs in the living room. They were installed at a certain height so my kids couldn't activate it by mistake

Also, a panic alarm will over ride a 999 call.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 23, 2014, 10:39:AM
I had a panic alarm installed around 15 years ago.

The main unit was upstairs in my bedroom, but there were two buttons, one in the bedroom and one one downstairs in the living room. They were installed at a certain height so my kids couldn't activate it by mistake

Also, a panic alarm will over ride a 999 call.
Hi Andrea, how who was it connected to, an alarm company, or the police call centre?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 23, 2014, 10:50:AM
Some of these alarms are connected to the telephone via a twin plug.One for the alarm,one for the phone. Which plugs into the phone socket,ordinarily. They normally have electrical back-up.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Caroline on October 23, 2014, 10:51:AM
Well yes Caroline. That is the impression Vic gave me. He even told me that there is a button to be pressed. I should imagine though that they also have a conventional burglar alarm, possibly connected to an alarm company?

Grahame, Vic made a mistake about the panic button, we had a LONG debate about it about a year and a half ago and he said he asked AE who confirmed their was no panic button EVER at WHF, the only panic button she knew of was one installed at the caravan park after the robbery. There was an alarm installed after the murders but no panic button.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 23, 2014, 10:53:AM
Some of these alarms are connected to the telephone via a twin plug.One for the alarm,one for the phone. Which plugs into the phone socket,ordinarily. They normally have electrical back-up.
I know the burglar alarms have there own battery back-up in case the power goes down. I was called out in the middle of the night when one of these batteries failed. When they changed the battery it was ok.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 23, 2014, 10:57:AM
I know the burglar alarms have there own battery back-up in case the power goes down. I was called out in the middle of the night when one of these batteries failed. When they changed the battery it was ok.





I wouldn't like to rely on a battery back-up really. The same with my smoke alarms-----electric,much safer and above all reliable.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Caroline on October 23, 2014, 11:09:AM
Here is the link to Vic's explanation about the panic button - or lack there of.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4232.msg173041.html#msg173041
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Caroline on October 23, 2014, 11:14:AM
Vic stated that a panic alarm was fitted after the murders but Jeremy told me there was only a security alarm fitted.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 23, 2014, 11:42:AM
Vic stated that a panic alarm was fitted after the murders but Jeremy told me there was only a security alarm fitted.
So Jeremy was right then? There should be no "but" in it. He told you that there was only a security alarm fitted. The question that that call up though is why didn't the security alarm go off the night of the murders if that was true?
I know Vic told me that there was no panic alarm fitted, but I'm not sure if they had contact sensors as we have at the school on certain offices, or whether there were movement sensors in the 80's?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Caroline on October 23, 2014, 11:48:AM
So Jeremy was right then? There should be no "but" in it. He told you that there was only a security alarm fitted. The question that that call up though is why didn't the security alarm go off the night of the murders if that was true?
I know Vic told me that there was no panic alarm fitted, but I'm not sure if they had contact sensors as we have at the school on certain offices, or whether there were movement sensors in the 80's?

Because it wasn't fitted until AFTER!  ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 23, 2014, 11:49:AM
So Jeremy was right then? There should be no "but" in it. He told you that there was only a security alarm fitted. The question that that call up though is why didn't the security alarm go off the night of the murders if that was true?
I know Vic told me that there was no panic alarm fitted, but I'm not sure if they had contact sensors as we have at the school on certain offices, or whether there were movement sensors in the 80's?






Mr G,some alarm systems were quite sophisticated in the mid-80's,which included floor pads ( under a rug or carpet ) window areas,all,were wired,and the box that operated all this looked like the cockpit of a plane. My bro.had all that paraphernalia because of his job. Plus a phone with just a button-press which went directly to the police station,in case you were injured in some way that you couldn't speak.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 23, 2014, 12:33:PM
Because it wasn't fitted until AFTER!  ;D
You mean the security alarm wasn't fitted until after? Because we are both confident that the "panic" alarm wasn't fitted until after the murders.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 23, 2014, 12:36:PM





Mr G,some alarm systems were quite sophisticated in the mid-80's,which included floor pads ( under a rug or carpet ) window areas,all,were wired,and the box that operated all this looked like the cockpit of a plane. My bro.had all that paraphernalia because of his job. Plus a phone with just a button-press which went directly to the police station,in case you were injured in some way that you couldn't speak.
Today they have movement sensors on the wall. My guess is that in the 80's they didn't have those otherwise Jeremy would have set off the alarm himself simply by sitting at the table whilst waiting for Barbara the housekeeper?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 23, 2014, 12:39:PM
Today they have movement sensors on the wall. My guess is that in the 80's they didn't have those otherwise Jeremy would have set off the alarm himself simply by sitting at the table whilst waiting for Barbara the housekeeper?






I wouldn't mind betting that Jeremy didn't know either way whether the place was alarmed or not.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Caroline on October 23, 2014, 12:41:PM
You mean the security alarm wasn't fitted until after? Because we are both confident that the "panic" alarm wasn't fitted until after the murders.

There were no alarms until after the murders - security or panic. None!! :)
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 23, 2014, 01:10:PM
There were no alarms until after the murders - security or panic. None!! :)
I think I agree with you on that one?
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 23, 2014, 01:49:PM
Given Nevilles' past as well as his job as magistrate,I'm very surprised that he wasn't security minded,particularly for his family. It's always baffled me,being out " in the wilds " so to speak,and no back-up in case of an emergency.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 23, 2014, 02:46:PM
Given Nevilles' past as well as his job as magistrate,I'm very surprised that he wasn't security minded,particularly for his family. It's always baffled me,being out " in the wilds " so to speak,and no back-up in case of an emergency.
It is only in the last few years that people have become very security conscious.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 23, 2014, 02:59:PM
It is only in the last few years that people have become very security conscious.






Even after the time he was threatened though,Mr G,when that guy threw bullets at his car.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 23, 2014, 03:22:PM





Even after the time he was threatened though,Mr G,when that guy threw bullets at his car.
Yes, what a waste? ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 23, 2014, 03:26:PM
Yes, what a waste? ;D






 Weren't they empty though ? As the guy was alleged to have said " next time they'll be real ".
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on October 23, 2014, 03:28:PM





 Weren't they empty though ? As the guy was alleged to have said " next time they'll be real ".


No, it was Jimmy Bell who allegedly said that next time they would come out of his gun.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 23, 2014, 03:32:PM

No, it was Jimmy Bell who allegedly said that next time they would come out of his gun.







That's right. All the more reason why I'd have installed an alarm system with a bell outside the size of Big Ben so that those a mile away could hear it. ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on October 23, 2014, 04:18:PM






That's right. All the more reason why I'd have installed an alarm system with a bell outside the size of Big Ben so that those a mile away could hear it. ;D ;D ;D


Presumably they -or perhaps the police- didn't consider it to be a significant enough threat.............that's even if it actually happened, although I AM inclined to think it probably did.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 23, 2014, 04:34:PM

Presumably they -or perhaps the police- didn't consider it to be a significant enough threat.............that's even if it actually happened, although I AM inclined to think it probably did.





Yes,it probably did,but knowing Neville,he wouldn't have cracked on. Saying that,somebody must have known for us to know.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Alias on October 23, 2014, 08:03:PM
Ooooh, it is so funny to watch when the panic alarms come up on the forum from time to time..... Can´t help laughing a little bit. I am evil like that.  8)
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Caroline on October 23, 2014, 08:06:PM
Ooooh, it is so funny to watch when the panic alarms come up on the forum from time to time..... Can´t help laughing a little bit. I am evil like that.  8)

Mark the date on the calender because it will no doubt be back this time next year!!
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Alias on October 23, 2014, 08:11:PM
Mark the date on the calender because it will no doubt be back this time next year!!

It will, it will no doubt!  8) 8) 8)
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jane on October 23, 2014, 08:15:PM




Yes,it probably did,but knowing Neville,he wouldn't have cracked on. Saying that,somebody must have known for us to know.


Thing is, Lookout, we DON'T know Neville.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Jan on October 23, 2014, 08:52:PM
I have a feeling , may be wrong  that the story came from a poster who lived in the vicinity of WHf and  knew the family and the fact that he was a magistrate. That's how I read it when I saw the story for the first time.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 23, 2014, 09:57:PM
They didn't "require" a separate line. Yes, a burglar could disable the alarm, but that's possible even with a separate line by simply cutting the line externally!

In 1985 they would not install an alarm that was monitored except by installing an additional phoneline.

This is what existed in 1985:

"Digital Communicator

Also known as digicoms, these systems were among the first digitally monitored systems to be launched.

Digicoms use their own dedicated phone line, which must have incoming calls barred. This is to prevent a cunning intruder calling the line to engage it, so that the system can't call out. 
The digicom is mounted in the alarm control panel.
When the alarm is activated, it dials out to the ARC and sends packets of data in a secure encrypted format that's decrypted by software at the ARC. The ARC will then take appropriate action by notifying key-holders or calling the police.

Pro's

Alarm activations are securely sent to a 24/7 monitored Alarm Receiving Centre that will always respond
It's relatively cheap to buy the digital communicator and it can be moved with you if you move house

Con's
You have to pay line rental on the dedicated "incoming calls only" phone line

You have to pay an annual subscription to the monitoring station (ARC)

You will need an annual maintenance contract with the alarm installation company
 
If the telephone line is cut, then the system will not be able to call out "

https://securityalarms.co.uk/monitored-alarms/#digital-communicator

In the 1990s Redcare was created and they are able to use the regular phone line for it.  An additional line is not necessary.

"Single Path Signalling

A single path signalling system can dial out using either the GSM mobile network, GPRS mobile data network or a fixed phone line. It can also send more sophisticated information to the ARC. For example, it might report the type of breach, such as a personal attack or standard alarm activation, including the zone triggered within the property.

The biggest advantage is that the signalling path itself is monitored.

That means that if the phone line is cut or the GSM or GPRS signal fails, the monitoring station will know about it and will treat it as intruder activation.

Pro's
 Alarm activations are securely sent to a 24/7 monitored ARC that will always respond

The signal path is monitored, so any attempt to tamper with it will be notified to the ARC

It can send out more detailed information than a digital communicator, so keyholders or police are better informed and ready to deal with the situation when they arrive on site

You can use an existing fixed telephone line, with a cable extending it to the alarm panel

Con's
 
You have to pay an annual subscription to the ARC

If installed on an existing line, you may need to add an ADSL filter which separates digital data transfer from voice
 
You need to pay for a monthly SIM card subscription if you choose this communications path"

https://securityalarms.co.uk/monitored-alarms/#single-path-signalling
 
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on October 24, 2014, 09:11:PM
In 1985 they would not install an alarm that was monitored except by installing an additional phoneline.
Who is (or are) 'they' and what is your evidence for this? It certainly isn't true now. For example, a quick web search finds the information below.

Digital Communicator
This is a cost effective single path signalling method and probably the most widely used. This unit can be connected to an existing telephone line or, for more security, a dedicated telephone line.
Upon an activation of the alarm it will send signals to the ARC. The operator at the ARC will take the appropriate action depending on the type of signal received . Subject to the system meeting the required standards, the ARC can call the police and designated key-holders.

The above makes it quite clear that a dedicated line is not essential, just an option for added security (but at extra expense for the extra line).
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 26, 2014, 03:40:PM
Who is (or are) 'they' and what is your evidence for this? It certainly isn't true now. For example, a quick web search finds the information below.

Digital Communicator
This is a cost effective single path signalling method and probably the most widely used. This unit can be connected to an existing telephone line or, for more security, a dedicated telephone line.
Upon an activation of the alarm it will send signals to the ARC. The operator at the ARC will take the appropriate action depending on the type of signal received . Subject to the system meeting the required standards, the ARC can call the police and designated key-holders.

The above makes it quite clear that a dedicated line is not essential, just an option for added security (but at extra expense for the extra line).

Your games are worthless as usual.  I posted a source saying another line had to be added and run to the alarm panel which in those days was not a small mobile unit tha tjust plugged into any phone socket.

Moreover the source indicated even in the 1990s they needed a filter to be attached to use a regular houseline.

You post a source to refute this.  You know you can't your games are useless as always.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on October 29, 2014, 03:25:PM
I posted a source saying another line had to be added and run to the alarm panel which in those days was not a small mobile unit that just plugged into any phone socket.

Moreover the source indicated even in the 1990s they needed a filter to be attached to use a regular houseline.
Your source is about BT Redcare. A filter is needed only in relation to ADSL, but ADSL is not a requirement for digital communication. An alarm panel is typically wired to various alarm devices, such as an external box with a bell (or sounder) and flashing light, so it's not intended to be portable. However, portable computer terminals and the like could use a modem and an ordinary telephone line for digital communication throughout the eighties and before that. It wasn't even necessary for them to be wired or plugged into the telephone line (on occasion, I've used a call box), though a panic button that wasn't permanently connected to a telephone line might be difficult to use in an emergency. Alarm panels are therefore usually wired directly to a telephone line, but don't need to be, and a separate telephone line has never been essential.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: scipio_usmc on October 30, 2014, 03:22:PM
Your source is about BT Redcare. A filter is needed only in relation to ADSL, but ADSL is not a requirement for digital communication. An alarm panel is typically wired to various alarm devices, such as an external box with a bell (or sounder) and flashing light, so it's not intended to be portable. However, portable computer terminals and the like could use a modem and an ordinary telephone line for digital communication throughout the eighties and before that. It wasn't even necessary for them to be wired or plugged into the telephone line (on occasion, I've used a call box), though a panic button that wasn't permanently connected to a telephone line might be difficult to use in an emergency. Alarm panels are therefore usually wired directly to a telephone line, but don't need to be, and a separate telephone line has never been essential.

In 1985 an alarm company would not install an alarm except through a second line.  Saying in theory they could do so is your allegation merely.  You offer no source to establish such is true.  But even if true ift makes no difference because alarm companies would not install an alarm without an addiitonal line run.  You can't provide any source that says they would.

So you play your usual games to try to pretend maybe they cheaped out and refused to pay for anothe rline but payed for alarm monitoring and maybe they did have an alarm that was wired to the regular phone line and that police responded because of it not because of Jeremy's call.  The defense and prosecution would have been aware of an alarm and wound have used it in their arguments.  There was no company this is another fable from Mike which you seem to be happy to join in.  your crediblity sinks anytime you post.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on October 31, 2014, 09:17:AM
I thought we were discussing what the police might provide in 1985. For a portable panic button, no "installation" by an alarm company is required, as you just plug it in. A second telephone line isn't required for that either.

My "source" for what an alarm company would do in 1985 is the personal experience of a close relative of mine. Unfortunately, that relative is no longer alive and the alarm company they used was a small local company that no longer exists (as its owner retired). However, it's hardly likely that alarm installations for private homes (as distinct from businesses) would be required to have an additional telephone line, as that would make the alarm system unacceptably expensive. More recently (but still over fifteen years ago), someone I know has a monitored alarm system in their home, and it relies on their existing telephone line (they have never had two lines). It does not use ADSL or have any wireless alternative if the telephone line is unavailable. Although the line now has ADSL for internet usage, the alarm works without problem despite not being connected via a filter.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lebaleb on October 31, 2014, 09:42:AM
According to the statements: In June the cream phone was in the bedroom but on 29th of July it was in the kitchen. This makes Bob Woofenden's investigative reporting and phone theory laughable.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Roch on October 31, 2014, 10:20:AM
your crediblity sinks anytime you post.

I think this comment is out of order Scip.  There is no need to be so nasty to Reader.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 31, 2014, 10:24:AM
Doesn't it just ? Bordering on childish really,considering his lame excuse for changing his stance.But that's entirely up to him. Whatever floats your boat.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 31, 2014, 11:18:AM
Doesn't it just ? Bordering on childish really,considering his lame excuse for changing his stance.But that's entirely up to him. Whatever floats your boat.
It's only a tactic in order to unsettle his opponent and to appear to have the upper hand. I've grown wise to it myself. ;)
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Roch on October 31, 2014, 11:26:AM
It's only a tactic in order to unsettle his opponent and to appear to have the upper hand. I've grown wise to it myself. ;)

Hi Gee, I think Lookout is replying to a post about Bob Woffinden, as opposed to replying to my post about Scip's remark towards Reader.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Mr. Gee on October 31, 2014, 11:35:AM
Hi Gee, I think Lookout is replying to a post about Bob Woffinden, as opposed to replying to my post about Scip's remark towards Reader.
Ok Roch. Take it as an answer to your post then. ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Roch on October 31, 2014, 11:43:AM
Ok Roch. Take it as an answer to your post then. ;D

Will do  ;D
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: lookout on October 31, 2014, 01:03:PM
Doesn't it just ? Bordering on childish really,considering his lame excuse for changing his stance.But that's entirely up to him. Whatever floats your boat.






Now it's my turn to confuse everyone.  ;D  This post was in answer to lebaleb.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: scipio_usmc on November 04, 2014, 04:42:AM
It's only a tactic in order to unsettle his opponent and to appear to have the upper hand. I've grown wise to it myself. ;)

It is not a tactic. Reader posted a bunch of fibs to try to pretend Nevill called the police that were every bit as bad as Mike posts and his credibility took a major knocking in the process.

He seems to be taking back some of his comments about an alarm by saying he was discussing just a panic alarm as opposed to the alarm that notifies police like Mike was alleging.
Title: Re: Telephone issue - Extravaganza...
Post by: Reader on November 07, 2014, 09:16:PM
I didn't mean "just" in that sense, as was clear from my mentioning plugging it in. You misquoted me, as usual.