Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on June 03, 2015, 04:24:AM
-
It is clear the answering machine was switched off.
Jeremy said he was 'sleeping like a log' when Neville rang. It could have taken several minutes for him to wake, realise the phone was ringing, decide to answer it, then go downstairs. Even if the phone rang ten times before it went to answering machine, there is no way he would have made it.
Supporters have stated Jeremy was the laziest man in the world, so it was surprising he answered the phone at all. However he did, probably because it was irritating him due to the length of time it continuously rang. Neville being prepared to wait perhaps several minutes for Jeremy to answer while Sheila went crazy. Just so Neville could say eleven words to him.
Even more unlikely than the phone being answered is the answering machine being switched off.
People have 24/7 answering machines now. Either on their mobiles, or a 1571 service on their home phones. It is just as likely that answering machines in the 80's were on 24/7. This is especially true for a lazy person like Jeremy, who may not want to answer his phone sometimes. Especially if it rings at 3am.
Do other people find it a 'curious coincidence' that the answering machine was switched off ?
-
There is no evidence it was switched off, police seized the tapes and had them examined...
-
The three suspensions of belief people have to have are -
The answering machine was switched off.
Neville waited several minutes for Jeremy to answer.
Jeremy decided to answer the phone.
-
In the 80's people only put their answer machines on when they went out or on holiday
-
In the 80's people only put their answer machines on when they went out or on holiday
Sara that is what I thought the answering machine was turned on when nobody at home.
-
Plus when your phone rings in the middle of the night you wake up and jump up immediately.
-
In the 80's people only put their answer machines on when they went out or on holiday
Have you got a source ?
It is pointless to switch it off and on. There is no point.
If you are at home, you can leave it on and just pick up the phone when it rings. Or if you are in the shower, with friends, under the sun bed, asleep, in the garden, hoovering etc you can either choose not to answer it, or may not hear it.
But appreciate Jeremy's answering machine had to have been switched off. Otherwise there was no call.
-
Have you got a source ?
It is pointless to switch it off and on. There is no point.
If you are at home, you can leave it on and just pick up the phone when it rings. Or if you are in the shower, with friends, under the sun bed, asleep, in the garden, hoovering etc you can either choose not to answer it, or may not hear it.
But appreciate Jeremy's answering machine had to have been switched off. Otherwise there was no call.
Yes my source is that I had one in the 80's and only switched it on when I went out, that's if I remembered. They were very much a new fangled gadget, and quite a few years away from always being on all the time. It's not just me either, everyone I knew at the time did the same.
-
Have you got a source ?
It is pointless to switch it off and on. There is no point.
If you are at home, you can leave it on and just pick up the phone when it rings. Or if you are in the shower, with friends, under the sun bed, asleep, in the garden, hoovering etc you can either choose not to answer it, or may not hear it.
But appreciate Jeremy's answering machine had to have been switched off. Otherwise there was no call.
Adam I never go in the shower with friends ;D On a serious note I see your point and agree and my previous post about this subject was weak ;D
-
What's so technical about a 1980's answering machine. Once it's plugged in, you would just leave it on 24/7.
People don't plug or unplug their washing machines, kettles, toasters, televisions or stereo's when they are not using them.
But appreciate Jeremy had to have remembered to turn off his answering machine when arriving home at 10pm that night. Although he was going back to work a few hours later.
-
It is bad luck that Jeremy unplugged his answering machine. He was obviously expecting calls between 10pm - 6am.
If the answering machine had been on Neville's message would have cleared Jeremy.
-
What's so technical about a 1980's answering machine. Once it's plugged in, you would just leave it on 24/7.
People don't plug or unplug their washing machines, kettles, toasters, televisions or stereo's when they are not using them.
But appreciate Jeremy had to have remembered to turn off his answering machine when arriving home at 10pm that night. Although he was going back to work a few hours later.
People did not have their answerphones on while they were at home. You would leave it plugged in but press a button to record messages if you left the house. That's just the way it was back then
-
So it was plugged in 24/7. But people had a choice of pressing a button to stop messages being left when they arrived home.
Again, pointless. If the answering machine went on after 6 -10 rings, that is plenty of time to get to the phone if at home.
Or you can ignore a call and let the answering machine work if you do want to speak to anyone.
Or you should leave it on in case you are at home and don't hear the phone - hoovering, shower, music, sleeping.
-
Anyway Jeremy turned his answering machine off when arriving home.
This was so any calls between 10pm - 6am he can get out of bed and answer it himself. Providing the call wakes him.
This is refuting Lookouts claim that Jeremy was the 'laziest man alive'.
-
So it was plugged in 24/7. But people had a choice of pressing a button to stop messages being left when they arrived home.
Again, pointless. If the answering machine went on after 6 -10 rings, that is plenty of time to get to the phone if at home.
Or you can ignore a call and let the answering machine work if you do want to speak to anyone.
Or you should leave it on in case you are at home and don't hear the phone - hoovering, shower, music, sleeping.
That's how things are now but not how things were then. You can't rewrite technological history.
-
Turning it off when arriving home is risky.
You may forget to turn it back on again when going out. Meaning you miss important calls. As well as miss messages when at home - shower, stereo, asleep etc.
Anyway as mentioned, Jeremy felt it was important to turn off his answering machine at 10pm. Although he was going back to work at 6pm.
Not sure what calls Jeremy was expecting between 10pm - 6pm which he felt he would have to answer himself. By a 'curious coincidence' there was a 'mysterious' 3pm call that night.
-
Turning it off when arriving home is risky.
You may forget to turn it back on again when going out. Meaning you miss important calls. As well as miss messages when at home - shower, stereo, asleep etc.
It's not risky it's how it was. Come home listen to your messages and switch it off. In those days phones weren't such a big part in people's lives like they are now. Things change and move forward.
-
Home phones were even more important in the 80's.
There was no emailing, skype, texting or mobiles. Having an answering machine on 24/7 would have been vital.
But Jeremy decided to turn his off at 10pm. Although he was the 'laziest man alive', he wanted to answer any unlikely calls between 10pm - 6am himself. You know what, he did.
-
Home phones were even more important in the 80's.
There was no emailing, skype, texting or mobiles. Having an answering machine on 24/7 would have been vital.
But Jeremy decided to turn his off at 10pm. Although he was the 'laziest man alive', he wanted to answer any unlikely calls between 10pm - 6am himself. You know what, he did.
You are trying to rewrite history. In the 1980s answer phones were not switched on when you were at home.
It's like saying outside toilets were a stupid idea so therefore they never existed.
-
the piont of answering is they they were there for when you were out when your in you have no need for them. id be more suspicioss he would be more suspicios if he had left it on it would mean he had gone out.
-
the piont of answering is they they were there for when you were out when your in you have no need for them. id be more suspicioss he would be more suspicios if he had left it on it would mean he had gone out.
If he had left it on then Neville would have left a message. Which would have cleared Jeremy.
There are lots of advantages of leaving it on when at home. Which I have already mentioned. As well as disadvantages of turning it off. Which I have already mentioned.
But appreciate supporters have to say the answering was off. It has to be.
Jeremy remembered to turn his off when arriving home. There was no advantage of doing this. I mean who is going to phone him which is so important he has to speak to the person between 10pm - 6am ? If he was expecting such a call, he would stay awake and answer it. As it happened he only made two calls to Julie.
However a disadvantage is that he may not hear a phone call when asleep and not answer. The caller is unable to leave a message. As it happened Neville rang and was not able to leave a message. However was prepared to wait perhaps several minutes for Jeremy to answer before saying his eleven words.
-
You can say till you're blue in the face there were advantages to leaving it on but the fact remains that in those days people did not switch their answering machine on when at home.
-
I wonder if Neville did The Times crossword while waiting 'perhaps' several minutes for Jeremy to pick up the phone.
-
I wonder if Neville did The Times crossword while waiting 'perhaps' several minutes for Jeremy to pick up the phone.
Maybe he used those minutes to think 'if only it was the future and people switched on their answering machines all the time'
-
They could have been those last thoughts.
Good that today's society have 24/7 answering machines. Turning them off and on all the time would drive me mad.
-
Anyway Jeremy turned his answering machine off when arriving home.
This was so any calls between 10pm - 6am he can get out of bed and answer it himself. Providing the call wakes him.
This is refuting Lookouts claim that Jeremy was the 'laziest man alive'.
he wasnt expecting any calls he had no need to worry about that.
-
Maybe he was living in hope that JM might call him.I don't think anyone in her company went to bed that early.
Nothing sinister in leaving an answerphone on.
EP took the tape away and nobody's heard about it since,so you can rest assured that no reference was made in blaming Jeremy for anything on that score. Why it's under wraps,I don't know.
-
i thought the answer phone was switched off.
-
Not according to Jeremy's Wit Stat.
-
i thought the answer phone was switched off.
hello nugnug I am no longer sure whether it was on or off Jeremy would know ;D
-
i asume it must of been switched off or his fathers call would of gone to the answering machine.
-
Not according to Jeremy's Wit Stat.
His WS does not mention the answering machine.
-
You can say till you're blue in the face there were advantages to leaving it on but the fact remains that in those days people did not switch their answering machine on when at home.
Just because you didn't switch yours off and because you say that "everyone" else in the 80's didn't, means nothing. And certainly doesn't make it "fact".
You can only speak for yourself and the people you know.
I for one would have dialled 999 after getting the call Bamber claims he got, but he didn't. Now because I would have done that, and I believe MOST others would, does that make it fact? No.
-
How many times have I heard that ? ::)
And because Jeremy didn't ring 999,he becomes the murderer ::)
-
Maybe he was living in hope that JM might call him.I don't think anyone in her company went to bed that early.
Nothing sinister in leaving an answerphone on.
EP took the tape away and nobody's heard about it since,so you can rest assured that no reference was made in blaming Jeremy for anything on that score. Why it's under wraps,I don't know.
Yesterday you claimed it was because it held THE conversation between Bamber and his Dad.
-
Yesterday you claimed it was because it held THE conversation between Bamber and his Dad.
Yes------and ? Why is it withheld if there's nothing on the tape ? You tell me.
-
Yes------and ? Why is it withheld if there's nothing on the tape ? You tell me.
Witheld?
You clearly don't even know what an answer phone is - they DON'T tape your conversations!! ;D So WHY would it contain the conversation between Bamber and his Dad.
-
Witheld?
You clearly don't even know what an answer phone is - they DON'T tape your conversations!! ;D So WHY would it contain the conversation between Bamber and his Dad.
Answer machines then had tapes,there was no voice-mail. They DID use tapes.
-
Answer machines then had tapes,there was no voice-mail. They DID use tapes.
I am not saying they didn't, Lookout. ::)
They didn't record conversations. Why would they? They were there for when you weren't home and for someone to leave a message. NOT to record you having a conversation on the phone with someone!! ;D
You're making it up as you go along AGAIN!!
-
I am not saying they didn't, Lookout. ::)
They didn't record conversations. Why would they? They were there for when you weren't home and for someone to leave a message. NOT to record you having a conversation on the phone with someone!! ;D
You're making it up as you go along AGAIN!!
I'm NOT making anything up at all !
-
jeremys statements say nothing about his fathers call going on to the answering machine he never tried to use the answer machine in his defence so from that im assuming it must of been switced off.
-
Just because you didn't switch yours off and because you say that "everyone" else in the 80's didn't, means nothing. And certainly doesn't make it "fact".
You can only speak for yourself and the people you know.
I for one would have dialled 999 after getting the call Bamber claims he got, but he didn't. Now because I would have done that, and I believe MOST others would, does that make it fact? No.
That's completely different. The 999 thing is an opinion the answering machine was not switched on when you were in the house at that time. Some people may have kept it on, but the vast majority did not.
-
Have you got a source ?
It is pointless to switch it off and on. There is no point.
If you are at home, you can leave it on and just pick up the phone when it rings. Or if you are in the shower, with friends, under the sun bed, asleep, in the garden, hoovering etc you can either choose not to answer it, or may not hear it.
But appreciate Jeremy's answering machine had to have been switched off. Otherwise there was no call.
You are wrong Adam, most people did turn off their answer machines when they were home back in the 70s. It was a real nuisance if you forgot because unless you were next to the phone it would go onto answer before you got to it and more often than not you missed the call. Some would put the answer phone on at night, maybe but again many people would have it off at night.
-
Answer machines then had tapes,there was no voice-mail. They DID use tapes.
Yes, all answer phone messages were recorded on tapes but it didn't tape a conversation, just a message.
-
I am not saying they didn't, Lookout. ::)
They didn't record conversations. Why would they? They were there for when you weren't home and for someone to leave a message. NOT to record you having a conversation on the phone with someone!! ;D
You're making it up as you go along AGAIN!!
I don't believe lookout is making anything up, think that is a bit harsh mat.
As far as I know there weren't answer phones which recorded conversations but lookout may know differently.
-
Somewhere on the EP police Interviews ( not statements,as I'd previously said ) it mentions this. Interviews consisted of 4,2 without the presence of a solicitor and 2 with one present. Interviews were on the 8th,9th,10th and 11th of August.
-
Jeremy has never mentioned his answering machine as far as I know.
It does not benefit him and he has to justify why it was switched off.
-
You are wrong Adam, most people did turn off their answer machines when they were home back in the 70s. It was a real nuisance if you forgot because unless you were next to the phone it would go onto answer before you got to it and more often than not you missed the call. Some would put the answer phone on at night, maybe but again many people would have it off at night.
The crime was in 1985.
Could you not set an answering machine to start working after a number of rings. Giving you time to answer the phone if you wanted to ?
-
Jeremy has never mentioned his answering machine as far as I know.
It does not benefit him and he has to justify why it was switched off.
well not really the fact he was indoors and able to answer the phone would be good reason to switch it off.
-
The crime was in 1985.
Could you not set an answering machine to start working after a number of rings. Giving you time to answer the phone if you wanted to ?
Yes you could choose the number of rings when you set it up but I don't think you got a choice of more than 8 rings which was never long enough :'(
-
Jeremy has never mentioned his answering machine as far as I know.
It does not benefit him and he has to justify why it was switched off.
He doesn't have to justify it, most people switched it off when they were at home.
-
well not really the fact he was indoors and able to answer the phone would be good reason to switch it off.
I would rather continue sleeping and let the answering machine pick up any 3am calls. Thought Jeremy would as well, he was 'the laziest man in the world'.
-
I would rather continue sleeping and let the answering machine pick up any 3am calls. Thought Jeremy would as well, he was 'the laziest man in the world'.
You might in this day and age but in those days people did not switch the answering machine on while they were at home.
-
He could have put the phone to silent,then he wouldn't have heard anything at all !
-
I would rather continue sleeping and let the answering machine pick up any 3am calls. Thought Jeremy would as well, he was 'the laziest man in the world'.
well theres a simple ansare to that he wasnt expecting anyone to phone him.
-
Indeed,nugs.
-
Do we have the 80 pages of EP interviews in the archives ?
I think Jeremy did very well during those interviews as obviously the questions being " fired " at him were jumbled,talking about guns one minute,then asking where the coffee pot came from and not once did Jeremy falter.
Sadly,after a bit of cobbling and editing for his WS's,it would have been twisted out of all recognition.
-
Yes you could choose the number of rings when you set it up but I don't think you got a choice of more than 8 rings which was never long enough :'(
Eight rings is more than enough. He was living in a cottage. Not a mansion.
Off, on, off, on. It's funny how BT didn't offer the off/on service with 1571.
-
Eight rings is more than enough. He was living in a cottage. Not a mansion.
Off, on, off, on. It's funny how BT didn't offer the off/on service with 1571.
8 rings is nothing Adam, I assure you.
-
Eight rings is more than enough. He was living in a cottage. Not a mansion.
Off, on, off, on. It's funny how BT didn't offer the off/on service with 1571.
There was no 1571 back then.
-
Yes you could choose the number of rings when you set it up but I don't think you got a choice of more than 8 rings which was never long enough :'(
There is considerable evidence that Jeremy never received a phone call from Nevill. The issue of whether he would have been likely to even hear the phone and be able to answer in time wasn't even discussed much at trial because of there was so much evidence that the call never happened.
The phone was in the downstairs of the house while the bedroom was upstairs. They never tested how hard it was to hear the phone ringing while in the bedroom. If he were sleeping like a log as he claimed it would surely take several rings to wake up sufficiently to even recognize the phone was ringing. Depending on how loud the ring could be heard from his bedroom it might not even have been able to wake him up.
After waking up and appreciating it was ringing he would have to decide whether to try to answer it before the person calling gives up. If he had his answering machine on then potentially the person would be leaving a message and he could pick it up before the person hangs up. If it is off the person could decide to give up rather after a certain number of rings. The family said the stairs were narrow so he could not get down them too quickly and they believe that if Nevill were in a panic as claimed then after a certain number of rings with no one picking up he would call 999 not just leave the phone ringing and ringing until Jeremy finally got downstairs to pick it up.
In fact, knowing he might not hear the phone because it was downstairs and knowing even if he did wake up and hear it that it would take a minute to answer means he probably would not have wasted his time on such. If Sheila were running around with a gun he could not expect to have an unlimited time to hang out on the phone. Nor would he leave his wife and the kids in bed asleep with her wandering around with the gun as he wasted time on the phone. This is a huge problem. It makes zero sense to waste several minutes on a phone call to Jeremy then 10 plus more minutes wasted as Jeremy gets dressed and drives there and is let inside by Nevill so that Jeremy could try to disarm Sheila.
Nevill had the same physical ability to disarm Sheila as Jeremy if not superior ability because he was even larger than Jeremy and more importantly he had a calming effect on Sheila while Jeremy didn't so he had a superior capacity to talk her down. He had the NEED to do so ASAP the suggestion he would waste time calling Jeremy and then sit around with his thumb up his butt waiting for Jeremy to come do it is absurd. He would have tried disarming her himself not have called Jeremy.
Before calling anyone he would have locked his wife and the boys away where Sheila could not easily get to them. He would not have left her wandering around the house with the gun in a crazy state and did nothing to wake them up and warn them to hide.
The call is not credible at all even before looking at: Julie's testimony that he committed the murders and lied about receiving a call from Nevill; the evidence which demonstrates Sheila didn't load the gun, didn't fire the gun and didn't beat anyone with it so there is no reason why Nevill would have claimed she was running around with it; and the fact that after allegedly receiving this call Jeremy failed to react as someone who received such a call would have reacted. He didn't rush over nor did he call 999. He called Julie (some of the roommates say this call was earlier than the time he even claimed Nevill called him) and subsequently looked up various police station numbers. This not only conflicts with what someone actually in his place would do but conflicts with his own account which featured him claiming he tried to call back and the phone was busy so he then immediately called police. For his claim to be true someone had to hang up the phone in the middle of the call then after Jeremy hung up the person took the phone off the hook and left it there. This is another thing that makes no sense. In the meantime though he didn't call police he called Julie 10 or more minutes after calling Julie he finally called police.
Other problems are that Jeremy removed the phone from the bedroom to replace the perfectly functioning kitchen phone and lied about the kitchen phone being broken. The shooting commenced in the master bedroom with Nevill being shot 4 times and June 6. There was no phone to use prior to the shooting because Jeremy removed it. Nevill could not speak after this because of his injuries. It is not credible that Sheila marched Nevill to the bedroom to shoot both parents together. She would have shot Nevill upon finding him on the phone.
People biased in favor of Jeremy are willing to ignore anything damaging but if you look at all of this objectively it is very bad for Jeremy. It is hard coming up with anything to use to help Jeremy to rehabilitate his claims of receiving a phone call in the face of all this.
-
Jeremy DID receive a call from his father.
-
There was no 1571 back then.
No but when it was introduced it was a 24/7 service. Not something you would switch off and on five times a day.
-
There is a thread on the upstairs bedroom door.
If it was shut, there is a strong chance Jeremy would not hear the phone. And that it would not wake him.
-
Why not look through the 80 page interview,that should answer your query.
-
Jeremy DID receive a call from his father.
He claims he did but clearly he lied. You don't want to face the truth but refusing to face the truth doesn't cause it to cease being the truth.
-
He claims he did but clearly he lied. You don't want to face the truth but refusing to face the truth doesn't cause it to cease being the truth.
And you're 100% certain that he lied,then ? On whose say-so ?
-
And you're 100% certain that he lied,then ? On whose say-so ?
For one thing the that Nevill and June were shot in a room that had no phone because Jeremy removed it.
For another the fact that Sheila didn't actually have the gun and use it but rather was murdered along with the rest of them and framed.
For another Nevill would have made sure his wife and the kids were safely hiding before going to use a phone (in which case he would have called 999) otherwise he would have gone to disarm Sheila or gotten a weapon to confront her with.
For another Jeremy's actions of calling Julie before police and lying about it gives away he never received such a call.
Then there is Julie's testimony that he was responsible for the murders...
Everything goes against him receiving the call he claims he received and nothing at all supports the notion.
-
For one thing the that Nevill and June were shot in a room that had no phone because Jeremy removed it.
For another the fact that Sheila didn't actually have the gun and use it but rather was murdered along with the rest of them and framed.
For another Nevill would have made sure his wife and the kids were safely hiding before going to use a phone (in which case he would have called 999) otherwise he would have gone to disarm Sheila or gotten a weapon to confront her with.
For another Jeremy's actions of calling Julie before police and lying about it gives away he never received such a call.
Then there is Julie's testimony that he was responsible for the murders...
Everything goes against him receiving the call he claims he received and nothing at all supports the notion.
This was one of my first areas of concern with the case. That the bedroom phone had been removed, apparently because of a lightning strike. But when that phone was tested, the phone worked. It was just an excuse to remove that phone from the bedroom & for obvious reasons.
It was Jeremy who started the game of musical phones.
I don't believe the phone had been hidden, there was no need to hide it - because his parents didn't think the phone worked anymore - due to the lightning strike -it had probably just had magazines put on top of it, but not to hide it.
The fact that the bedroom phone was removed should ring alarm bells.
-
This was one of my first areas of concern with the case. That the bedroom phone had been removed, apparently because of a lightning strike. But when that phone was tested, the phone worked. It was just an excuse to remove that phone from the bedroom & for obvious reasons.
It was Jeremy who started the game of musical phones.
I don't believe the phone had been hidden, there was no need to hide it - because his parents didn't think the phone worked anymore - due to the lightning strike -it had probably just had magazines put on top of it, but not to hide it.
The fact that the bedroom phone was removed should ring alarm bells.
It was a lightning strike that caused prior phone problems but such had already been repaired prior. When the housekeeper or secretary wanted to know why the bedroom phone was in the kitchen Jeremy simply claimed the kitchen phone broke he didn't specify how or what was wrong with it.
When the kitchen phone he claimed was broken had been found and was determined to be working properly he lied further and claimed it was simply an extra phone rather than admitting it was the kitchen phone he falsely claimed had been broken.
-
It wasn't a lightning strike that caused prior phone problems but such had already been repaired prior. When the housekeeper or secretary wanted to know why the bedroom phone was in the kitchen Jeremy simply claimed the kitchen phone broke he didn't specify how or what was wrong with it.
When the kitchen phone he claimed was broken had been found and was determined to be working properly he lied further and claimed it was simply an extra phone rather than admitting it was the kitchen phone he falsely claimed had been broken.
Oh no, I know that, sorry. What I meant is the the phone that was worknig but apparently not - the lightning strike was/is used as an excuse for this, even though it's clearly not the case.
-
There is considerable evidence that Jeremy never received a phone call from Nevill. The issue of whether he would have been likely to even hear the phone and be able to answer in time wasn't even discussed much at trial because of there was so much evidence that the call never happened.
The phone was in the downstairs of the house while the bedroom was upstairs. They never tested how hard it was to hear the phone ringing while in the bedroom. If he were sleeping like a log as he claimed it would surely take several rings to wake up sufficiently to even recognize the phone was ringing. Depending on how loud the ring could be heard from his bedroom it might not even have been able to wake him up.
9
After waking up and appreciating it was ringing he would have to decide whether to try to answer it before the person calling gives up. If he had his answering machine on then potentially the person would be leaving a message and he could pick it up before the person hangs up. If it is off the person could decide to give up rather after a certain number of rings. The family said the stairs were narrow so he could not get down them too quickly and they believe that if Nevill were in a panic as claimed then after a certain number of rings with no one picking up he would call 999 not just leave the phone ringing and ringing until Jeremy finally got downstairs to pick it up.
In fact, knowing he might not hear the phone because it was downstairs and knowing even if he did wake up and hear it that it would take a minute to answer means he probably would not have wasted his time on such. If Sheila were running around with a gun he could not expect to have an unlimited time to hang out on the phone. Nor would he leave his wife and the kids in bed asleep with her wandering around with the gun as he wasted time on the phone. This is a huge problem. It makes zero sense to waste several minutes on a phone call to Jeremy then 10 plus more minutes wasted as Jeremy gets dressed and drives there and is let inside by Nevill so that Jeremy could try to disarm Sheila.
Nevill had the same physical ability to disarm Sheila as Jeremy if not superior ability because he was even larger than Jeremy and more importantly he had a calming effect on Sheila while Jeremy didn't so he had a superior capacity to talk her down. He had the NEED to do so ASAP the suggestion he would waste time calling Jeremy and then sit around with his thumb up his butt waiting for Jeremy to come do it is absurd. He would have tried disarming her himself not have called Jeremy.
Before calling anyone he would have locked his wife and the boys away where Sheila could not easily get to them. He would not have left her wandering around the house with the gun in a crazy state and did nothing to wake them up and warn them to hide.
The call is not credible at all even before looking at: Julie's testimony that he committed the murders and lied about receiving a call from Nevill; the evidence which demonstrates Sheila didn't load the gun, didn't fire the gun and didn't beat anyone with it so there is no reason why Nevill would have claimed she was running around with it; and the fact that after allegedly receiving this call Jeremy failed to react as someone who received such a call would have reacted. He didn't rush over nor did he call 999. He called Julie (some of the roommates say this call was earlier than the time he even claimed Nevill called him) and subsequently looked up various police station numbers. This not only conflicts with what someone actually in his place would do but conflicts with his own account which featured him claiming he tried to call back and the phone was busy so he then immediately called police. For his claim to be true someone had to hang up the phone in the middle of the call then after Jeremy hung up the person took the phone off the hook and left it there. This is another thing that makes no sense. In the meantime though he didn't call police he called Julie 10 or more minutes after calling Julie he finally called police.
Other problems are that Jeremy removed the phone from the bedroom to replace the perfectly functioning kitchen phone and lied about the kitchen phone being broken. The shooting commenced in the master bedroom with Nevill being shot 4 times and June 6. There was no phone to use prior to the shooting because Jeremy removed it. Nevill could not speak after this because of his injuries. It is not credible that Sheila marched Nevill to the bedroom to shoot both parents together. She would have shot Nevill upon finding him on the phone.
People biased in favor of Jeremy are willing to ignore anything damaging but if you look at all of this objectively it is very bad for Jeremy. It is hard coming up with anything to use to help Jeremy to rehabilitate his claims of receiving a phone call in the face of all this.
-
I dont think there is a lot of evidence at all
its down to anyone to choose what they believe to b the truth.
i dont believe its compketely impossible for neville to have phoned. We will never know will we
-
I dont think there is a lot of evidence at all
its down to anyone to choose what they believe to b the truth.
i dont believe its compketely impossible for neville to have phoned. We will never know will we
That's where I 'used' to be but there was always a nagging doubt. Initially, I believed what Jeremy was saying about the logs and that an unseen log proved his father called the police (which would also give weight to the call to Jeremy). However, the OS is misleading in these claims and the logs aren't suspicious at all, once you dismiss the claims on the OS. Even the Daily Mail that reported the (so called) find was confused about which log was (supposed) to be newly discovered and ended up quoting the wrong one. The OS seems to have done nothing to correct this.
It might be remotely possible that Nevill called Jeremy but given the facts, do you think it 'likely'?
-
Eight rings is more than enough. He was living in a cottage. Not a mansion.
Off, on, off, on. It's funny how BT didn't offer the off/on service with 1571.
you should make up your mind - one minute it would take him ages to get to the phone the next you emphasise he only lived in a cottage?
He lived in a small cottage - it would have been quiet and would not take very long at all to reach the phone . Hence why he was probably 1/2 asleep when he answered it.
-
There is a mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence.
And only two suspects.
-
you should make up your mind - one minute it would take him ages to get to the phone the next you emphasise he only lived in a cottage?
He lived in a small cottage - it would have been quiet and would not take very long at all to reach the phone . Hence why he was probably 1/2 asleep when he answered it.
When 'sleeping like a log' it would take several minutes before answering. Neville patiently waiting for Jeremy to answer.
He won't hear the phone if his bedroom door is shut.
If awake he can easily get to the phone within 8 rings. If he chose to. Oh sorry I forgot, he has to as everyone switched their answering machines off and on all the time.
-
When 'sleeping like a log' it would take several minutes before answering. Neville patiently waiting for Jeremy to answer.
.
He won't hear the phone if his bedroom door is shut
If awake he can easily get to the phone within 8 rings. If he chose to. Oh sorry I forgot, he has to as everyone switched their answering machines off and on all the time.
absolute tosh - unless you have slept in his bedroom you have absolutely no idea whether that is true- so don't write it as a fact - when it is not.
-
absolute tosh - unless you have slept in his bedroom you have absolutely no idea whether that is true- so don't write it as a fact - when it is not.
Well sleeping 'like a log' upstairs, with his bedroom door shut, there is no possibility he will hear the phone.
Supporters have to say his bedroom door was left open.
-
If awake he can easily get to the phone within 8 rings. If he chose to. Oh sorry I forgot, he has to as everyone switched their answering machines off and on all the time.
They didn't 'switch them on and off all the time.
People generally did not have the answering machine on when they were at home. It's not hard to understand.
-
They didn't 'switch them on and off all the time.
People generally did not have the answering machine on when they were at home. It's not hard to understand.
Did they switch them on when going to the corner shop for ten minutes ?
This is another issue supporters have to fight to the death about. An answering machine on results in a guilty Jeremy.
-
They didn't 'switch them on and off all the time.
People generally did not have the answering machine on when they were at home. It's not hard to understand.
I can't say if they did or they didn't but was it a rule not to?
-
Did they switch them on when going to the corner shop for ten minutes ?
This is another issue supporters have to fight to the death about. An answering machine on results in a guilty Jeremy.
Putting aside guilt or innocence you are wrong about how people used answering machines at the time and you are refusing to admit it. And yes they could easily switch it on when they went to the shop for ten minutes, it's inly a button to press.
-
Putting aside guilt or innocence you are wrong about how people used answering machines at the time and you are refusing to admit it. And yes they could easily switch it on when they went to the shop for ten minutes, it's inly a button to press.
Did they switch it on when going to bed, in the shower, hoovering or listening to music ? As it is unlikely they will hear the phone in these situations.
These together with switching it off/on when going out is a hell of a lot of switching off/on.
Thank goodness 901 and 1571 was introduced.
-
These together with switching it off/on is a hell of a lot of switching off/on
No it isn't, it's not hard to understand at all.
-
I can't say if they did or they didn't but was it a rule not to?
It wasn't a rule it's just how it was at the time.
-
It wasn't a rule it's just how it was at the time.
I would have just kept my answering machine on 24/7. But the rest of the population pressed the off and on buttom more than their TV remote.
-
It wasn't a rule it's just how it was at the time.
Could you still answer the phone if they were switched on?
-
I would have just kept my answering machine on 24/7. But the rest of the population pressed the off and on buttom more than their TV remote.
No they didn't. As I have said over and again they switched it on when going out and off when coming in.
You are wrong about the answering machine.
-
No they didn't. As I have said over and again they switched it on when going out and off when coming in.
You are wrong about the answering machine.
Were you in everyone's house in the 80's ?
-
Could you still answer the phone if they were switched on?
Providing you picked it up before the allocated number of rings.
If you picked it up after the allocated rings, I assume any message the caller was leaving would be cancelled and they could then speak to you directly.
-
Providing you picked it up before the allocated number of rings.
If you picked it up after the allocated rings, I assume any message the caller was leaving would be cancelled and they could then speak to you directly.
No It didn't work like that once the tape had clicked on that was it for some while you could stop some by manually pressing a button if you caught it in time. You have to forget digital altogether, they were much slower and less efficient which is why most people switched them off when at home.
-
Were you in everyone's house in the 80's ?
No but I was in more than you. And I didn't have to be in everyone's house in the 80's
I'm right and you are wrong.
-
I would have just kept my answering machine on 24/7. But the rest of the population pressed the off and on buttom more than their TV remote.
There was only so much space on the tape for messages so you didn't waste it if you were in.
-
No but I was in more than you. And I didn't have to be in everyone's house in the 80's
I'm right and you are wrong.
You're certainly not right, at all. You have an opinion that "everyone" would act this way - but that's all it is...YOUR opinion.
You have absolutely no idea what Jeremy did or didn't do when he got home late that night - none of us do unless he says so.
-
No but I was in more than you. And I didn't have to be in everyone's house in the 80's
I'm right and you are wrong.
I'm sorry I just don't find it credible that the country switched their answering machines off and on every time they went out, had a shower, hoovered, went to bed, played music, had a bath, went in the garden etc.
It is common sense to just leave it on 24/7.
-
You're certainly not right, at all. You have an opinion that "everyone" would act this way - but that's all it is...YOUR opinion.
You have absolutely no idea what Jeremy did or didn't do when he got home late that night - none of us do unless he says so.
It's not my opinion, and I didn't say everyone, I said the vast majority.
I didn't say I knew what JB did that night I said what most people did with their answering machines at that time.
-
I'm sorry I just don't find it credible that the country switched their answering machines off and on every time they went out, had a shower, hoovered, went to bed, played music, had a bath, went in the garden etc.
That's not what I said.
-
You're certainly not right, at all. You have an opinion that "everyone" would act this way - but that's all it is...YOUR opinion.
You have absolutely no idea what Jeremy did or didn't do when he got home late that night - none of us do unless he says so.
I agree but it's certainly true that back in the 1980s people tended to switch the answer phone off when they returned home. Most phones were in the hall near the front door so it was a habit for most, on when leaving the house and off once home after listening to any messages left when out. It's true we have no idea what JB did with his answer phone that evening. :-\
-
The one I owned would ring four or five times then read out the message which could be quite long and then beep and start recording. If you picked it up any time before the end of the beep there was no message recorded.
-
Well sleeping 'like a log' upstairs, with his bedroom door shut, there is no possibility he will hear the phone.
Supporters have to say his bedroom door was left open.
still talking tosh.
-
still talking tosh.
Jeremy lived in a tiny cottage, of course he would have heard the phone, door open or closed.
-
Jeremy lived in a tiny cottage, of course he would have heard the phone, door open or closed.
I'm sure he would have heard the phone, if there had been a call to hear.
-
I'm sure he would have heard the phone, if there had been a call to hear.
That depends on how soundly someone is sleeping not just the ability to hear a phone from another room/level. Some people don't even wake up from thunder/explosions.
In the meantime how long it takes to wake up, decide to answer and actually get to the phone will ipact whether the caller gives up before you can reach it.
In so far as whether there had been a call to hear...
If you are truly panicked do you grab a shotgun/knife/some other weapon and try to confront her or do you instead waste several minutes on the phone knowing even if the person answers it will take at least 10 minutes for such person to dress and come over to try to help?
If you are too scare to disarm someone yourself and too scared to grab a gun to confront such person with you would call 999 not Jeremy.
The call makes no sense on so many levels and is contradicted by the shooting commencing in the bedroom while June and Nevill were in there. This is one of the things Jeremy supporters have a hard time overcoming. They are willing to ignore such but that doesn't make it go away that just is a way for them to rationalize what they choose to accept. Establishing innocence requires demonstrating to others that this call happened. It also requires demonstrating Sheila actually killed everyone including herself with the gun because if she didn't then it is not credible that Nevill would call claiming she had the gun.
So the first step of proving the call is possible even is establishing Sheila did kill everyone including herself.
-
That depends on how soundly someone is sleeping not just the ability to hear a phone from another room/level. Some people don't even wake up from thunder/explosions.
In the meantime how long it takes to wake up, decide to answer and actually get to the phone will ipact whether the caller gives up before you can reach it.
In so far as whether there had been a call to hear...
If you are truly panicked do you grab a shotgun/knife/some other weapon and try to confront her or do you instead waste several minutes on the phone knowing even if the person answers it will take at least 10 minutes for such person to dress and come over to try to help?
If you are too scare to disarm someone yourself and too scared to grab a gun to confront such person with you would call 999 not Jeremy.
The call makes no sense on so many levels and is contradicted by the shooting commencing in the bedroom while June and Nevill were in there. This is one of the things Jeremy supporters have a hard time overcoming. They are willing to ignore such but that doesn't make it go away that just is a way for them to rationalize what they choose to accept. Establishing innocence requires demonstrating to others that this call happened. It also requires demonstrating Sheila actually killed everyone including herself with the gun because if she didn't then it is not credible that Nevill would call claiming she had the gun.
So the first step of proving the call is possible even is establishing Sheila did kill everyone including herself.
I was being ironic Scip ;) - there was clearly no call for the many reasons we have discussed many times.
-
I was being ironic Scip ;) - there was clearly no call for the many reasons we have discussed many times.
But there might have been a call ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
But there might have been a call ;D ;D ;D ;D
But back in the real world ....... ;)
-
That depends on how soundly someone is sleeping not just the ability to hear a phone from another room/level. Some people don't even wake up from thunder/explosions.
In the meantime how long it takes to wake up, decide to answer and actually get to the phone will ipact whether the caller gives up before you can reach it.
In so far as whether there had been a call to hear...
If you are truly panicked do you grab a shotgun/knife/some other weapon and try to confront her or do you instead waste several minutes on the phone knowing even if the person answers it will take at least 10 minutes for such person to dress and come over to try to help?
If you are too scare to disarm someone yourself and too scared to grab a gun to confront such person with you would call 999 not Jeremy.
The call makes no sense on so many levels and is contradicted by the shooting commencing in the bedroom while June and Nevill were in there. This is one of the things Jeremy supporters have a hard time overcoming. They are willing to ignore such but that doesn't make it go away that just is a way for them to rationalize what they choose to accept. Establishing innocence requires demonstrating to others that this call happened. It also requires demonstrating Sheila actually killed everyone including herself with the gun because if she didn't then it is not credible that Nevill would call claiming she had the gun.
So the first step of proving the call is possible even is establishing Sheila did kill everyone including herself.
If Neville was scared of the mighty Sheila holding a rifle for shooting rabbits, he wouldn't automatically phone someone.
Being scared may result in someone becoming aggressive, defensive or running away. Either of these actions may result in you being less scared. Being confronted by violence may make you violent.
Ringing someone up will not make you less scared.
-
I was being ironic Scip ;) - there was clearly no call for the many reasons we have discussed many times.
I understood you to be saying no way did the call happen. I was just fleshing that out further.
The whole issue of Sheila not being able to have killed herself and not having done anything to anyone else is intricately interwoven with the phone call claim. One has to establish she did have the gun and use it for it to be even remotely possible for Nevill to have called saying she had the gun. That is why on appeal so much attention has been paid to the issue of the evidence proving she didn't do anything. But all that attention has not resulted in pay dirt. The defense can't find anything useful to counter the evidence used at trial.
-
If Neville was scared of the mighty Sheila holding a rifle for shooting rabbits, he wouldn't automatically phone someone.
Being scared may result in someone becoming aggressive, defensive or running away. Either of these actions may result in you being less scared. Being confronted by violence may make you violent.
Ringing someone up will not make you less scared.
what on earth are you going on about - this post is not even making sense
-
what on earth are you going on about - this post is not even making sense
You know full well what I was saying.
If you are scared, or rather terrified, why ring up someone three miles away at 3.10am/3.36am ?
In Neville's case, he was unexpectedly caught up in the eye of a hurricane. He would either fight back, get help from June, run away or defend yourself.
It is unlikely he would phone anyone, but if he was, he had better phoning options than Jeremy.
-
You don't know the reason for Neville having rang. It was one way of telling Jeremy that his sister was on the warpath,with poor Neville thinking that if the worst came to the worst,at least Jeremy got the message. Neville not thinking that Jeremy would end up taking the wrap.
So in effect,that phone-call was meant more as a warning than " come along ",as it was probably out of hand anyway when Neville did ring.
-
You don't know the reason for Neville having rang. It was one way of telling Jeremy that his sister was on the warpath,with poor Neville thinking that if the worst came to the worst,at least Jeremy got the message. Neville not thinking that Jeremy would end up taking the wrap.
So in effect,that phone-call was meant more as a warning than " come along ",as it was probably out of hand anyway when Neville did ring.
Huh? ;D, in such an instance, he'd have called 999 - the man wasn't an idiot. If the worst came to the worst, then the police would know what happened from the horses mouth and not second hand from the son who had much to gain and knowing what happened put him right in the frame. Nevill was a magistrate - he'd have known that! ;D ;D ;D
-
You don't know the reason for Neville having rang. It was one way of telling Jeremy that his sister was on the warpath,with poor Neville thinking that if the worst came to the worst,at least Jeremy got the message. Neville not thinking that Jeremy would end up taking the wrap.
So in effect,that phone-call was meant more as a warning than " come along ",as it was probably out of hand anyway when Neville did ring.
Why did Neville say 'please come over' then ?
-
Why did Neville say 'please come over' then ?
Politeness? ;D
-
Huh? ;D, in such an instance, he'd have called 999 - the man wasn't an idiot. If the worst came to the worst, then the police would know what happened from the horses mouth and not second hand from the son who had much to gain and knowing what happened put him right in the frame. Nevill was a magistrate - he'd have known that! ;D ;D ;D
So it appears that you knew the family well,then ?
-
So it appears that you knew the family well,then ?
Not as well and you try to claim - I'm applying common sense - not 6th sense!! ::)
-
Not as well and you try to claim - I'm applying common sense - not 6th sense!! ::)
There's a difference------------I'm surmising,but you're adamant.
-
There's a difference------------I'm surmising,but you're adamant.
I thought that was Jeremy
-
There's a difference------------I'm surmising,but you're adamant.
Now you even know what I think ;D ;D ;D ::) ::)
But I am certainly not this guy! :P
-
I thought that was Jeremy
I was actually expecting that,right after I'd posted I realised. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
:D :D