Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: grahameb on June 13, 2014, 10:25:AM
-
Ok I have checked up with several telephone engineers who used to work on the telephone systems such as were at Maldon and the surrounding district and this is what they said:
(1) There was no way that a telephone engineer could tell who hung up the phone first. Unless they were (a) on the phone the same time as the two parties. (b) Using specialist surveilance equipment at the time of the phone calls themselves.
So that means that the telephone "expert" was wrong if he testified that Jeremy ended the call.
(2) As I said before concerning the cut-off point for whoever is ringing another person. Is 6 minutes. Thus making it impossible for Jeremy to phone his own phone from WHF and then pick up the phone at his own cottage. Even if he peddled like the clappers.
Conclusion: What do we deduce from the one telephone call from WHF on the morning of the 7th of August 1985? I believe we can confidently claim that this telephone call backs up the fact that Jeremy did indeed receive a call from his father that morning.
I further suggest that this fact should be included in Jeremy's latest application for appeal. So much for the prosecution "experts". If indeed the expert did actually testify as is claimed by scipio?
-
Grahame,quite a few things have come to light which exonerates Jeremy.
I have to walk away from here at times when I read some of the nonsense pointing to his guilt. Sickening.
-
Ok I have checked up with several telephone engineers who used to work on the telephone systems such as were at Maldon and the surrounding district and this is what they said:
(1) There was no way that a telephone engineer could tell who hung up the phone first. Unless they were (a) on the phone the same time as the two parties. (b) Using specialist surveilance equipment at the time of the phone calls themselves.
So that means that the telephone "expert" was wrong if he testified that Jeremy ended the call.
(2) As I said before concerning the cut-off point for whoever is ringing another person. Is 6 minutes. Thus making it impossible for Jeremy to phone his own phone from WHF and then pick up the phone at his own cottage. Even if he peddled like the clappers.
Conclusion: What do we deduce from the one telephone call from WHF on the morning of the 7th of August 1985? I believe we can confidently claim that this telephone call backs up the fact that Jeremy did indeed receive a call from his father that morning.
I further suggest that this fact should be included in Jeremy's latest application for appeal. So much for the prosecution "experts". If indeed the expert did actually testify as is claimed by scipio?
thankyou the 6 mins cut off is very telling and I've puzzeled about this quite a bit
-
thankyou the 6 mins cut off is very telling and I've puzzeled about this quite a bit
The 6 minute cut-off time I would still like to get further confirmation on. But initial investigation certainly indicates this. But apparently the time factor depends upon whether the system was strowger, or crossbar, or TXE apparently?
-
Grahame,quite a few things have come to light which exonerates Jeremy.
I have to walk away from here at times when I read some of the nonsense pointing to his guilt. Sickening.
Yes the guilty party have come up with some weird scenarios and quoting them as fact. And they accuse the innocent side of wierd statements. But no one can accuse me of not investigating things. And so far I think I have revealed some interesting facts. I think the guilty side are not averse to using "bluff" as one of their tools?
-
Yes the guilty party have come up with some weird scenarios and quoting them as fact. And they accuse the innocent side of wierd statements. But no one can accuse me of not investigating things. And so far I think I have revealed some interesting facts. I think the guilty side are not averse to using "bluff" as one of their tools?
Grahame,,I think you've done marvellously with your " investigating ".Go to the top of the class ;D ;D
-
Ok I have checked up with several telephone engineers who used to work on the telephone systems such as were at Maldon and the surrounding district and this is what they said:
(1) There was no way that a telephone engineer could tell who hung up the phone first. Unless they were (a) on the phone the same time as the two parties. (b) Using specialist surveilance equipment at the time of the phone calls themselves.
So that means that the telephone "expert" was wrong if he testified that Jeremy ended the call.
(2) As I said before concerning the cut-off point for whoever is ringing another person. Is 6 minutes. Thus making it impossible for Jeremy to phone his own phone from WHF and then pick up the phone at his own cottage. Even if he peddled like the clappers.
Conclusion: What do we deduce from the one telephone call from WHF on the morning of the 7th of August 1985? I believe we can confidently claim that this telephone call backs up the fact that Jeremy did indeed receive a call from his father that morning.
I further suggest that this fact should be included in Jeremy's latest application for appeal. So much for the prosecution "experts". If indeed the expert did actually testify as is claimed by scipio?
Thank you Grahame. Now all we have to do is wait for Scipio to announce that he has greater knowledge than the experts because he has a Phd in telephone engineering in the 1980's, just like he has Phd's in every other damn thing. I really don't know how his head manages to contain a brain of such great magnitude.
-
have we actually seen the testimony ?
-
have we actually seen the testimony ?
No Jan. I have asked scipio a couple of times for it. But as yet he has failed to see my posts?
-
i asume he hasnt seen it himself.
-
No Jan. I have asked scipio a couple of times for it. But as yet he has failed to see my posts?
Oh I am sure he will see it and come back with the document - I hope so because it would solve one of those arguments that has been going round in circles
-
Oh I am sure he will see it and come back with the document - I hope so because it would solve one of those arguments that has been going round in circles
It won't make any difference. Because if the expert said what scipio said he said, then he was clearly wrong.
The only way it could be true is that if Jeremy was under surveillance at the time. And that would take it into a whole new dimension. It would also prove one of my other arguments to be right. That Jeremy was in fact under surveillance by special branch under operation Stokenchurch. In which case they would also know what time the call was made.
-
Grahame, I feel certain that this has been talked about before, but please humour me. WHY was jeremy under surveillance???? What was considered to be SO important about him that SB had their eye on him?
-
Grahame, I feel certain that this has been talked about before, but please humour me. WHY was jeremy under surveillance???? What was considered to be SO important about him that SB had their eye on him?
I can confirm that Jeremy was under surveillance at the time. Special Branch were investigating rumours of the transporting of drugs from WHF to Colchester. If this is true then these men could either confirm that Jeremy is innocent or guilty. As of yet they have said nothing because of the secrecy of the operation at the time.
-
I can confirm that Jeremy was under surveillance at the time. Special Branch were investigating rumours of the transporting of drugs from WHF to Colchester. If this is true then these men could either confirm that Jeremy is innocent or guilty. As of yet they have said nothing because of the secrecy of the operation at the time.
Grahame, am I missing something here? This all happened in the 1980's. That he MAY have been guilty of drugs crimes doesn't necessarily make him guilty of murder. If this isn't about, if we can't get him on one count, we'll get him on another, what is it about?
-
And for fear that the men in question would have been done for drug trafficking.
-
Grahame, am I missing something here? This all happened in the 1980's. That he MAY have been guilty of drugs crimes doesn't necessarily make him guilty of murder. If this isn't about, if we can't get him on one count, we'll get him on another, what is it about?
I have no doubt that he was involved in drugs April? Of course this doesn't make him a murderer. This also could have prompted the comment of Kelvin MacKenzie to my friend campion junior: "We know the little shit didn't do it. It was the drugs gang he was involved with".
-
I have no doubt that he was involved in drugs April? Of course this doesn't make him a murderer. This also could have prompted the comment of Kelvin MacKenzie to my friend campion junior: "We know the little shit didn't do it. It was the drugs gang he was involved with".
Grahame, if he was getting it in to send it out, and I guess we're not talking marijuana, why would he need to go out to Amsterdam for supplies?
-
Jeremy wasn't the only one who was enjoying the fruits of his labour though !
-
Grahame, if he was getting it in to send it out, and I guess we're not talking marijuana, why would he need to go out to Amsterdam for supplies?
Canada too,,April..What was that about ?
-
Grahame, if he was getting it in to send it out, and I guess we're not talking marijuana, why would he need to go out to Amsterdam for supplies?
I think it was marijuwhatsitsname. It was all the rage then and ganges were being caught. I think that one boatload was apprehended by the drugs squad at North Fambridge when my mother lived there. The whole village was closed off by the police and she gave us a running commentary over the phone as she was listening to the police radios.
Just like one of the adventures of TinTin. Men in black running across the fields towards a yacht. Police helicopter above it. Searchlights and armed police. The men on the yacht were standing there with their hands up.
I believe that was part of Operation Stokenchurch as well? Campion told me the name of the boss of the drugs gang. But I've conveniently forgotten it. He disappeared and was never arrested. He is/was not a man to be trifled with and I am saying no more.
-
Ok I have checked up with several telephone engineers who used to work on the telephone systems such as were at Maldon and the surrounding district and this is what they said:
(1) There was no way that a telephone engineer could tell who hung up the phone first. Unless they were (a) on the phone the same time as the two parties. (b) Using specialist surveilance equipment at the time of the phone calls themselves.
So that means that the telephone "expert" was wrong if he testified that Jeremy ended the call.
(2) As I said before concerning the cut-off point for whoever is ringing another person. Is 6 minutes. Thus making it impossible for Jeremy to phone his own phone from WHF and then pick up the phone at his own cottage. Even if he peddled like the clappers.
Conclusion: What do we deduce from the one telephone call from WHF on the morning of the 7th of August 1985? I believe we can confidently claim that this telephone call backs up the fact that Jeremy did indeed receive a call from his father that morning.
I further suggest that this fact should be included in Jeremy's latest application for appeal. So much for the prosecution "experts". If indeed the expert did actually testify as is claimed by scipio?
Sorry Charlie but there is no way at all for you to say that it is more likely that Nevill phoned Jeremy's house than Jeremy phoned his house himself after murdering everyone.
In fact, it still is as unlikely that Neville called Jeremy as before.
The shooting started in the master bedroom with both parents being shot there. There is no evidence at all that anything occurred downstairs prior to this and no reason for anything to happen downstairs prior to this.
If something had happened downstairs Nevill would have been shot there and then. A crazy person doesn't hide a phone and remove the phone from the bedroom so right off the bat there is a big problem in claiming she went crazy simply in the middle of the night after everyone went to bed.
Never do you or any other Bamber defenders who insist Nevill called Jeremy ever address the questions asked of how he would have the opportunity to call Jeremy let alone a rational reason why he would do so.
The shooting started in the bedroom. There was no phone there and the killer opened fire on both parents.
There was no occasion to call Jeremy let alone a reason.
The evidence Jeremy called himself:
1) Nevill had no opportunity to call
A) The killer entered the bedroom and shot both parents a combined 11 times, there was no phone in the bedroom to use prior to the killer opening fire. All admit he didn't call after the shooting started because he could not speak and would have announced she had been shooting if that were the case.
B) There is no evidence at all that anything happened prior to the killer entering the bedroom to shoot the parents. The claim that the killer had Nevill downstairs not only is not supported by any evidence but makes no sense. If SHeila were having delusions she would not make a conscious decision to allow him to use th ephone, fail to shoot him while he was on the phone and then march him upstairs to shoot him in the bedroom with his wife. The tale makes no sense at all from the alleged standpoint of Sheila in a crazy rage and there is not a shred of evidence any such thing happened. Nevill woudl not have been given any opportunity to use the phone is the bottom line.
2) Even if by some miracle Nevill were given the opportunity to use the phone he had no reason to call Jeremy
A) Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so had a better physical ability than Jeremy to disarm Sheila
B) Nevill was in a position to disarm Sheila and had the necessity to do so, Jeremy would take 20 minutes or more to arrive. Why would he wait 20 minutes hoping Jeremy would arrive in time to disarm her instead of doing it himself?
C) Sheila and Jeremy did not get along. Seeing Jeremy would make things worse not better. The person with the calming effect on her an dbest chance of disarming her peacably was Nevill.
D) Jeremy had an answering machine and kept the phone on the bottom floor. Chances are the phone would not wake him up even if it rang incessantly and even if it did wake him he would take several minutes to reach the phone. The answering machine would pick up after 4-6 rings rings. So Nevill could at best expect to leave a message on an answering machine that might not be listened to until many hours later.
E) If Nevill was too worried to disarm her with his bare hands and truly in fear why would he risk being shot by sitting on the phone where he would be a dead duck if she caught him? It would take several minutes for Jeremy to answer and he would be an easy target the entire time. If truly in fear for his safety then he would have armed himself. There were guns, knives and other potential weapons that he would have grabbed if he had been left alone in the kitchen.
F) If too panicked to do anything himself he would have called police not put his son in harms way if he saw a real threat. So Nevill would not have called anyone unless he saw a real threat that he could not handle himself and for a threat that great he would not call Jeremy he would call police.
3) Jeremy lied about the phone being disconnected and being able to immediately use it
4) Sheila didn't beat or kill anyone else or even load the gun
A) Sheila would have had elevated lead levels on her hands had she loaded the bullets in the gun as claimed and in a frenzy loading fast would also have damaged at least the nail of the finger she used to push the bullets in the magazine
B) Sheila would have had back spatter of Nevill's blood on her body had she been the one who delivered the blows to Nevill in the kitchen. She also would have broken several nails by beating him so severely. The rifle stock broke and his head bashed in. One has to hold the rifle tightly to do this and when a rifle hits something hard there is a jolt to the person wielding it. The notion her nails would not have been touched is preposterous. She also would have cut her feet on the crockery on the floor of the kitchen and been likely to get step in blood or sugar.
C) The killer of the other 4 victims would have had high velocity back spatter as well as gunshot residue on the killer's body and clothing. She had neither.
D) There is no evidence at all to suggest she would be at risk for any delusions around 2:30 AM. Had she stopped taking her medication or were high on narcotics or drunk she could be at risk but none of these things were the case. Moreover, because of everyone else was sleeping there would be no risk of them causing agitaiton.
5) Sheila didn't kill herself
A) She was killed with the suppressor attached to the gun and could not have put it away after her death and could only have potentially killed herself with the suppressor if she stepped on the trigger with her toe but was seated when she was shot not standing.
B) Sheila was seated when killed and then moved flat shortly thereafter by someone else who moved her body flat. She can't have moved her own body after she was dead. Once flat blood dripped down the side of her neck and pooled on the floor.
C) The bible was placed in the pool of blood then repeatedly opened and closed while the blood was still wet. She could not have done these things since she was dead.
6) The evidence thus establishes that Sheila didn't do anything but rather was framed. There is substantial evidence that th eperson who framed her was Jeremy and this fake phone call is one of the ways he attempted to frame her. Since she didn't do anything the claim Nevill called to say she did is sheer nonsense. Jeremy lied about many things including telling police Sheila had fired all the guns in the house and had gone shooting with him. He admitted later he hadn't seen her shoot a gun.
What evidence is there that Nevill made this call? None.
The evidence is that someone made a call to Goldhanger, never hung up at WHF and the phone remained off the hook from the point of dialing until after police entered and hung the phone up.
You have never suggested how Nevill would have the opportunity to make the call let alone a reason why. You skip that inquiry including issues related to Jeremy's answering machine and how long it would take to answer. You just insist he somehow would have had the opportunity to call without Sheila stopping him (he according to you decided to make a plea to Jeremy instead of grabbing a gun or other weapon) and that at the very end Sheila walked in the kitchen. She is in a rage and sees him on the phone, what does she do does she shoot him like a crazy person in a rage would do? No. Does she order him to hang up the phone? No. According to you she walks over to the phone and she pushes down the buttons the receiver sits on to end the call. In so doing she has only one hand on the rifle. She has to be right next to Nevill, too close to aim the gun at him well. So instead of shooting him she gives him the perfect opportunity to disarm her. Nevill is so desperate he called Jeremy supposedly but doesn't take advantage instead he does nothing.
He doe snothing but he next either runs away to the bedroom or she marches him to the bedroom so she can blow both parents away in the same room instead of killing them separately. Why would she want to kill them together? This doesn't comport with the crazy rage claims.
In the meantime the notion she killed everyone is not supported by the evidence and the evidence proves she didn't kill herself.
You constantly suggest people use common sense it is time for you to start tkaing your own advice and using common sense for a change.
-
Okay,,you can be jailed for trafficking drugs,,and I suppose in a way Jeremy realised this,,but I wonder why it didn't come out in the open,,apart from it taking the heat off the murders ? Which was the intention !
-
I think it was marijuwhatsitsname. It was all the rage then and ganges were being caught. I think that one boatload was apprehended by the drugs squad at North Fambridge when my mother lived there. The whole village was closed off by the police and she gave us a running commentary over the phone as she was listening to the police radios.
Just like one of the adventures of TinTin. Men in black running across the fields towards a yacht. Police helicopter above it. Searchlights and armed police. The men on the yacht were standing there with their hands up.
I believe that was part of Operation Stokenchurch as well? Campion told me the name of the boss of the drugs gang. But I've conveniently forgotten it. He disappeared and was never arrested. He is/was not a man to be trifled with and I am saying no more.
D'ya know what, Grahame? I wouldn't dispute one word of what you've said. I lived in Coggeshall, remember ;)
-
I have no doubt that he was involved in drugs April? Of course this doesn't make him a murderer. This also could have prompted the comment of Kelvin MacKenzie to my friend campion junior: "We know the little shit didn't do it. It was the drugs gang he was involved with".
I am having a crystal ball moment now of what your latest story will be:
Drug dealer decides to kill Jeremy. Instead of just going to his house to do it they decide to kill his family and bait him to WHF. Killer's decide to use Nevill's own gun even. They have Nevill call Jeremy to try to sucker him there with a bogus story about Sheila going nuts.
They march him upstairs and try to kill him both parents in the bedroom but fail to do so. Instead of using their own weapons they only use his rifle because they decided to frame Sheila. Jeremy never shows but they learn police are on the way cause they split.
---
Is any of this credible? Not at all!
-
You thought wrong,,didn't you ? No such story exists,,nor is it going to be used as an " excuse " !!
-
Sorry Charlie but there is no way at all for you to say that it is more likely that Nevill phoned Jeremy's house than Jeremy phoned his house himself after murdering everyone.
In fact, it still is as unlikely that Neville called Jeremy as before.
The shooting started in the master bedroom with both parents being shot there. There is no evidence at all that anything occurred downstairs prior to this and no reason for anything to happen downstairs prior to this.
If something had happened downstairs Nevill would have been shot there and then. A crazy person doesn't hide a phone and remove the phone from the bedroom so right off the bat there is a big problem in claiming she went crazy simply in the middle of the night after everyone went to bed.
Never do you or any other Bamber defenders who insist Nevill called Jeremy ever address the questions asked of how he would have the opportunity to call Jeremy let alone a rational reason why he would do so.
The shooting started in the bedroom. There was no phone there and the killer opened fire on both parents.
There was no occasion to call Jeremy let alone a reason.
The evidence Jeremy called himself:
1) Nevill had no opportunity to call
A) The killer entered the bedroom and shot both parents a combined 11 times, there was no phone in the bedroom to use prior to the killer opening fire. All admit he didn't call after the shooting started because he could not speak and would have announced she had been shooting if that were the case.
B) There is no evidence at all that anything happened prior to the killer entering the bedroom to shoot the parents. The claim that the killer had Nevill downstairs not only is not supported by any evidence but makes no sense. If SHeila were having delusions she would not make a conscious decision to allow him to use th ephone, fail to shoot him while he was on the phone and then march him upstairs to shoot him in the bedroom with his wife. The tale makes no sense at all from the alleged standpoint of Sheila in a crazy rage and there is not a shred of evidence any such thing happened. Nevill woudl not have been given any opportunity to use the phone is the bottom line.
2) Even if by some miracle Nevill were given the opportunity to use the phone he had no reason to call Jeremy
A) Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so had a better physical ability than Jeremy to disarm Sheila
B) Nevill was in a position to disarm Sheila and had the necessity to do so, Jeremy would take 20 minutes or more to arrive. Why would he wait 20 minutes hoping Jeremy would arrive in time to disarm her instead of doing it himself?
C) Sheila and Jeremy did not get along. Seeing Jeremy would make things worse not better. The person with the calming effect on her an dbest chance of disarming her peacably was Nevill.
D) Jeremy had an answering machine and kept the phone on the bottom floor. Chances are the phone would not wake him up even if it rang incessantly and even if it did wake him he would take several minutes to reach the phone. The answering machine would pick up after 4-6 rings rings. So Nevill could at best expect to leave a message on an answering machine that might not be listened to until many hours later.
E) If Nevill was too worried to disarm her with his bare hands and truly in fear why would he risk being shot by sitting on the phone where he would be a dead duck if she caught him? It would take several minutes for Jeremy to answer and he would be an easy target the entire time. If truly in fear for his safety then he would have armed himself. There were guns, knives and other potential weapons that he would have grabbed if he had been left alone in the kitchen.
F) If too panicked to do anything himself he would have called police not put his son in harms way if he saw a real threat. So Nevill would not have called anyone unless he saw a real threat that he could not handle himself and for a threat that great he would not call Jeremy he would call police.
3) Jeremy lied about the phone being disconnected and being able to immediately use it
4) Sheila didn't beat or kill anyone else or even load the gun
A) Sheila would have had elevated lead levels on her hands had she loaded the bullets in the gun as claimed and in a frenzy loading fast would also have damaged at least the nail of the finger she used to push the bullets in the magazine
B) Sheila would have had back spatter of Nevill's blood on her body had she been the one who delivered the blows to Nevill in the kitchen. She also would have broken several nails by beating him so severely. The rifle stock broke and his head bashed in. One has to hold the rifle tightly to do this and when a rifle hits something hard there is a jolt to the person wielding it. The notion her nails would not have been touched is preposterous. She also would have cut her feet on the crockery on the floor of the kitchen and been likely to get step in blood or sugar.
C) The killer of the other 4 victims would have had high velocity back spatter as well as gunshot residue on the killer's body and clothing. She had neither.
D) There is no evidence at all to suggest she would be at risk for any delusions around 2:30 AM. Had she stopped taking her medication or were high on narcotics or drunk she could be at risk but none of these things were the case. Moreover, because of everyone else was sleeping there would be no risk of them causing agitaiton.
5) Sheila didn't kill herself
A) She was killed with the suppressor attached to the gun and could not have put it away after her death and could only have potentially killed herself with the suppressor if she stepped on the trigger with her toe but was seated when she was shot not standing.
B) Sheila was seated when killed and then moved flat shortly thereafter by someone else who moved her body flat. She can't have moved her own body after she was dead. Once flat blood dripped down the side of her neck and pooled on the floor.
C) The bible was placed in the pool of blood then repeatedly opened and closed while the blood was still wet. She could not have done these things since she was dead.
6) The evidence thus establishes that Sheila didn't do anything but rather was framed. There is substantial evidence that th eperson who framed her was Jeremy and this fake phone call is one of the ways he attempted to frame her. Since she didn't do anything the claim Nevill called to say she did is sheer nonsense. Jeremy lied about many things including telling police Sheila had fired all the guns in the house and had gone shooting with him. He admitted later he hadn't seen her shoot a gun.
What evidence is there that Nevill made this call? None.
The evidence is that someone made a call to Goldhanger, never hung up at WHF and the phone remained off the hook from the point of dialing until after police entered and hung the phone up.
You have never suggested how Nevill would have the opportunity to make the call let alone a reason why. You skip that inquiry including issues related to Jeremy's answering machine and how long it would take to answer. You just insist he somehow would have had the opportunity to call without Sheila stopping him (he according to you decided to make a plea to Jeremy instead of grabbing a gun or other weapon) and that at the very end Sheila walked in the kitchen. She is in a rage and sees him on the phone, what does she do does she shoot him like a crazy person in a rage would do? No. Does she order him to hang up the phone? No. According to you she walks over to the phone and she pushes down the buttons the receiver sits on to end the call. In so doing she has only one hand on the rifle. She has to be right next to Nevill, too close to aim the gun at him well. So instead of shooting him she gives him the perfect opportunity to disarm her. Nevill is so desperate he called Jeremy supposedly but doesn't take advantage instead he does nothing.
He doe snothing but he next either runs away to the bedroom or she marches him to the bedroom so she can blow both parents away in the same room instead of killing them separately. Why would she want to kill them together? This doesn't comport with the crazy rage claims.
In the meantime the notion she killed everyone is not supported by the evidence and the evidence proves she didn't kill herself.
You constantly suggest people use common sense it is time for you to start tkaing your own advice and using common sense for a change.
In other words you are saying that you never read my post. Everything that you have said is based entirely on your assumption of how things happened. What I have told you about the telephone is fact.
-
I am having a crystal ball moment now of what your latest story will be:
Drug dealer decides to kill Jeremy. Instead of just going to his house to do it they decide to kill his family and bait him to WHF. Killer's decide to use Nevill's own gun even. They have Nevill call Jeremy to try to sucker him there with a bogus story about Sheila going nuts.
They march him upstairs and try to kill him both parents in the bedroom but fail to do so. Instead of using their own weapons they only use his rifle because they decided to frame Sheila. Jeremy never shows but they learn police are on the way cause they split.
---
Is any of this credible? Not at all!
Well you just suggested it not me. My post was about surveillance. That the only way that anyone would know if Jeremy had hung up first was for him to be on surveillance and I stated and demonstrated that once we get into the realm of surveillance we could go anywhere. That is what I was actually saying. It was you who stated the silly idea that the family was killed by the drugs gang. I was just quoting Kelvin MacKenzie the editor of the Sun newspaper at the time.
So in short what I was actually saying and in fact established that the facts are that no telephone expert could tell who hung up on who. Show me the court transcript where you got this from. In fact it doesn't matter because it's wrong anyway.
-
In other words you are saying that you never read my post. Everything that you have said is based entirely on your assumption of how things happened. What I have told you about the telephone is fact.
I read your post, all your post estbalishes is that SOMEONE made a call from WHF to Goldhanger. Nothing more.
You had no basis at all to suggest the person who did was Nevill but insist it was.
I went through all the considerations related to whether Nevill would have the opportunity and reason to call. Since he would have neither a reason nor opportunity you intentionally refuse to discuss such considerations.
By running away you lost the debate by default.
-
Jeremy grew and sold small amounts of canabis if he was involved in anything bigger it would be foolish to draw attention to yourself by doing this. big time dealers would not want to know him if he was a security risk.
the drug squad would be interested in drugs special branch I suspect would only be interested if it was some sort of funding operation IRA etc or something political.
if he was into anything like this he could have spilled the beans and cut a deal of some sort ,conspiracy theories running rife David Ike teratory
I think this is all rather silly. as the RUC used to say "its an ordinary decent criminal"
-
I read your post, all your post estbalishes is that SOMEONE made a call from WHF to Goldhanger. Nothing more.
You had no basis at all to suggest the person who did was Nevill but insist it was.
I went through all the considerations related to whether Nevill would have the opportunity and reason to call. Since he would have neither a reason nor opportunity you intentionally refuse to discuss such considerations.
By running away you lost the debate by default.
Ok prove me wrong. Show me the court transcript where the "expert" said that Jeremy was the first to hang up the phone. I established from around 4 telephone engineers that it was impossible to say one way or the other who was the first to hang up. Unless he was (1) in on the conversation. Or (2) Monitoring with special equipment at the very time of the phone call....charlie ;)
-
scipio is hell bent on making friends here! ;D
-
Jeremy grew and sold small amounts of canabis if he was involved in anything bigger it would be foolish to draw attention to yourself by doing this. big time dealers would not want to know him if he was a security risk.
the drug squad would be interested in drugs special branch I suspect would only be interested if it was some sort of funding operation IRA etc or something political.
if he was into anything like this he could have spilled the beans and cut a deal of some sort ,conspiracy theories running rife David Ike teratory
I think this is all rather silly. as the RUC used to say "its an ordinary decent criminal"
All I was doing in bringing the subject up wilf, was to emphasise the point that no engineer or expert or anyone could tell who hung up the phone first unless they were monitoring the phone at the time.
We must also not forget that the probable cut-off point of the ringing phone was only 6 minutes. Thus making it "impossible" for Jeremy to set the phone ringing and then ride home to answer it, even if he rode like the clappers. Or even if he took his invisible car.
Now may I suggest that in the light of these established facts not scipio. nor me, nor anyone else can write their scenario with any confidence until these questions are answered FIRST of all?
-
Ok prove me wrong. Show me the court transcript where the "expert" said that Jeremy was the first to hang up the phone. I established from around 4 telephone engineers that it was impossible to say one way or the other who was the first to hang up. Unless he was (1) in on the conversation. Or (2) Monitoring with special equipment at the very time of the phone call....charlie ;)
At BEST your supposed evidence establishes it is POSSIBLE that someone could have hung up the phone and immediately took it off the hook after calling Jeremy's house.
It doesn't prove that this DID happen. Based on your own claims it is just as possible for the pohone to have remained off the hook at WHF after dialing Jeremy's house and no one hanging it up there.
The questions asked of you regarding how Nevill would have the opportunity to clal and why fully apply since you are claiming he did.
Unless you can answer ALL the questions posed then you have ZERO evidence that he called.
But the fact that Sheila can't have killed herself and didn't kill anyone else is th estrongest evidence of all that Nevill never called.
The lack of any opportunity and reason is bad enough but that is the the coup de grace.
Each time you run away from the debate over the issues raise dit simply shows you know Jerem ynever made the call and are simply full of crap in trying to claim he did because you don't want to admit Jeremy's guilt.
-
scipio is hell bent on making friends here! ;D
One thing for sure,Alias,,with a friend like him,you wouldn't need an enemy. >:(
-
At BEST your supposed evidence establishes it is POSSIBLE that someone could have hung up the phone and immediately took it off the hook after calling Jeremy's house.
It doesn't prove that this DID happen. Based on your own claims it is just as possible for the pohone to have remained off the hook at WHF after dialing Jeremy's house and no one hanging it up there.
The questions asked of you regarding how Nevill would have the opportunity to clal and why fully apply since you are claiming he did.
Unless you can answer ALL the questions posed then you have ZERO evidence that he called.
But the fact that Sheila can't have killed herself and didn't kill anyone else is th estrongest evidence of all that Nevill never called.
The lack of any opportunity and reason is bad enough but that is the the coup de grace.
Each time you run away from the debate over the issues raise dit simply shows you know Jerem ynever made the call and are simply full of crap in trying to claim he did because you don't want to admit Jeremy's guilt.
Scipio I've asked you to show me the court transcript of the so called telephone expert. So far you have not done so. Are you prepared to do this or not? If not, then direct me to the place where you got the idea from. Wouldn't you agree that, that is a good starting point?
Also scipio I am not running away from any debate. But I am trying to pin you down to the very basics. It is you who are flinging out these ideas all over the place of how Jeremy did the crime not me. All I am doing is questioning you on just ONE POINT. The telephone call. Which it appears that you are either for some reason reluctant to answer directly. Or indeed cannot answer, because you have nothing.
-
Alias bet he is on your Christmas card list ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
At BEST your supposed evidence establishes it is POSSIBLE that someone could have hung up the phone and immediately took it off the hook after calling Jeremy's house.
It doesn't prove that this DID happen. Based on your own claims it is just as possible for the pohone to have remained off the hook at WHF after dialing Jeremy's house and no one hanging it up there.
The questions asked of you regarding how Nevill would have the opportunity to clal and why fully apply since you are claiming he did.
Unless you can answer ALL the questions posed then you have ZERO evidence that he called.
But the fact that Sheila can't have killed herself and didn't kill anyone else is th estrongest evidence of all that Nevill never called.
The lack of any opportunity and reason is bad enough but that is the the coup de grace.
Each time you run away from the debate over the issues raise dit simply shows you know Jerem ynever made the call and are simply full of crap in trying to claim he did because you don't want to admit Jeremy's guilt.
Indeed I have successfully established the fact that it could not have been Jeremy who made the call to himself from WHF. Therefore the logical argument is that it must have been someone else who phoned from WHF. That person according to Jeremy at least sounded like his father. It's quite simple charlie why can't you grasp it? What, is your prejudice getting in the way? ::)
-
Alias bet he is on your Christmas card list ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I hope not. Not sure I will have time to read 37 pages of Christmas greetings, so much to do around that time of year.
-
All I was doing in bringing the subject up wilf, was to emphasise the point that no engineer or expert or anyone could tell who hung up the phone first unless they were monitoring the phone at the time.
We must also not forget that the probable cut-off point of the ringing phone was only 6 minutes. Thus making it "impossible" for Jeremy to set the phone ringing and then ride home to answer it, even if he rode like the clappers. Or even if he took his invisible car.
Now may I suggest that in the light of these established facts not scipio. nor me, nor anyone else can write their scenario with any confidence until these questions are answered FIRST of all?
sorry I wasnt knocking you or anyone I fully agree that the telephone engineers information helps to put a solid slant on the presented facts I was advised that in the early hours the cut off for unanswered calls was two units which it seems is 6 mins your information confirms this.
I still think Ralph called Jeremy then the police before Shiela fired a shot
P.S.people who shout thier ideas as fact only convince me that they can shout
-
Scipio I've asked you to show me the court transcript of the so called telephone expert. So far you have not done so. Are you prepared to do this or not? If not, then direct me to the place where you got the idea from. Wouldn't you agree that, that is a good starting point?
Also scipio I am not running away from any debate. But I am trying to pin you down to the very basics. It is you who are flinging out these ideas all over the place of how Jeremy did the crime not me. All I am doing is questioning you on just ONE POINT. The telephone call. Which it appears that you are either for some reason reluctant to answer directly. Or indeed cannot answer, because you have nothing.
The transcript is not available online.
I am not bothering to challenge your claims about them not being able to prove who hung up the phone first.
I said even if your claims are taken as true that doesn't establish that Nevill phoned Jeremy. You claimed that your evidence proves Jeremy calls, it doesn't do so whatsoever.
Based only on your alleged evidence it is not more likely that Nevill called Jeremy than that Jeremy called his own house and left the phone off the hook.
We have Jeremy's claim Nevill called.
In evaluating a claim you have to evaluate whether the claim makes sense and what other evidence exists to either support or refute it. All the points I raised are the ones to evaluate the validity of the claim.
You refuse to discuss such because everyone knows Nevill didn't make that call. Jeremy made up that call just like he made up the claim that Sheila shot every gun in the house which bugs you to hear because you want to pretend he didn't try to frame her though deep down you know he did.
You have the same reaction as people who want to pretend Amanda Knox is guilty. They know it isn't true but are willing to pretend anyway and dey reality to keep the farce going even if it entails pretending she invited Guede there though the evidence proves he broke in.
The truth shall set you free just stop with the pretense and alleviate your blood pressure problems you will be better off.
-
are why does that not suprise me its convently not available on line.
-
sorry I wasnt knocking you or anyone I fully agree that the telephone engineers information helps to put a solid slant on the presented facts I was advised that in the early hours the cut off for unanswered calls was two units which it seems is 6 mins your information confirms this.
I still think Ralph called Jeremy then the police before Shiela fired a shot
P.S.people who shout thier ideas as fact only convince me that they can shout
They're called empty vessels,Wilf.
-
Ha Ha Alias understand where you are coming from all gets so boring after the first line ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Boring ? He'd talk a glass eye to sleep.
-
sorry I wasnt knocking you or anyone I fully agree that the telephone engineers information helps to put a solid slant on the presented facts I was advised that in the early hours the cut off for unanswered calls was two units which it seems is 6 mins your information confirms this.
I still think Ralph called Jeremy then the police before Shiela fired a shot
P.S.people who shout thier ideas as fact only convince me that they can shout
No other calls were made that night from WHF so how could Nevill have called police?
Worse yet no police say he called them.
SO why do you believe he called them? Just because you want to believe Jeremy is innocent.
That is the same reason you believe Nevill called Jeremy.
In looking at the actually evidence it is clearl Nevill called no one.
You have no evidentiary basis for your beliefs just blind faith in Jeremy.
-
are so a policeman says it dident happen so it cant of done becouse policeman allways tell the truth dont they.
-
are so a policeman says it dident happen so it cant of done becouse policeman allways tell the truth dont they.
It has nothing to do with police. Jeremy made the call not Nevill because of the following:
The shooting started in the master bedroom with both parents being shot there. The gun had 11 bullets at the time (maximum capacity) and thus 11 shots fired. Sheila would neither have had the knowledge nor desire to bother to load 11 instead of just loading a full magazine. In the meantime there is no evidence at all that anything occurred downstairs prior to this and no reason for anything to happen downstairs prior to this, everyone had been sleeping it was 2-3AM when this supposedly happened.
If something had happened downstairs Nevill would have been shot there and then. A crazy person doesn't hide a phone and remove the phone from the bedroom so right off the bat there is a big problem in claiming she went crazy simply in the middle of the night after everyone went to bed.
Never do you or any other Bamber defenders who insist Nevill called Jeremy ever address the questions asked of how he would have the opportunity to call Jeremy let alone a rational reason why he would do so.
The shooting started in the bedroom. There was no phone there and the killer opened fire on both parents.
There was no occasion to call Jeremy let alone a reason.
The evidence Jeremy called himself:
1) Nevill had no opportunity to call
A) The killer entered the bedroom and shot both parents a combined 11 times, there was no phone in the bedroom to use prior to the killer opening fire. All admit he didn't call after the shooting started because he could not speak and would have announced she had been shooting if that were the case.
B) There is no evidence at all that anything happened prior to the killer entering the bedroom to shoot the parents. The claim that the killer had Nevill downstairs not only is not supported by any evidence but makes no sense. If SHeila were having delusions she would not make a conscious decision to allow him to use th ephone, fail to shoot him while he was on the phone and then march him upstairs to shoot him in the bedroom with his wife. The tale makes no sense at all from the alleged standpoint of Sheila in a crazy rage and there is not a shred of evidence any such thing happened. Nevill woudl not have been given any opportunity to use the phone is the bottom line.
2) Even if by some miracle Nevill were given the opportunity to use the phone he had no reason to call Jeremy
A) Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so had a better physical ability than Jeremy to disarm Sheila
B) Nevill was in a position to disarm Sheila and had the necessity to do so, Jeremy would take 20 minutes or more to arrive. Why would he wait 20 minutes hoping Jeremy would arrive in time to disarm her instead of doing it himself?
C) Sheila and Jeremy did not get along. Seeing Jeremy would make things worse not better. The person with the calming effect on her an dbest chance of disarming her peacably was Nevill.
D) Jeremy had an answering machine and kept the phone on the bottom floor. Chances are the phone would not wake him up even if it rang incessantly and even if it did wake him he would take several minutes to reach the phone. The answering machine would pick up after 4-6 rings rings. So Nevill could at best expect to leave a message on an answering machine that might not be listened to until many hours later.
E) If Nevill was too worried to disarm her with his bare hands and truly in fear why would he risk being shot by sitting on the phone where he would be a dead duck if she caught him? It would take several minutes for Jeremy to answer and he would be an easy target the entire time. If truly in fear for his safety then he would have armed himself. There were guns, knives and other potential weapons that he would have grabbed if he had been left alone in the kitchen.
F) If too panicked to do anything himself he would have called police not put his son in harms way if he saw a real threat. So Nevill would not have called anyone unless he saw a real threat that he could not handle himself and for a threat that great he would not call Jeremy he would call police.
3) Jeremy lied about the phone being disconnected and being able to immediately use it
4) Sheila didn't beat or kill anyone else or even load the gun
A) Sheila would have had elevated lead levels on her hands had she loaded the bullets in the gun as claimed and in a frenzy loading fast would also have damaged at least the nail of the finger she used to push the bullets in the magazine
B) Sheila would have had back spatter of Nevill's blood on her body had she been the one who delivered the blows to Nevill in the kitchen. She also would have broken several nails by beating him so severely. The rifle stock broke and his head bashed in. One has to hold the rifle tightly to do this and when a rifle hits something hard there is a jolt to the person wielding it. The notion her nails would not have been touched is preposterous. She also would have cut her feet on the crockery on the floor of the kitchen and been likely to get step in blood or sugar.
C) The killer of the other 4 victims would have had high velocity back spatter as well as gunshot residue on the killer's body and clothing. She had neither.
D) There is no evidence at all to suggest she would be at risk for any delusions around 2:30 AM. Had she stopped taking her medication or were high on narcotics or drunk she could be at risk but none of these things were the case. Moreover, because of everyone else was sleeping there would be no risk of them causing agitaiton.
5) Sheila didn't kill herself
A) She was killed with the suppressor attached to the gun and could not have put it away after her death and could only have potentially killed herself with the suppressor if she stepped on the trigger with her toe but was seated when she was shot not standing.
B) Sheila was seated when killed and then moved flat shortly thereafter by someone else who moved her body flat. She can't have moved her own body after she was dead. Once flat blood dripped down the side of her neck and pooled on the floor.
C) The bible was placed in the pool of blood then repeatedly opened and closed while the blood was still wet. She could not have done these things since she was dead.
6) The evidence thus establishes that Sheila didn't do anything but rather was framed. There is substantial evidence that th eperson who framed her was Jeremy and this fake phone call is one of the ways he attempted to frame her. Since she didn't do anything the claim Nevill called to say she did is sheer nonsense. Jeremy lied about many things including telling police Sheila had fired all the guns in the house and had gone shooting with him. He admitted later he hadn't seen her shoot a gun.
What evidence is there that Nevill made this call? None.
The evidence is that someone made a call to Goldhanger, never hung up at WHF and the phone remained off the hook from the point of dialing until after police entered and hung the phone up.
Jeremy supperter have never suggested how Nevill would have the opportunity to make the call let alone a reason why. You skip that inquiry including issues related to Jeremy's answering machine and how long it would take to answer. You just insist he somehow would have had the opportunity to call without Sheila stopping him (he according to you decided to make a plea to Jeremy instead of grabbing a gun or other weapon) and that at the very end Sheila walked in the kitchen. She is in a rage and sees him on the phone, what does she do does she shoot him like a crazy person in a rage would do? No. Does she order him to hang up the phone? No. According to Jeremy supporters she walks over to the phone and she pushes down the buttons the receiver sits on to end the call. In so doing she has only one hand on the rifle. She has to be right next to Nevill, too close to aim the gun at him well. So instead of shooting him she gives him the perfect opportunity to disarm her. Nevill is so desperate he called Jeremy supposedly but doesn't take advantage of the golden opportunity to disarm her instead he does nothing.
He does nothing but he next either runs away to the bedroom or she marches him to the bedroom so she can blow both parents away in the same room instead of killing them separately. Why would she want to kill them together? This doesn't comport with the crazy rage claims.
In the meantime the notion she killed anyone is not supported by the evidence and the evidence proves she didn't kill herself.
-
Let's just say that the killings were a joint effort,,but without Jeremy !
-
Never do you or any other Bamber defenders who insist Nevill called Jeremy ever address the questions asked of how he would have the opportunity to call Jeremy let alone a rational reason why he would d.
Jeremy supperter have never suggested how Nevill would have the opportunity to make the call let alone a reason why.
I'm not going to bother to go through it all again but actually YES we HAVE addressed those questions but it seems that there may be certain points WE raise that you aren't interested in responding to. Makes it easier for you to tell us we don't address certain points that YOU raise, I guess.
-
i cant think how many times that qustions been raised and answered.
-
The transcript is not available online.
I am not bothering to challenge your claims about them not being able to prove who hung up the phone first.
I said even if your claims are taken as true that doesn't establish that Nevill phoned Jeremy. You claimed that your evidence proves Jeremy calls, it doesn't do so whatsoever.
Based only on your alleged evidence it is not more likely that Nevill called Jeremy than that Jeremy called his own house and left the phone off the hook.
We have Jeremy's claim Nevill called.
In evaluating a claim you have to evaluate whether the claim makes sense and what other evidence exists to either support or refute it. All the points I raised are the ones to evaluate the validity of the claim.
You refuse to discuss such because everyone knows Nevill didn't make that call. Jeremy made up that call just like he made up the claim that Sheila shot every gun in the house which bugs you to hear because you want to pretend he didn't try to frame her though deep down you know he did.
You have the same reaction as people who want to pretend Amanda Knox is guilty. They know it isn't true but are willing to pretend anyway and dey reality to keep the farce going even if it entails pretending she invited Guede there though the evidence proves he broke in.
The truth shall set you free just stop with the pretense and alleviate your blood pressure problems you will be better off.
Truth? You can't handle the truth, to quote a phrase. If you honestly believed in the truth you would do as I have done and fully investigate the claims of those who assert what they know not. On another note your reluctance in proving my "very strong case" establishes the fact that you are only interested in that ahem "truth" that seems to back up your claims. I AM interested in the truth and IU will challenge anything that appears to me to be too neatly put together. To say that the telephone engineer's testimony is not available online appears to me to be tantamount to saying I haven't even seen his testimony, but rather I got the information second hand.
So let's just recap shall we?
(1) Jeremy claims to have received a phone call from his father in the early hours of 7th August 1985.
(2) Indeed according to a telephone engineer such a call was made from WHF that morning and note, only one phone call.
(3) Jeremy could not have made that call himself from WHF and then peddled home on a bike. Why? Because (a) It would take him at least 20 minutes, even if he cycled like the clappers. And why is this so important? Because (b) The cut-off point of the ringing in those days was around 6 minutes and it is a fact that Jeremy could not get home in time to answer it.
(4) The telephone engineer's information was wrong. He "allegedly" stated that Jeremy would have hung up the receiver first. Through investigating this I found that there was no way for an engineer to tell who hung up the phone first.
Logical conclusion: Jeremy claimed to have received a phone call that morning from his father. One phone call was indeed made that morning from WHF. So who was at the farm that morning to make that call? Well I've just established beyond doubt that it could not have been Jeremy. So logically it must have been Nevill.
ps: I am currently investigating if it was possible to know the time of that phone call from WHF. I'll let you know if I am successful.
-
I am having a crystal ball moment now of what your latest story will be:
Drug dealer decides to kill Jeremy. Instead of just going to his house to do it they decide to kill his family and bait him to WHF. Killer's decide to use Nevill's own gun even. They have Nevill call Jeremy to try to sucker him there with a bogus story about Sheila going nuts.
They march him upstairs and try to kill him both parents in the bedroom but fail to do so. Instead of using their own weapons they only use his rifle because they decided to frame Sheila. Jeremy never shows but they learn police are on the way cause they split.
---
Is any of this credible? Not at all!
Ah, that's where you get your info! ;)
-
i just thought considering everybody knows that the police can check weather a call was made or not why would he make up a story about a call.
-
I'm not going to bother to go through it all again but actually YES we HAVE addressed those questions but it seems that there may be certain points WE raise that you aren't interested in responding to. Makes it easier for you to tell us we don't address certain points that YOU raise, I guess.
You never went through it ever. Your claim you did is false. This is the classic dishonest response from someone unable to refute evidence. The bogus claim you already did.
-
It seems this forum has found it's own Hercule Poirot.
Investigating things none of Jeremy's lawyers apparently have not thought of. Who is writing facts but not quoting a source.
I have never claimed Jeremy picked up his own phone call. Whether he did or not is neither here or there. I had to ring up my home phone from a call box once. To make sure my home phone worked. In the days before mobiles. Several minutes later I returned home. Guess what, the phone was ringing.
His answering machine may have taken his WHF call. Which shows the WHF call was answered.
-
much like you dishonest response about saying you had seen the testimony.
-
You never went through it ever. Your claim you did is false. This is the classic dishonest response from someone unable to refute evidence. The bogus claim you already did.
Excuse me - have you read all the posts on this forum? If not how can you make such claims ?
That is extremely rude - but I guess you are just like Adam - bandy false allegations about and then never apologise because it is below you.
-
You never went through it ever. Your claim you did is false. This is the classic dishonest response from someone unable to refute evidence. The bogus claim you already did.
I think that's a case of pots and kettle's, you haven't responded to lots of things and the fact that you flood the board with your opinions makes it difficult for people to respond to a whole post while also trying to live a life! April is NOT dishonest and I have noticed you use this accusation now and again simply because people don't agree with you.
-
You never went through it ever. Your claim you did is false. This is the classic dishonest response from someone unable to refute evidence. The bogus claim you already did.
And yours is the classic response of someone who wishes to evade a certain subject.
-
It seems this forum has found it's own Hercule Poirot.
Investigating things none of Jeremy's lawyers apparently have not thought of. Who is writing facts but not quoting a source.
I have never claimed Jeremy picked up his own phone call. Whether he did or not is neither here or there. I had to ring up my home phone from a call box once. To make sure my home phone worked. In the days before mobiles. Several minutes later I returned home. Guess what, the phone was ringing.
His answering machine may have taken his WHF call. Which shows the WHF call was answered.
are so you admit the call happened now.
-
It seems this forum has found it's own Hercule Poirot.
Investigating things none of Jeremy's lawyers apparently have not thought of. Who is writing facts but not quoting a source.
I have never claimed Jeremy picked up his own phone call. Whether he did or not is neither here or there. I had to ring up my home phone from a call box once. To make sure my home phone worked. In the days before mobiles. Several minutes later I returned home. Guess what, the phone was ringing.
His answering machine may have taken his WHF call. Which shows the WHF call was answered.
gullible is a word that comes to mind.
-
so how does he comit the murders at whf then phone himself from whf then back home in time to phone julie mugford.
rember hes supposed to be on a push bike.
hed be pushing it for time wouldent he.
-
is the telephone engineers testimony in any of the books? If it exists you would think it would be?
-
Truth? You can't handle the truth, to quote a phrase. If you honestly believed in the truth you would do as I have done and fully investigate the claims of those who assert what they know not. On another note your reluctance in proving my "very strong case" establishes the fact that you are only interested in that ahem "truth" that seems to back up your claims. I AM interested in the truth and IU will challenge anything that appears to me to be too neatly put together. To say that the telephone engineer's testimony is not available online appears to me to be tantamount to saying I haven't even seen his testimony, but rather I got the information second hand.
So let's just recap shall we?
(1) Jeremy claims to have received a phone call from his father in the early hours of 7th August 1985.
(2) Indeed according to a telephone engineer such a call was made from WHF that morning and note, only one phone call.
(3) Jeremy could not have made that call himself from WHF and then peddled home on a bike. Why? Because (a) It would take him at least 20 minutes, even if he cycled like the clappers. And why is this so important? Because (b) The cut-off point of the ringing in those days was around 6 minutes and it is a fact that Jeremy could not get home in time to answer it.
Actually the ride on a bike could be done in 12-15 minutes.
But you need evidence that a phone call in those days would cut off after 6 minutes of ringing. If your claim had any merit the defense would have elicited such from the phone representative at trial.
Since the defense could nto find any such evidence and I have been unable to find any objective sources claiming a phone would cut off after 6 minutes this appears to be something you simply made up.
But by all means post reliable evidence to back up your claim (and no claiming someone told you such isn't reliable evidence).
(4) The telephone engineer's information was wrong. He "allegedly" stated that Jeremy would have hung up the receiver first. Through investigating this I found that there was no way for an engineer to tell who hung up the phone first.
Logical conclusion: Jeremy claimed to have received a phone call that morning from his father. One phone call was indeed made that morning from WHF. So who was at the farm that morning to make that call? Well I've just established beyond doubt that it could not have been Jeremy. So logically it must have been Nevill.
ps: I am currently investigating if it was possible to know the time of that phone call from WHF. I'll let you know if I am successful.
Saying you spoke to people means the testimony at trial was wrong is not solid evidence.
I found a book on telephone operation that clearly states that each side of a call in that era had an end office monitor the loop currents during the entire call to determine if the party on their side hangs up.
When someone hangs up the end office signals the other office.
So there was in fact abasis to say that they could figure out who hung up first regardless of what your friends claim.
At any rate even if we completely ignore any evidence of who hung up first and pretend they could not tell this still doesn't help you at all. All the other evidence that speaks against the call is overwhelming.
Someone claiming to you they should have been able to tell the exact time the call was dialed or alternatively answered would be of little use. It neither proves they could in fact determine the precise time it was dialed/answered or more more importantly establishes what that precise time was.
The main value of the precise time would be to see just how long Jeremy waited before calling police. For that matter though they would have been able to determine the exact time he called Julie and not have needed to rely on testimony.
-
this was written in 2011 .
With regard to the sequence and timings of the telephone calls on the morning of Wednesday 7th August 1985, according to the “Blood Relations” book the following is detailed on pages 290 and 291.
….. “In the spring of 1991, Jeremy Bamber listed a dozen points from the crown case that he contested or rejected outright. He supplied comments on each of them:
1 The phone call to the police.
The prosecution fixed the time that Jeremy Bamber called the police at 3.26 a.m. on the morning of the massacre. Jeremy says this timing is wrong. At 3.26, PC Michael West (who took his call at Chelmsford police control room) telephoned Malcolm Bonnet in the information room. Bonnet’s (undated) statement: ‘At 03.26 a.m. on Wednesday 7 August 1985, I received a telephone call on the internal line.” Jeremy says West made this call to Bonner after his own call reporting trouble at the farm, so this call ‘must have been between 3.15 and 3.20.’
The question of timing here is further muddled because PC West originally logged Bamber’s call at 3.36 a.m. Either the clock was wrong, or West misread it, or he simply made a slip when entering the time on the telephone log. Certainly, the log clearly shows the call timed at 0336. Jeremy suggests two possible answers: Either West received another call from someone else (‘such as my Dad alerting the police to his situation’) or West has ‘intentionally manipulated the timing of my call to Chelmsford in an attempt to undermine my evidence, knowing as we do that PC West did not write up this account until 13 September’ – 5 days after Jeremy’s arrest at Maida Vale, and more than five weeks after the killings.
2 The phone call from Nevill Bamber.
Some accounts of the case have embroidered Jeremy’s account of the phone call he claimed to have received from his father in the middle of the night. Jeremy never claimed in the course of this call, he heard a shot and the line went dead.
Jeremy says: ‘The phone conversation with my Dad did end abruptly and when I phoned him back the line was engaged. It’s hard to guess what happened with his phone. Either the socket was disconnected from the wall, or the handset replaced. I don’t specifically recall hearing a dial tone, but there could have been one, though when I phone back it was definitely an engaged signal which could have been Dad phoning for help elsewhere.’ We do know when the police entered the house, the telephone receiver was off the hook.
3 The call back.
Jeremy told PC West that after receiving the worried call from his father, the line had gone dead and he had tried to call back, only to hear the engaged tone. It’s clear that had Nevill Bamber dropped the received under attack from Sheila, the line would have stayed open. Jeremy could not have obtained a fresh dialling tone until either the receiver at the farm had been replaced, or two units of phone time had been automatically metered. At that time of night, this would have taken ten minutes.
Jeremy says: ‘No one suggests that Dad was attacked while he was speaking to me. The phone may have been replaced in the usual way or the plug disconnected from the wall. This would have cut the connection, thereby allowing me to phone from my house. I recall distinctly getting the engaged tone when I rang Dad back, which indicates that he was either making another call or his handset was off the hook. Even if it is correct that Dad just dropped the phone during his call to me, it is not true that I would have had to wait until two units of phone time had elapsed before getting a fresh dialling tone.’
Jeremy cites the statement of an engineer called Robert Cox, who tested this point on behalf of the police. They wanted to know if Caller A from Tollesbury [Nevill Bamber] had phoned Caller B at Goldhanger [Jeremy] and during the course of the call, Caller A had placed the received down but not on the hook, would caller B be able to dial out again? The answer to this question appears to be: Yes. Caller B [Jeremy] could have dialled out again provided he had replaced his receiver on the hook for a continuous period of between one and two minutes. Engineer Cox stressed that the period MUST be continuous. If Jeremy had picked his receiver even for a moment before the ‘Force Release’ period had expired, this period would begin all over again. The ‘Force Release’ period can be as long as two minutes.
Jeremy says that although he replaced his handset after the call from his father, ‘I don’t believe that two minutes elapsed before I tried phoning him back. My return call was probably inside a minute although I am guessing. I know I rang back almost straight away. Of course it’s all irrelevant if Dad replaced his handset or pressed the cut-off button.’……..
-
is the telephone engineers testimony in any of the books? If it exists you would think it would be?
you would think one of the authers would of covered it wouldn't you.
-
Jeremy's supporters are focusing on something else. Which even if correct does not prove his innocence in any way.
This was after denying Jeremy could lock the kitchen window from outside. I provided four sources which refuted this.
-
this was written in 2011 .
With regard to the sequence and timings of the telephone calls on the morning of Wednesday 7th August 1985, according to the “Blood Relations” book the following is detailed on pages 290 and 291.
….. “In the spring of 1991, Jeremy Bamber listed a dozen points from the crown case that he contested or rejected outright. He supplied comments on each of them:
1 The phone call to the police.
The prosecution fixed the time that Jeremy Bamber called the police at 3.26 a.m. on the morning of the massacre. Jeremy says this timing is wrong. At 3.26, PC Michael West (who took his call at Chelmsford police control room) telephoned Malcolm Bonnet in the information room. Bonnet’s (undated) statement: ‘At 03.26 a.m. on Wednesday 7 August 1985, I received a telephone call on the internal line.” Jeremy says West made this call to Bonner after his own call reporting trouble at the farm, so this call ‘must have been between 3.15 and 3.20.’
The question of timing here is further muddled because PC West originally logged Bamber’s call at 3.36 a.m. Either the clock was wrong, or West misread it, or he simply made a slip when entering the time on the telephone log. Certainly, the log clearly shows the call timed at 0336. Jeremy suggests two possible answers: Either West received another call from someone else (‘such as my Dad alerting the police to his situation’) or West has ‘intentionally manipulated the timing of my call to Chelmsford in an attempt to undermine my evidence, knowing as we do that PC West did not write up this account until 13 September’ – 5 days after Jeremy’s arrest at Maida Vale, and more than five weeks after the killings.
2 The phone call from Nevill Bamber.
Some accounts of the case have embroidered Jeremy’s account of the phone call he claimed to have received from his father in the middle of the night. Jeremy never claimed in the course of this call, he heard a shot and the line went dead.
Jeremy says: ‘The phone conversation with my Dad did end abruptly and when I phoned him back the line was engaged. It’s hard to guess what happened with his phone. Either the socket was disconnected from the wall, or the handset replaced. I don’t specifically recall hearing a dial tone, but there could have been one, though when I phone back it was definitely an engaged signal which could have been Dad phoning for help elsewhere.’ We do know when the police entered the house, the telephone receiver was off the hook.
3 The call back.
Jeremy told PC West that after receiving the worried call from his father, the line had gone dead and he had tried to call back, only to hear the engaged tone. It’s clear that had Nevill Bamber dropped the received under attack from Sheila, the line would have stayed open. Jeremy could not have obtained a fresh dialling tone until either the receiver at the farm had been replaced, or two units of phone time had been automatically metered. At that time of night, this would have taken ten minutes.
Jeremy says: ‘No one suggests that Dad was attacked while he was speaking to me. The phone may have been replaced in the usual way or the plug disconnected from the wall. This would have cut the connection, thereby allowing me to phone from my house. I recall distinctly getting the engaged tone when I rang Dad back, which indicates that he was either making another call or his handset was off the hook. Even if it is correct that Dad just dropped the phone during his call to me, it is not true that I would have had to wait until two units of phone time had elapsed before getting a fresh dialling tone.’
Jeremy cites the statement of an engineer called Robert Cox, who tested this point on behalf of the police. They wanted to know if Caller A from Tollesbury [Nevill Bamber] had phoned Caller B at Goldhanger [Jeremy] and during the course of the call, Caller A had placed the received down but not on the hook, would caller B be able to dial out again? The answer to this question appears to be: Yes. Caller B [Jeremy] could have dialled out again provided he had replaced his receiver on the hook for a continuous period of between one and two minutes. Engineer Cox stressed that the period MUST be continuous. If Jeremy had picked his receiver even for a moment before the ‘Force Release’ period had expired, this period would begin all over again. The ‘Force Release’ period can be as long as two minutes.
Jeremy says that although he replaced his handset after the call from his father, ‘I don’t believe that two minutes elapsed before I tried phoning him back. My return call was probably inside a minute although I am guessing. I know I rang back almost straight away. Of course it’s all irrelevant if Dad replaced his handset or pressed the cut-off button.’……..
are sorry i missed your post there.
-
Jeremy's supporters are focusing on something else. Which even if correct does not prove his innocence in any way.
This was after denying Jeremy could lock the kitchen window from outside. I provided four sources which refuted this.
And I posted quotes from the police which proves they knew the window could not be locked from outside but you chose to ignore it.
-
And I posted quotes from the police which proves they knew the window could not be locked from outside but you chose to ignore it.
Your quotes didn't prove that! Adam's proved what he's said.
-
Thank you Mat.
Yes - Julies statement.
AE's statement.
The 2002 appeal.
Wilkes's book.
-
Jeremy cites the statement of an engineer called Robert Cox, who tested this point on behalf of the police. They wanted to know if Caller A from Tollesbury [Nevill Bamber] had phoned Caller B at Goldhanger [Jeremy] and during the course of the call, Caller A had placed the received down but not on the hook, would caller B be able to dial out again? The answer to this question appears to be: Yes. Caller B [Jeremy] could have dialled out again provided he had replaced his receiver on the hook for a continuous period of between one and two minutes. Engineer Cox stressed that the period MUST be continuous. If Jeremy had picked his receiver even for a moment before the ‘Force Release’ period had expired, this period would begin all over again. The ‘Force Release’ period can be as long as two minutes.
Which goes back to his testimony that the phone had been hung up at Goldhanger but not at Tollesbury.
He was asked SINCE the person at Tollesbury had not hung the phone up WOULD the person at Goldhanger still be able to dial out straight away.
His answer was no, the phone at Goldhanger had to remain hung up for 1-2 minutes before there would be a "force release" and that only after the "force relase" would there be a dialtone and the person at Goldhanger would be able to dial out.
When someone hung up the phone a message would be sent automatically from the office on that end, when someone hungs up the second phone another message is sent and then both phones could be used. If only 1 party hangs up the phone and the other remains off the hook then these mutual messages are not sent out. After a period of 1-2 minutes though of the phone being hung up there would be a forced release and that phone that was hung up could then be used.
Jeremy says that although he replaced his handset after the call from his father, ‘I don’t believe that two minutes elapsed before I tried phoning him back. My return call was probably inside a minute although I am guessing. I know I rang back almost straight away.
Which is the problem. He claims he dialed again before enough time would have elasped for a forced release. The prosecution argued this is evidence he was lying and making things up, because he would not have been able to dial out straight away.
Of course it’s all irrelevant if Dad replaced his handset or pressed the cut-off button.’……..
The testimony of the engineer was that this did not happen but rather that the phone remained off the hook and not hung up at Tollesbury.
-
is the telephone engineers testimony in any of the books? If it exists you would think it would be?
It's not listed verbatim only the main implications discussed like the main implications were discussed in the 2002 Appeal.
The upshot is that when you hang up a phone the home office assocated with that end of the call sends out a message that the receiver was hung up. Such message was never sent out and that the phone remained off the hook.
The main significance of this is that Jeremy would not have been able to use his phone right away upon hanging his own phone up. He would have had to leave his phone hung up for a period of 1-2 minutes before he could use it.
He claimed he hung up the phone and immediately picked it back up and dialed out. The phone company said that is impossible he had to leave it hung up for a period of 1-2 minutes before he could dial out.
So the main value of this was to say he was full of crap about immediately calling anyone. had he been telling the truth he should have stated that his phone would not work at first and he had to wait awhile before it would work again. So this was evidence of lying.
The reason why this is so important is because the supposed click he heard could potentially have been the phone being set down on the counter. Indeed at one point during questioning he told someone he might have heard the scuffle on the other end. I think he told Ann Eaton that at one point as well.
Where they had him in a provable lie was his claim that he immediately dialed out after hanging up the phone. That was the one they used the engineer to help prove. Hence why that testimony is what the Appeal decision and various books discussing the case reference. They concentrate on the point supposedly proven false but don't cite all his testimony that helped establish it. They concentrate on the conclusion about the "forced release" because that conclusion is the issue.
-
Which goes back to his testimony that the phone had been hung up at Goldhanger but not at Tollesbury.
He was asked SINCE the person at Tollesbury had not hung the phone up WOULD the person at Goldhanger still be able to dial out straight away.
His answer was no, the phone at Goldhanger had to remain hung up for 1-2 minutes before there would be a "force release" and that only after the "force relase" would there be a dialtone and the person at Goldhanger would be able to dial out.
When someone hung up the phone a message would be sent automatically from the office on that end, when someone hungs up the second phone another message is sent and then both phones could be used. If only 1 party hangs up the phone and the other remains off the hook then these mutual messages are not sent out. After a period of 1-2 minutes though of the phone being hung up there would be a forced release and that phone that was hung up could then be used.
Which is the problem. He claims he dialed again before enough time would have elasped for a forced release. The prosecution argued this is evidence he was lying and making things up, because he would not have been able to dial out straight away.
The testimony of the engineer was that this did not happen but rather that the phone remained off the hook and not hung up at Tollesbury.
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to confirm who (if anyone) hung up the phone. The small exchanges didn't collect information of that nature. This was the UK back in 1985 - a system of buzzes, bells and flashing lights - no memory and the small exchanges (such as Maldon) weren't even manned!
-
There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to confirm who (if anyone) hung up the phone. The small exchanges didn't collect information of that nature. This was the UK back in 1985 - a system of buzzes, bells and flashing lights - no memory and the small exchanges (such as Maldon) weren't even manned!
The exchanges were automated. When a phone is hung up it sends out a signal. Only an engineer could say whether they could tell if such signal had been sent. He said they coudl tell it wasn't and thus the phone was neve rhung up at WHF and hence why the ONLY way Jeremy could have dialed out would be if he left the phone hung up continuously for 1-2 minutes first.
The defense had the opportunity to try to refute this evidence but failed to do so. Nor did they find anyone on appeal to do so.
-
The exchanges were automated. When a phone is hung up it sends out a signal. Only an engineer could say whether they could tell if such signal had been sent. He said they coudl tell it wasn't and thus the phone was neve rhung up at WHF and hence why the ONLY way Jeremy could have dialed out would be if he left the phone hung up continuously for 1-2 minutes first.
The defense had the opportunity to try to refute this evidence but failed to do so. Nor did they find anyone on appeal to do so.
Which engineer? The exchange in question wasn't manned! There was NO WAY to tell FACT!
-
Which engineer? The exchange in question wasn't manned! There was NO WAY to tell FACT!
Since it wasn't manned how can they tell a call was made at all? The equipment does have some way of recording data or they would not be able to tell a call was even made. The engineer says they could determine the call was made and not ended at WHF it remained off the hook because no signal was sent to end the call.
If you want to argue they had no ability to tell anything be my guest because that means they would not be able to tell the call was made either.
-
Your quotes didn't prove that! Adam's proved what he's said.
Adam has proved nothing.
-
Telephone was subject of a warrant in force at the time of the shootings involving special branch officers, this is how police know that Ralph called Jeremy from the scene, and that Ralph then called the police before activating the panic alarm at 3.29am sharp...
-
From the 2002 appeal:
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;
d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and
e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.
-
From the 2002 appeal. There is no claim that Jeremy picked up his own call. He may have, he may not have. He may have left his answering machine to answer it. Either way, it would have made no difference to the verdict.
149. The appellant returned the moderator to the gun cupboard and before leaving the address called his home at Goldhanger, leaving the receiver off the hook, thus lending support to the alibi he would later rely upon. He then left the premises, one available route being to climb out of the kitchen window, banging it from the outside to drop the catch back into position and then cycled home.
-
You never went through it ever. Your claim you did is false. This is the classic dishonest response from someone unable to refute evidence. The bogus claim you already did.
Which is exactly what you did with my post of course. ::)
-
Your quotes didn't prove that! Adam's proved what he's said.
actually Mat - Maggie is correct. The relatives said it could happen and so did Julie - but even in the appeal I can see no evidence that the police in their tests PROVED that the windows at the time of the murders could lock from the outside . I am willing to be proved wrong but all I can find are relatives saying it was possible.
That is not what Maggie said
-
Thank you Mat.
Yes - Julies statement.
AE's statement.
The 2002 appeal.
Wilkes's book.
exactly - we can go round and round as much as you want - if it was that simple why did the police testify at the trial they could not get the windows to shut from the outside - its not rocket science is it.
-
Police testified at trial. Source please.
-
Actually the ride on a bike could be done in 12-15 minutes.
But you need evidence that a phone call in those days would cut off after 6 minutes of ringing. If your claim had any merit the defense would have elicited such from the phone representative at trial.
Since the defense could nto find any such evidence and I have been unable to find any objective sources claiming a phone would cut off after 6 minutes this appears to be something you simply made up.
But by all means post reliable evidence to back up your claim (and no claiming someone told you such isn't reliable evidence).
Saying you spoke to people means the testimony at trial was wrong is not solid evidence.
I found a book on telephone operation that clearly states that each side of a call in that era had an end office monitor the loop currents during the entire call to determine if the party on their side hangs up.
When someone hangs up the end office signals the other office.
So there was in fact abasis to say that they could figure out who hung up first regardless of what your friends claim.
At any rate even if we completely ignore any evidence of who hung up first and pretend they could not tell this still doesn't help you at all. All the other evidence that speaks against the call is overwhelming.
Someone claiming to you they should have been able to tell the exact time the call was dialed or alternatively answered would be of little use. It neither proves they could in fact determine the precise time it was dialed/answered or more more importantly establishes what that precise time was.
The main value of the precise time would be to see just how long Jeremy waited before calling police. For that matter though they would have been able to determine the exact time he called Julie and not have needed to rely on testimony.
First of all I'd like to meet that person who claims to be able to make a bike ride along the country paths and along the sea wall in 12 to 15 minutes the time for a car to go along the proper road would take at least 9 minutes. The sea wall route is considerable longer. You claim is false because I live here mate and you don't. So scotch that theory for a start.
Also these who you call "friends" are no such thing. But qualified engineers they are and what each of them said was that no one could tell in those days who hung up on who Except if the had specialist equipment such as used in surveilance. There would be absolutely no reason to have such specialist equipment on the WHF line as calls were only measured in units. The reason for such simple mechanical equipment was so they could send you an accurate bill at the end of the month. You're talking absolute bollocks mate and furthermore I think you are deliberately making all this up as you go along. There is no such book that you alone seem to possess suddenly with all the answers to all my questions.
Lastly I thin you are a fraud planted here just to wind us all up. You've had you dubious fun now piss off with all your lies and false scenarios.
-
this was written in 2011 .
With regard to the sequence and timings of the telephone calls on the morning of Wednesday 7th August 1985, according to the “Blood Relations” book the following is detailed on pages 290 and 291.
….. “In the spring of 1991, Jeremy Bamber listed a dozen points from the crown case that he contested or rejected outright. He supplied comments on each of them:
1 The phone call to the police.
The prosecution fixed the time that Jeremy Bamber called the police at 3.26 a.m. on the morning of the massacre. Jeremy says this timing is wrong. At 3.26, PC Michael West (who took his call at Chelmsford police control room) telephoned Malcolm Bonnet in the information room. Bonnet’s (undated) statement: ‘At 03.26 a.m. on Wednesday 7 August 1985, I received a telephone call on the internal line.” Jeremy says West made this call to Bonner after his own call reporting trouble at the farm, so this call ‘must have been between 3.15 and 3.20.’
The question of timing here is further muddled because PC West originally logged Bamber’s call at 3.36 a.m. Either the clock was wrong, or West misread it, or he simply made a slip when entering the time on the telephone log. Certainly, the log clearly shows the call timed at 0336. Jeremy suggests two possible answers: Either West received another call from someone else (‘such as my Dad alerting the police to his situation’) or West has ‘intentionally manipulated the timing of my call to Chelmsford in an attempt to undermine my evidence, knowing as we do that PC West did not write up this account until 13 September’ – 5 days after Jeremy’s arrest at Maida Vale, and more than five weeks after the killings.
2 The phone call from Nevill Bamber.
Some accounts of the case have embroidered Jeremy’s account of the phone call he claimed to have received from his father in the middle of the night. Jeremy never claimed in the course of this call, he heard a shot and the line went dead.
Jeremy says: ‘The phone conversation with my Dad did end abruptly and when I phoned him back the line was engaged. It’s hard to guess what happened with his phone. Either the socket was disconnected from the wall, or the handset replaced. I don’t specifically recall hearing a dial tone, but there could have been one, though when I phone back it was definitely an engaged signal which could have been Dad phoning for help elsewhere.’ We do know when the police entered the house, the telephone receiver was off the hook.
3 The call back.
Jeremy told PC West that after receiving the worried call from his father, the line had gone dead and he had tried to call back, only to hear the engaged tone. It’s clear that had Nevill Bamber dropped the received under attack from Sheila, the line would have stayed open. Jeremy could not have obtained a fresh dialling tone until either the receiver at the farm had been replaced, or two units of phone time had been automatically metered. At that time of night, this would have taken ten minutes.
Jeremy says: ‘No one suggests that Dad was attacked while he was speaking to me. The phone may have been replaced in the usual way or the plug disconnected from the wall. This would have cut the connection, thereby allowing me to phone from my house. I recall distinctly getting the engaged tone when I rang Dad back, which indicates that he was either making another call or his handset was off the hook. Even if it is correct that Dad just dropped the phone during his call to me, it is not true that I would have had to wait until two units of phone time had elapsed before getting a fresh dialling tone.’
Jeremy cites the statement of an engineer called Robert Cox, who tested this point on behalf of the police. They wanted to know if Caller A from Tollesbury [Nevill Bamber] had phoned Caller B at Goldhanger [Jeremy] and during the course of the call, Caller A had placed the received down but not on the hook, would caller B be able to dial out again? The answer to this question appears to be: Yes. Caller B [Jeremy] could have dialled out again provided he had replaced his receiver on the hook for a continuous period of between one and two minutes. Engineer Cox stressed that the period MUST be continuous. If Jeremy had picked his receiver even for a moment before the ‘Force Release’ period had expired, this period would begin all over again. The ‘Force Release’ period can be as long as two minutes.
Jeremy says that although he replaced his handset after the call from his father, ‘I don’t believe that two minutes elapsed before I tried phoning him back. My return call was probably inside a minute although I am guessing. I know I rang back almost straight away. Of course it’s all irrelevant if Dad replaced his handset or pressed the cut-off button.’……..
Good bit of investigation Jan.
-
Hercule Poirot, whether Jeremy picked up his own call is neither here or there. The prosecution never claimed he did. See 2002 appeal transcript.
My view is he may well have picked up his own call. Or let his answering machine take the call. Deleting the silent message upon his return.
Anyway. Give up and move on.
-
Hercule Poirot, whether Jeremy picked up his own call is neither here or there. The prosecution never claimed he did. See 2002 appeal transcript.
My view is he may well have picked up his own call. Or let his answering machine take the call. Deleting the silent message upon his return.
Anyway. Give up and move on.
You, too, have that choice.
-
From the 2002 appeal:
vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:
a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;
b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;
c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;
d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and
e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.
With due respect Adam the phone call, which apparently has been proved to have taken place backs up Jeremy's claim that he did in fact receive a call from his father.
The court's claim that it could not have happened because of the reasons you stated are false, as they were not in possession of whay actually did happen in WHF that morning.
An investigator, if they are to reach the true conclusion must always start at the beginning and work outwards.
In other words because Jeremy claimed to have received a call from his father that morning and such a call did take place that morning and someone from WHF phoned his phone. This established the fact that what Bamber claimed was true. If it was in fact true, then Bamber cannot be placed at WHF that morning.
So you are now compelled to rethink your scenario as to what actually DID happen at WHF that morning? Because it could not have happened as you guessed it happened.
-
Since it wasn't manned how can they tell a call was made at all? The equipment does have some way of recording data or they would not be able to tell a call was even made. The engineer says they could determine the call was made and not ended at WHF it remained off the hook because no signal was sent to end the call.
If you want to argue they had no ability to tell anything be my guest because that means they would not be able to tell the call was made either.
Did he say how long it remained off the hook?
-
Question. If a call was definately made to Bamber from WHF on that morning of the 7th and Jeremy testified that he did indeed receive such a call. Why then did the judge apparently call it "MYSTERIOUS" ?
-
Since it wasn't manned how can they tell a call was made at all? The equipment does have some way of recording data or they would not be able to tell a call was even made. The engineer says they could determine the call was made and not ended at WHF it remained off the hook because no signal was sent to end the call.
If you want to argue they had no ability to tell anything be my guest because that means they would not be able to tell the call was made either.
The highlighted section is utter rubbish! And the second part of your post is exactly what I am saying 'there is NO WAY to tell the call was made or wasn't made and certainly no way to tell who hung up first' if there was, we wouldn't be arguing about it now - it would have been settled at the time. You can keep stating the above but it is completely wrong, there was nothing in the old exchanges that recorded data, and Maldon was one of the last to be updated.
-
I have seen no proof that the prosecution claimed Jeremy picked up his own call.
I have also seen no proof that this could not be done, if Jeremy so wish.
The jury were given a straight choice. Were the moved phones and the kitchen phone off the hook, down to Jeremy, or not ?
-
Question. If a call was definately made to Bamber from WHF on that morning of the 7th and Jeremy testified that he did indeed receive such a call. Why then did the judge apparently call it "MYSTERIOUS" ?
I created a thread on the judges use of the word mysterious.
It is a damning word. Not far from unbelievable.
Oxford dictionary definition - 'Difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.
The judge simply did not believe Neville phoned Jeremy. Even Jeremy's supporters cannot explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. You're explanation was Neville ran downstairs and phoned Jeremy after the shooting started. :D
-
This case has focussed on ONE man only.
There were Three adults in that farmhouse !
Two psychotic women------------with issues ! Both on a short fuse. This,,to my mind,is the beginning of the case and should have been studied in-depth,and at length, as to the situation and atmosphere of that night. Sheila and her mother argued as soon as Sheila stepped foot inside the farmhouse.
Everything else follows,,investigations,etc.
-
The highlighted section is utter rubbish! And the second part of your post is exactly what I am saying 'there is NO WAY to tell the call was made or wasn't made and certainly no way to tell who hung up first' if there was, we wouldn't be arguing about it now - it would have been settled at the time. You can keep stating the above but it is completely wrong, there was nothing in the old exchanges that recorded data, and Maldon was one of the last to be updated.
That is why I asked why the judge called it a "mysterious" phone call. If it could be proved that a phone call actually took place on that morning the judge would rather have been convinced that Jeremy was the obvious one to have received that call. But he didn't say that. He called it Jeremy's "mysterious" phone call.
So is scipio making all this up I wonder in order to fit into his theory that Jeremy phoned from WHF to his own phone in Goldhanger and then peddled like a maniac to try and beat the 6 minute time limit? Also when I asked that he posted the engineers testimony he said that it was not available online. Well what's to prevent scipio from photocopying the statement from what was obviously a book or something similar and posting it on here?
I rather think it is a big wind up on his part? ;)
-
I have seen no proof that the prosecution claimed Jeremy picked up his own call.
I have also seen no proof that this could not be done, if Jeremy so wish.
The jury were given a straight choice. Were the moved phones and the kitchen phone off the hook, down to Jeremy, or not ?
Well this is an indication that scipio's post about the phone call is one big hoax?
-
I created a thread on the judges use of the word mysterious.
It is a damning word. Not far from unbelievable.
Oxford dictionary definition - 'Difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.
The judge simply did not believe Neville phoned Jeremy. Even Jeremy's supporters cannot explain what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. You're explanation was Neville ran downstairs and phoned Jeremy after the shooting started. :D
If it didn't happen it would have been unbelievable. But if such a call could be proved to have taken place then the judge would have been compelled to take the most logical and obvious step of mentioning that (1) Such a callk did take place and (2) That if such a call took place then this would automatically back-up Jeremy's story. It isn't a question of the judge not believing Jeremy. He was bound by the facts of the case. But no phone call has every been mentioned until scipio came on the scene.
Shall I tell you the initial reaction of the telephone engineers was? They thought I was writing a novel and immediately told me that such a plot involving the use of a telephone in such a way was rather a silly plot because it simply would not work. Now that was the voice of real experts.
-
Telephone was subject of a warrant in force at the time of the shootings involving special branch officers, this is how police know that Ralph called Jeremy from the scene, and that Ralph then called the police before activating the panic alarm at 3.29am sharp...
what warrant? why? and what panic alarm?
-
The highlighted section is utter rubbish! And the second part of your post is exactly what I am saying 'there is NO WAY to tell the call was made or wasn't made and certainly no way to tell who hung up first' if there was, we wouldn't be arguing about it now - it would have been settled at the time. You can keep stating the above but it is completely wrong, there was nothing in the old exchanges that recorded data, and Maldon was one of the last to be updated.
apologies for being stupid here - but how did the telephone bills get worked out ? I know they were not itemised but what would someone do if they had a query on a phone bill - say length of time or the amount on the bill?
-
one thing i think weve established is jeremy couldent of phoned himself from whf if the phone call happened he must be innocent.
-
apologies for being stupid here - but how did the telephone bills get worked out ? I know they were not itemised but what would someone do if they had a query on a phone bill - say length of time or the amount on the bill?
I am currently looking into that Jan. I'm not sure if they were all charged as trunk calls, or if they were charged by the timing of the call? I have an idea that such a call would be charged at a standard rate of a trunk call? Not absolutely sure though?
-
I am sure on the list of what the police took away there were telephone bills listed.
-
More than likely,Jansus,,then they'd have realised their mistake when it was too late ! It was too far gone into the " investigation ".
-
one thing i think weve established is jeremy couldent of phoned himself from whf if the phone call happened he must be innocent.
Something tells me that this story bears a similar mark as the silencer story? Bot appear to be plausible on the surface. But dig a bit deeper and you can detect the hint of a novel with it. As I said before I ran this sceario past some telephone engineers and they actually thought I was writing a crime story. The words one of them used was, "This is not true of course. It sounds as if you are writing a crime story?" So the whole thing appears to be fake to a lot of people. Talk about fantasy. ::) It's just too dapper to be true. Too neat for my liking.
-
You'd be too ashamed to discuss the bicycle theory with anyone..They'd think you'd gone crackers. ;D ;D
-
Hercule Poirot, whether Jeremy picked up his own call is neither here or there. The prosecution never claimed he did. See 2002 appeal transcript.
My view is he may well have picked up his own call. Or let his answering machine take the call. Deleting the silent message upon his return.
Anyway. Give up and move on.
why don't you give up and move on.
we are free to discuss as long as we want.
-
why don't you give up and move on.
we are free to discuss as long as we want.
I personally won't move on because I consider this to be a miscarriage of justice and why should I care if all the judges of the appeal board are clones on Adam? It is apparent that they all lacked the intelligence of children because none of them have investigated this thing properly. I just view scipio and Adam as paid nuisances with absolutely no compassion in themselves even to investigate any kind of miscarriage of justice, let alone the Bamber case. Come to think of it I don't even know why they are still here. Why don't they choose pastures of theie own liking together with the rest of the guilty sheeplike ones?
-
I personally won't move on because I consider this to be a miscarriage of justice and why should I care if all the judges of the appeal board are clones on Adam? It is apparent that they all lacked the intelligence of children because none of them have investigated this thing properly. I just view scipio and Adam as paid nuisances with absolutely no compassion in themselves even to investigate any kind of miscarriage of justice, let alone the Bamber case. Come to think of it I don't even know why they are still here. Why don't they choose pastures of theie own liking together with the rest of the guilty sheeplike ones?
Grahame. This site has been going for several years. You are one of around ten regular posters who protest Jeremy's innocence.
It was and still is a high profile crime. Millions of people know about it. Hundreds, including me & Scopio have looked into the case.
Why are there only ten ?
-
Grahame. This site has been going for several years. You are one of around ten regular posters who protest Jeremy's innocence.
It was and still is a high profile crime. Millions of people know about it. Hundreds, including me & Scopio have looked into the case.
Why are there only ten ?
Only 10 what?
-
why don't you give up and move on.
we are free to discuss as long as we want.
Unlike the Spectator reporter who called Jeremy's supporters creepy, I would rather just call them wrong.
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence against Jeremy. There is a motive, opportunity and no alibi. Jeremy has been charged, convicted & kept in prison.
To me it seems weird that a very small amount of people should still be defending Jeremy.
But apologies. You should not give up.
-
Jeremy was with the police long enough,outside,for them to get a grasp of whether he was anxious at the thought of someone possibly still being alive,,or agitated at the time spent waiting. If you're experienced enough,you can immediately get an overall picture of that person.
Nothing like this was obvious,,except for the police to say he was calm. He would be calm because he knew nothing and was waiting for news from inside the farmhouse. How can you react to nothing ?
-
Only 10 what?
Regular Jeremy supporters who post on here.
Thought it would be thousands if there was even a hint of a MOJ.
-
Regular Jeremy supporters who post on here.
Thought it would be thousands if there was even a hint of a MOJ.
I think you will find that that phenomenon is so with most internet forum? I owned a forum once with my American friend called "Signforums.com" Originally called "The belton board" where I regularly received 3000 hits a day and arouns a 1000 members at the time. But only a small percentage of those members posted.
-
Well there are only two JB forums I know of. This & the UK Justice forum.
This site was set up by a Jeremy supporter several years ago. It was really set up to support Jeremy. However lots of people who think Jeremy is guilty have also joined.
So why are there only around 10 regular supporters who post if it such a MOJ ?
-
I have just found out that an engineer could not tell if a call was made that day from WHF to Goldhanger. They also could not tell the duration of that call with these old exchanges.
I have also found out that the WHF call to Jeremy in Goldhanger could have been sent through Colchester exchange and not Maldon. Colchester was an electronic exchange instead of the older type exchanges.
-
I have just found out that an engineer could not tell if a call was made that day from WHF to Goldhanger. They also could not tell the duration of that call with these old exchanges.
I have also found out that the WHF call to Jeremy in Goldhanger could have been sent through Colchester exchange and not Maldon. Colchester was an electronic exchange instead of the older type exchanges.
I found out the same info but I think the call was routed through Maldon that's why they couldn't given a definitive answer on the phone call claim.
-
I am being thick ( and young ;D) how did a phone bill get calculated then? And what did you do if you thought it was wrong?
-
I found out the same info but I think the call was routed through Maldon that's why they couldn't given a definitive answer on the phone call claim.
Who is they? There was an engineer from the phone company who testified that such a call was made. He lied to help the defense by claiming there definitely was a call made?
If I didn't care about accuracy and only about claiming Jeremy was guilty no matter what I would say great then there is no evidence of a call was made at all. That actually hurts Jeremy's defense. But I do care about accuracy so is there actual documentary evidence that proves there would have been no way to tell if a call had actually been made?
If we are going to discount trial testimony we need a pretty solid basis to do so.
-
I am being thick ( and young ;D) how did a phone bill get calculated then? And what did you do if you thought it was wrong?
Phone bills were calculated by minutes/hours spent on the phone. An example was when I phoned my daughter in Oz,it worked out at about £1 for 3 minutes. An operator was always at hand,151 if anything went wrong,,and bills were referred to BT who had the monopoly over the phone system in those days.
Sometimes I had to go through the International dept if I couldn't get through directly.
My phone bills back then were atrocious. ;D ;D ;D
-
But what if you said I did not phone OZ - how would the records prove you did and on what day?
Phone bills were calculated by minutes/hours spent on the phone. An example was when I phoned my daughter in Oz,it worked out at about £1 for 3 minutes. An operator was always at hand,151 if anything went wrong,,and bills were referred to BT who had the monopoly over the phone system in those days.
Sometimes I had to go through the International dept if I couldn't get through directly.
My phone bills back then were atrocious. ;D ;D ;D
But what if you said I did not phone OZ - how would the records prove you did and on what day?
-
Who is they? There was an engineer from the phone company who testified that such a call was made. He lied to help the defense by claiming there definitely was a call made?
If I didn't care about accuracy and only about claiming Jeremy was guilty no matter what I would say great then there is no evidence of a call was made at all. That actually hurts Jeremy's defense. But I do care about accuracy so is there actual documentary evidence that proves there would have been no way to tell if a call had actually been made?
If we are going to discount trial testimony we need a pretty solid basis to do so.
Which engineer? I'm NOT defending Jeremy, I'd like to know the truth also - where is the testimony where it is stated that a call took place and NOT testimony that explains what would happen IF a call took place?
-
Which engineer? I'm NOT defending Jeremy, I'd like to know the truth also - where is the testimony where it is stated that a call took place and NOT testimony that explains what would happen IF a call took place?
I can only see a mention in a book about an engineer who appeared for the police -and there is only an extract of the testimony . I will have another look around.
-
only found part of the testimony - if it helps
-
only found part of the testimony - if it helps
Thanks Jansus - the statement confirms that there was NO WAY to record numbers or times - it ran a basic meter system. So what is Scipio on about? If you have the evidence Scipio, just post it or accept that you're wrong.
-
Which engineer? I'm NOT defending Jeremy, I'd like to know the truth also - where is the testimony where it is stated that a call took place and NOT testimony that explains what would happen IF a call took place?
I was told that in the Queen's English this, "There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant."
means the engineer testified that a call was definitely made from WHF to Goldhanger the night of the murders.
"to the effect" can be a phrase or can just be distinct words.
An example of it used as a phrase with the phrase having a set meaning is, "he said words to the effect of John Gotti being a known gangster"
Are you saying this is wrong and that it actually means:
"expert advice was given as to what the effect would be if someone called from WHF but then left the receiver off the hook"?
If it means such I wonder why the court said "as claimed by the appellant" because in most of his statements he maintained the caller hung up not that the call was abandoned by Nevill simply putting the phone down. If he testified that the phone was simply put down not hung up that's not very bright at all on his part.
If the expert did not testify a phone call was made then I was mislead by a Bamber supporter several months ago who went over the Appeal decision with me to correct my "erroneous American bastardization". I responded online to an article and had to register to do so and my contact info was used by the author to contact me.
If the phone company was in fact not able to confirm a call had been made at all then things are even worse for Jeremy than I thought.
-
I was told that in the Queen's English this, "There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant."
means the engineer testified that a call was definitely made from WHF to Goldhanger the night of the murders.
"to the effect" can be a phrase or can just be distinct words.
An example of it used as a phrase with the phrase having a set meaning is, "he said words to the effect of John Gotti being a known gangster"
Are you saying this is wrong and that it actually means:
"expert advice was given as to what the effect would be if someone called from WHF but then left the receiver off the hook"?
If it means such I wonder why the court said "as claimed by the appellant" because in most of his statements he maintained the caller hung up not that the call was abandoned by Nevill simply putting the phone down. If he testified that the phone was simply put down not hung up that's not very bright at all on his part.
If the expert did not testify a phone call was made then I was mislead by a Bamber supporter several months ago who went over the Appeal decision with me to correct my "erroneous American bastardization". I responded online to an article and had to register to do so and my contact info was used by the author to contact me.
If the phone company was in fact not able to confirm a call had been made at all then things are even worse for Jeremy than I thought.
Yes, that is correct. The word 'abandoned' was probably just used to describe what Jeremy said 'Neville hung up the call'. It doesn't mean Jeremy used that term - I think you might be being a bit pedantic here.
You were misled BUT many of us have been. I think you will find that we all want to know the truth (whatever that might be). However, it really doesn't make things any worse for Jeremy as it can't be proven either way - meaning we STILL simply don't know if the call took place or not or if a call DID take place, who made it.
-
Yes, that is correct. The word 'abandoned' was probably just used to describe what Jeremy said 'Neville hung up the call'. It doesn't mean Jeremy used that term - I think you might be being a bit pedantic here.
You were misled BUT many of us have been. I think you will find that we all want to know the truth (whatever that might be). However, it really doesn't make things any worse for Jeremy as it can't be proven either way - meaning we STILL simply don't know if the call took place or not or if a call DID take place, who made it.
If Jeremy is guilty then it is obvious no call was made at all. There is much talk about the cordless phone that was in the shop and how it contained a memory to indicate the last several calls. If that phone were present he could simply call his answering machne with it and it would record that there had been a call made to his house. The phone not being present ruined the ability to establish the existence of a call quite obviously.
Since it is only his word a call was made and nothing more that means even more he would need to in detail be able to explain why his father would make the call and would have the opportunity to do so.
For reasons I have set out previously this is good reason to doubt Nevill ever made a call.
Then when you factor in the evidence Sheila can't have killed herself and someone else had to move her body, put away the suppressor and open and close the bible in her blood then this simply establishes even more that the call from Nevill never actually happened.
These points have not been addressed by those insisting he called and yet have to be dealt with in order to establish the call likely occurred.
1) Nevill had no opportunity to call
A) The killer entered the bedroom and shot both parents a combined 11 times, there was no phone in the bedroom to use prior to the killer opening fire. All admit he didn't call after the shooting started because he could not speak and would have announced she had been shooting if that were the case.
B) There is no evidence at all that anything happened prior to the killer entering the bedroom to shoot the parents. The claim that the killer had Nevill downstairs not only is not supported by any evidence but makes no sense. If SHeila were having delusions she would not make a conscious decision to allow him to use th ephone, fail to shoot him while he was on the phone and then march him upstairs to shoot him in the bedroom with his wife. The tale makes no sense at all from the alleged standpoint of Sheila in a crazy rage and there is not a shred of evidence any such thing happened. Nevill woudl not have been given any opportunity to use the phone is the bottom line.
2) Even if by some miracle Nevill were given the opportunity to use the phone he had no reason to call Jeremy
A) Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so had a better physical ability than Jeremy to disarm Sheila
B) Nevill was in a position to disarm Sheila and had the necessity to do so, Jeremy would take 20 minutes or more to arrive. Why would he wait 20 minutes hoping Jeremy would arrive in time to disarm her instead of doing it himself?
C) Sheila and Jeremy did not get along. Seeing Jeremy would make things worse not better. The person with the calming effect on her an dbest chance of disarming her peacably was Nevill.
D) Jeremy had an answering machine and kept the phone on the bottom floor. Chances are the phone would not wake him up even if it rang incessantly and even if it did wake him he would take several minutes to reach the phone. The answering machine would pick up after 4-6 rings rings. So Nevill could at best expect to leave a message on an answering machine that might not be listened to until many hours later.
E) If Nevill was too worried to disarm her with his bare hands and truly in fear why would he risk being shot by sitting on the phone where he would be a dead duck if she caught him? It would take several minutes for Jeremy to answer and he would be an easy target the entire time. If truly in fear for his safety then he would have armed himself. There were guns, knives and other potential weapons that he would have grabbed if he had been left alone in the kitchen.
F) If too panicked to do anything himself he would have called police not put his son in harms way if he saw a real threat. So Nevill would not have called anyone unless he saw a real threat that he could not handle himself and for a threat that great he would not call Jeremy he would call police.
3) Jeremy lied about the phone being disconnected and being able to immediately use it
4) Sheila didn't beat or kill anyone else or even load the gun
A) Sheila would have had elevated lead levels on her hands had she loaded the bullets in the gun as claimed and in a frenzy loading fast would also have damaged at least the nail of the finger she used to push the bullets in the magazine
B) Sheila would have had back spatter of Nevill's blood on her body had she been the one who delivered the blows to Nevill in the kitchen. She also would have broken several nails by beating him so severely. The rifle stock broke and his head bashed in. One has to hold the rifle tightly to do this and when a rifle hits something hard there is a jolt to the person wielding it. The notion her nails would not have been touched is preposterous. She also would have cut her feet on the crockery on the floor of the kitchen and been likely to get step in blood or sugar.
C) The killer of the other 4 victims would have had high velocity back spatter as well as gunshot residue on the killer's body and clothing. She had neither.
D) There is no evidence at all to suggest she would be at risk for any delusions around 2:30 AM. Had she stopped taking her medication or were high on narcotics or drunk she could be at risk but none of these things were the case. Moreover, because of everyone else was sleeping there would be no risk of them causing agitaiton.
5) Sheila didn't kill herself
A) She was killed with the suppressor attached to the gun and could not have put it away after her death and could only have potentially killed herself with the suppressor if she stepped on the trigger with her toe but was seated when she was shot not standing.
B) Sheila was seated when killed and then moved flat shortly thereafter by someone else who moved her body flat. She can't have moved her own body after she was dead. Once flat blood dripped down the side of her neck and pooled on the floor.
C) The bible was placed in the pool of blood then repeatedly opened and closed while the blood was still wet. She could not have done these things since she was dead.
6) The evidence thus establishes that Sheila didn't do anything but rather was framed. There is substantial evidence that th eperson who framed her was Jeremy and this fake phone call is one of the ways he attempted to frame her. Since she didn't do anything the claim Nevill called to say she did is sheer nonsense. Jeremy lied about many things including telling police Sheila had fired all the guns in the house and had gone shooting with him. He admitted later he hadn't seen her shoot a gun.
-
But what if you said I did not phone OZ - how would the records prove you did and on what day?
There were records of the calls on the bill which was itemised and timed to coincide with the price charged.
-
None of Ralph Bambers blood, not one drop was present, or found, or detected inside the main bedroom, so quite simply Ralph could not possibly have been shot four times in the bedroom, it is impossible for that to have happened...
-
There was only one soot of 'O' type blood found upstairs on some wallpaper which could have been either Ralphs blood, or blood from Daniel or Nicholas...
-
Ralphs blood was all over the kitchen floor, and his bloodied fingermarks were deposited on the edge of the kitchen worktop close to where the telephone was. On the kitchen floor near to where the phone was located were mutiple spots of his blood - so this places Ralph in close proximity of the telephone still able to move around. If Ralph had been shot elsewhere in the farmhouse there would have been an obvious blood trail, especially if he had been shot up to four times whilst he was in the main bedroom...
I can go along with him gaving possibly been shot once upstairs in the bedroom, but nit foyr times, without a decisive bloodtrail to support such a scenario...
-
I was told that in the Queen's English this, "There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant."
means the engineer testified that a call was definitely made from WHF to Goldhanger the night of the murders.
"to the effect" can be a phrase or can just be distinct words.
An example of it used as a phrase with the phrase having a set meaning is, "he said words to the effect of John Gotti being a known gangster"
Are you saying this is wrong and that it actually means:
"expert advice was given as to what the effect would be if someone called from WHF but then left the receiver off the hook"?
If it means such I wonder why the court said "as claimed by the appellant" because in most of his statements he maintained the caller hung up not that the call was abandoned by Nevill simply putting the phone down. If he testified that the phone was simply put down not hung up that's not very bright at all on his part.
If the expert did not testify a phone call was made then I was mislead by a Bamber supporter several months ago who went over the Appeal decision with me to correct my "erroneous American bastardization". I responded online to an article and had to register to do so and my contact info was used by the author to contact me.
If the phone company was in fact not able to confirm a call had been made at all then things are even worse for Jeremy than I thought.
to be fair the whole statement does not appear to be there - I am not sure if it is available anywhere -I don't think we can come to a conclusion until we see the rest of it.
-
I have been researching the telephone systems of the 1980. I am not doing this to prove any point, since whatever I say is not believed anyway by certain impenetrable individuals. I did find this short promotional film which I found quite informative for my own use though.
Although I believe the Maldon exchange at the the time was still using the old strowger type, this is about the new system X and early form of digital exchange that eventually the whole country would be converted to.
What I have found out so far concerning the ringing cut off is that the strowger type of exchange had a cut of point of 5 minutes. With other mechanical systems the times varied somewhat. And with some there was no cut off time. It would just ring and ring. Whether this was the type that was installed in Maldon I don't know? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy_6DL4haJA
-
Bro.worked at Strowger in Edge lane,Liverpool before it became Plessey,,then other firms took over.
-
to be fair the whole statement does not appear to be there - I am not sure if it is available anywhere -I don't think we can come to a conclusion until we see the rest of it.
I think it's pretty clear that if data could be stored, we would have heard about it by now. Grahame's info matches what I was told by an old BT engineer and the statement says the same thing.
-
Who is they? There was an engineer from the phone company who testified that such a call was made. He lied to help the defense by claiming there definitely was a call made?
If I didn't care about accuracy and only about claiming Jeremy was guilty no matter what I would say great then there is no evidence of a call was made at all. That actually hurts Jeremy's defense. But I do care about accuracy so is there actual documentary evidence that proves there would have been no way to tell if a call had actually been made?
If we are going to discount trial testimony we need a pretty solid basis to do so.
What that actually proves is our honesty in reporting the facts whether it hurts Jeremy's defence or not. We don't hold on to our views for dear life. Believe it we are interested in truth and not in our our own pathetic scenarios as some on here do whilst stopping their ears and singing lalalala if there is something they don't agree with.
-
What that actually proves is our honesty in reporting the facts whether it hurts Jeremy's defence or not. We don't hold on to our views for dear life. Believe it we are interested in truth and not in our our own pathetic scenarios as some on here do whilst stopping their ears and singing lalalala if there is something they don't agree with.
I agree 100%, it's pointless hanging onto myths simply to bolster our opinion. That won't find the truth.
-
What that actually proves is our honesty in reporting the facts whether it hurts Jeremy's defence or not. We don't hold on to our views for dear life. Believe it we are interested in truth and not in our our own pathetic scenarios as some on here do whilst stopping their ears and singing lalalala if there is something they don't agree with.
so it doesnt prove a call was made ....or not made !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
A neighbour of Jeremys spotted cannabis plants being cultured in his rear garden at Head Street. The neighbour took several photographs showing a view of the cache of crops from the vantage point of the neighbours upstairs rear window, photographs which were given to the police, before the shootings occurred. JEREMY was therefore under surveillance by the drugs squad acquired a 28 day warrant for telephone interception of Jeremys landline, and all other landlines he had access to, or from which he received calls. This explains how the police knew that Ralph had made the call to Jeremy, and then a call to the police. It explains how Jerem6 received the call from his father, how the call was terminated, how Jeremy tried to ring him back but got an engaged tone, then calling Mugford and the police...
-
Undercover drug squad officers followed Jeremy home on evening of 6th August 1985, and did not see him leave his cottage...
-
Undercover drug squad officers followed Jeremy home on evening of 6th August 1985, and did not see him leave his cottage...
Why wouldn´t his defence team have used this in court?
-
What that actually proves is our honesty in reporting the facts whether it hurts Jeremy's defence or not. We don't hold on to our views for dear life. Believe it we are interested in truth and not in our our own pathetic scenarios as some on here do whilst stopping their ears and singing lalalala if there is something they don't agree with.
I do not see the same vigor with regard to other myths being told about the case though.
Moreover, I don't see anyone willing to go through the questions that one has to go through to try to assess whether Nevill would have been likely to make the call.
As I said before he could have simply called his own answering machine had the cordless phone been present to record the call and that would give the impression a call had been made. He could have thought the phone company would likewise keep evidence of this. We don't know what were his beliefs in regard to the phone company retaining evidence of calls. If he knew they would not be able to tell then ther ewould be no need to bother faking a call he coudl just make it up. If he didn't know he could have simply have mad ehis answering machine answer which would be a call though not one where any speaking occurred just from the sense of being answered.
Unless he talks we will never know in full what he was thinking and how far he went in staging things. I don't think that he would remember every detail given the passage of time anyway though he would never tell all now anyway.
-
I do not see the same vigor with regard to other myths being told about the case though.
Moreover, I don't see anyone willing to go through the questions that one has to go through to try to assess whether Nevill would have been likely to make the call.
As I said before he could have simply called his own answering machine had the cordless phone been present to record the call and that would give the impression a call had been made. He could have thought the phone company would likewise keep evidence of this. We don't know what were his beliefs in regard to the phone company retaining evidence of calls. If he knew they would not be able to tell then ther ewould be no need to bother faking a call he coudl just make it up. If he didn't know he could have simply have mad ehis answering machine answer which would be a call though not one where any speaking occurred just from the sense of being answered.
Unless he talks we will never know in full what he was thinking and how far he went in staging things. I don't think that he would remember every detail given the passage of time anyway though he would never tell all now anyway.
All supposition and poppycock mate. It all comes from the cynical depths of your own perverted imagination.
-
Pity Jeremy hadn't added,to his fathers' call,that the plants were ready. You can bet your life that would have been recorded,separately,,no problem.
-
well if it is only to establish whether its likely or not then there is not a lot of point - does not prove whether it actually happened or not .
Anyway Adam has started more than one thread just specifically on this question so if you use the search button it is the 19 reasons Neville would not have made the call . We all gave him the courtesy of answering :)
-
A neighbour of Jeremys spotted cannabis plants being cultured in his rear garden at Head Street. The neighbour took several photographs showing a view of the cache of crops from the vantage point of the neighbours upstairs rear window, photographs which were given to the police, before the shootings occurred. JEREMY was therefore under surveillance by the drugs squad acquired a 28 day warrant for telephone interception of Jeremys landline, and all other landlines he had access to, or from which he received calls. This explains how the police knew that Ralph had made the call to Jeremy, and then a call to the police. It explains how Jerem6 received the call from his father, how the call was terminated, how Jeremy tried to ring him back but got an engaged tone, then calling Mugford and the police...
mike thankyou for replying to my questions I left yesterday. I must say it does seem a bit extreme for a back gardens worth of class c was there more to it? why not let the drug squad pull him? and where does a panic button at WHF fit in?
-
Whether Jeremy could have answered his own call or not does not does not show guilt or innocence.
The prosecution did not say he answered his own call.
He may have answered his own call. He may have left his answering machine to answer it, which is the phone being answered. Or he may not have got back in time to answer his call.
-
A more interesting recent discussion was whether Jeremy could have locked the kitchen window from outside.
If not then why was he arrested ? If he could do it, it highlights the 'opportunity Jeremy had.
After a short investigation I found four sources which showed Jeremy could lock the kitchen window from outside.
-
It doesn't make any difference anyway. Because you lot have already made up your minds that he;sw guilty. So he's damned if he did and he's damned if he didn't It's just a waste of time answering you anyway.
-
Just how I feel Grahame.
-
Just as you believe he is innocent.
Investigating whether Jeremy could or could not have answered his own call does not prove guilt of innocence. The prosecution never claimed he answered his own call.
There was not the technology to show whether the call was answered. If there was Jeremy could have just answered it himself, if possible. Or let his answering machine answer it.
-
Just as you believe he is innocent.
Investigating whether Jeremy could or could not have answered his own call does not prove guilt of innocence. The prosecution never claimed he answered his own call.
There was not the technology to show whether the call was answered. If there was Jeremy could have just answered it himself, if possible. Or let his answering machine answer it.
So why do you keep on plugging it as a vital part of the case then?
-
Adam why is this all important to you Jeremy was found GUILTY and sentenced to full life tariff perhaps you have a little feeling that he could be innocent and you are testing everything available to you.
-
Just as you believe he is innocent.
Investigating whether Jeremy could or could not have answered his own call does not prove guilt of innocence. The prosecution never claimed he answered his own call.
There was not the technology to show whether the call was answered. If there was Jeremy could have just answered it himself, if possible. Or let his answering machine answer it.
I think 'we' told you that. I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that he answered his own call because he risked a neighbour hearing the ring, there was also a cut off point and he risked it not being answered in time. If guilty, it is possible that the answer machine picked up the call simply so it was answered. However, there is no evidence for this either so it's just a theory.
-
I think 'we' told you that. I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that he answered his own call because he risked a neighbour hearing the ring, there was also a cut off point and he risked it not being answered in time. If guilty, it is possible that the answer machine picked up the call simply so it was answered. However, there is no evidence for this either so it's just a theory.
Just a note to tack on that Caroline. If he used his answer machine to answer the call the police examined the tape and ruled it out. If he used it it would have been presented in court as evidence.
-
I think 'we' told you that. I think it is HIGHLY unlikely that he answered his own call because he risked a neighbour hearing the ring, there was also a cut off point and he risked it not being answered in time. If guilty, it is possible that the answer machine picked up the call simply so it was answered. However, there is no evidence for this either so it's just a theory.
Jeremy may have had a quiet phone. Or put the phone in a quiet part of the house, or cupboard.
-
Just a note to tack on that Caroline. If he used his answer machine to answer the call the police examined the tape and ruled it out. If he used it it would have been presented in court as evidence.
Jeremy would have replaced the tape. Or deleted the message. Before his first holiday of course.
-
Grahame
In the police statement it says that they checked the line from goldhanger to make sure it was engaged and not just off the hook when JB called them - and it was engaged
So surely it could not have been to Jeremys number otherwise he could not have been on the phone to the police?
Or if he had put the phone down in those days could it still have been engaged at the other end?
Also if they checked and it was engaged and not off the hook how did they listen in when the raid team went in?
-
Just a note to tack on that Caroline. If he used his answer machine to answer the call the police examined the tape and ruled it out. If he used it it would have been presented in court as evidence.
The police didn't seize his answering machine tape right away. In any event why would he speak? You make the answering machine pick up and have no need to say anything this would record a call being made though had the cordless phone been used.
This would nto be detectable on a tape no matter what anapysis is done to it.
-
Not detectable. Just like your proxy-server,eh ?
-
Not detectable. Just like your proxy-server,eh ?
If Scipio is using a proxy - how would you know, only way you'd know is if the mods have told you, which is worrying.
-
If Scipio is using a proxy - how would you know, only way you'd know is if the mods have told you, which is worrying.
Nobody has told me anything,Mat..It's a hunch I've got with the poster himself.