Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Bill Robertson on May 26, 2017, 08:28:AM
-
6 August 2002 Stokenchurch investigation. Room 101 Trenchard House. DS 21 Stanley Jones speaking to DCI Jeannette McDiarmid about the kitchen telephone.
Jones) “I can’t even see anybody using the phone in that kitchen, the state of it, do you know what I mean. There’s no way I want to use that phone”
Every known photograph of the ivory coloured kitchen phone, including those on this website, shows the phone in pristine condition. What could Jones have meant by "the state of it"? Blood all over it?
-
6 August 2002 Stokenchurch investigation. Room 101 Trenchard House. DS 21 Stanley Jones speaking to DCI Jeannette McDiarmid about the kitchen telephone.
Jones) “I can’t even see anybody using the phone in that kitchen, the state of it, do you know what I mean. There’s no way I want to use that phone”
Every known photograph of the ivory coloured kitchen phone, including those on this website, shows the phone in pristine condition. What could Jones have meant by "the state of it"? Blood all over it?
That is interesting Bill. It certainly suggests the phone may have been covered in blood. It's hard to think of anything else that could cause such a reaction.
-
6 August 2002 Stokenchurch investigation. Room 101 Trenchard House. DS 21 Stanley Jones speaking to DCI Jeannette McDiarmid about the kitchen telephone.
Jones) “I can’t even see anybody using the phone in that kitchen, the state of it, do you know what I mean. There’s no way I want to use that phone”
Every known photograph of the ivory coloured kitchen phone, including those on this website, shows the phone in pristine condition. What could Jones have meant by "the state of it"? Blood all over it?
Can you post it? Does he mean the state of the kitchen when he says the state of it? Or the state of the phone? Your wording is not clear.
-
Can you post it? Does he mean the state of the kitchen when he says the state of it? Or the state of the phone? Your wording is not clear.
Hi Justice I think Bill is talking about the state of the phone :)
-
Hi Justice I think Bill is talking about the state of the phone :)
Hi Susan, just a bit unsure with the wording THAT kitchen and not THE kitchen, with this case the wording gets twisted, that's why it's better when there is a link?
-
That is interesting Bill. It certainly suggests the phone may have been covered in blood. It's hard to think of anything else that could cause such a reaction.
Assuming of course that the quote is being reported accurately.
-
6 August 2002 Stokenchurch investigation. Room 101 Trenchard House. DS 21 Stanley Jones speaking to DCI Jeannette McDiarmid about the kitchen telephone.
Jones) “I can’t even see anybody using the phone in that kitchen, the state of it, do you know what I mean. There’s no way I want to use that phone”
Every known photograph of the ivory coloured kitchen phone, including those on this website, shows the phone in pristine condition. What could Jones have meant by "the state of it"? Blood all over it?
Now there's a big conclusion jump. He could have been talking about the kitchen itself or the mouth/ear piece on the phone. That sounds more like a knock at the level of hygiene than anything else.
-
Hi Susan, just a bit unsure with the wording THAT kitchen and not THE kitchen, with this case the wording gets twisted, that's why it's better when there is a link?
Hi Justice just given it more thought and it is rather ambiguous I admit could be the kitchen think maybe it is the kitchen :-\
-
Can you post it? Does he mean the state of the kitchen when he says the state of it? Or the state of the phone? Your wording is not clear.
Completely agree Justice!
-
Completely agree Justice!
Thats how I see it, when I don't want to use a toilet elsewhere and the room is filthy I say "have you seen the state of that toilet" I'm very selective where I put my bum.
-
Hi Justice just given it more thought and it is rather ambiguous I admit could be the kitchen think maybe it is the kitchen :-\
Thats how I see it Susan as well. :)
-
Having read it several times - it could be read either way.
If officers and senior officers had to enter the kitchen anyway (or were known to have been present in the kitchen that morning) - then it probably refers to the phone itself. Any objection to not wanting to use that phone - because of the state of the kitchen - is nullified by the fact that they are already in said kitchen.
-
Thats how I see it, when I don't want to use a toilet elsewhere and the room is filthy I say "have you seen the state of that toilet" I'm very selective where I put my bum.
:)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Having read it several times - it could be read either way.
If officers and senior officers had to enter the kitchen anyway (or were known to have been present in the kitchen that morning) - then it probably refers to the phone itself. Any objection to not wanting to use that phone - because of the state of the kitchen - is nullified by the fact that they are already in said kitchen.
Roch you could well be right difficult to be sure :)
-
Having read it several times - it could be read either way.
If officers and senior officers had to enter the kitchen anyway (or were known to have been present in the kitchen that morning) - then it probably refers to the phone itself. Any objection to not wanting to use that phone - because of the state of the kitchen - is nullified by the fact that they are already in said kitchen.
No it isn't, as Justice just said, if you go into a public toilet and it's filthy, you wouldn't use the toilet on the assumption that it will be filthy too. However, to make the leap from the phone being dirty to the dirt being blood is just more conspiracy nonsense.
-
No it isn't, as Justice just said, if you go into a public toilet and it's filthy, you wouldn't use the toilet on the assumption that it will be filthy too. However, to make the leap from the phone being dirty to the dirt being blood is just more conspiracy nonsense.
I'm sorry but this is just baloney. For one, it's not a public toilet - it's a kitchen and a crime scene. Police are present, assessing the situation (in the context of four murders and one suicide). It has nothing to do with Justice making a snap judgement about whether or not he would use a particular toilet. Secondly, a telephone isn't a toilet.
-
I'm sorry but this is just baloney. For one, it's not a public toilet - it's a kitchen and a crime scene. Police are present, assessing the situation (in the context of four murders and one suicide). It has nothing to do with Justice making a snap judgement about whether or not he would use a particular toilet. Secondly, a telephone isn't a toilet.
Roch, all that was used was an example of how we read things, it was no snap judgement but a similar phrasing, it's always better when you read the real Mcoy, you might be right what your saying but it can be read differently and I want to see the transcript for myself.
-
6 August 2002 Stokenchurch investigation. Room 101 Trenchard House. DS 21 Stanley Jones speaking to DCI Jeannette McDiarmid about the kitchen telephone.
Jones) “I can’t even see anybody using the phone in that kitchen, the state of it, do you know what I mean. There’s no way I want to use that phone”
Every known photograph of the ivory coloured kitchen phone, including those on this website, shows the phone in pristine condition. What could Jones have meant by "the state of it"? Blood all over it?
Where is this actually taken from?
-
Where is this actually taken from?
Context is king.
For all we know they are discussing a pay phone in the police canteen.
-
I'm sorry but this is just baloney. For one, it's not a public toilet - it's a kitchen and a crime scene. Police are present, assessing the situation (in the context of four murders and one suicide). It has nothing to do with Justice making a snap judgement about whether or not he would use a particular toilet. Secondly, a telephone isn't a toilet.
As is the assumption that this statement means he was referring to blood “I can’t even see anybody using the phone in that kitchen, the state of it, do you know what I mean. There’s no way I want to use that phone”
I used an analogy as did Justice, it doesn't have to be a toilet - if a house is dirty, I would use the phone either.
-
Context is king.
For all we know they are discussing a pay phone in the police canteen.
Good point! I wish people would post references when they make claims.
-
Where is this actually taken from?
Trenchard House was basic Metropolitan police accommodation. The building stopped being used in 1999, was sold off in 2004 and converted by 2016 by Barratts in to plush apartments.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/5856698546 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/brizzlebornandbred/5856698546)
Seems to be awfully quiet on the source of the quote, but could it be that the phone in the communal kitchen of Trenchard house was the subject of discussion reminiscing the past? :-\
-
It's funny how sources of quotes takes on an importance when it suits. I remember the allegation document from about six or seven years ago. It was extensively referenced. A fact which Hartley remained very aloof about. You cant have it both ways.
-
It's funny how sources of quotes takes on an importance when it suits. I remember the allegation document from about six or seven years ago. It was extensively referenced. A fact which Hartley remained very aloof about. You cant have it both ways.
When it suits? If I make a claim, I reference it. Anyone can claim anything if they don't reference it or take something out of context - and it happens - frequently here. Perhaps Hartley just didn't think it was important enough to comment? It is certainly a stretch of the imagination to go from someone saying they wouldn't use a particular phone, to suggesting it was because it was covered in blood.
-
6 August 2002 Stokenchurch investigation. Room 101 Trenchard House. DS 21 Stanley Jones speaking to DCI Jeannette McDiarmid about the kitchen telephone.
Jones) “I can’t even see anybody using the phone in that kitchen, the state of it, do you know what I mean. There’s no way I want to use that phone”
Every known photograph of the ivory coloured kitchen phone, including those on this website, shows the phone in pristine condition. What could Jones have meant by "the state of it"? Blood all over it?
It sounds as if he was referring to the state of the kitchen. If i was hearing him say it, I'd expect to hear ".......................THAT kitchen, the state of it................" meaning the kitchen was an unhygienic tip.
-
Roch, all that was used was an example of how we read things, it was no snap judgement but a similar phrasing, it's always better when you read the real Mcoy, you might be right what your saying but it can be read differently and I want to see the transcript for myself.
Yes, I am aware that Caroline was speaking metaphorically. However, if police were already physically in the kitchen, the analogy Caroline provided doesn't work for me.
-
Jones) “I can’t even see anybody using the phone in that kitchen, the state of it, do you know what I mean. There’s no way I want to use that phone”
He seems to enforce the word "THAT kitchen" to me meaning, the kitchen is a mess, if it was just the phone it would have been said "I can't even see anybody using the kitchen phone" the state of it?
-
Jones) “I can’t even see anybody using the phone in that kitchen, the state of it, do you know what I mean. There’s no way I want to use that phone”
He seems to enforce the word "THAT kitchen" to me meaning, the kitchen is a mess, if it was just the phone it would have been said "I can't even see anybody using the kitchen phone" the state of it?
Also to say:
"There’s no way I want to use that phone"
Suggests he wants to use a phone. Which is a bit odd. :-\
-
Also to say:
"There’s no way I want to use that phone"
Suggests he wants to use a phone. Which is a bit odd. :-\
Its like you say, until you see the full context you can read different ways into it?
-
What was it that Gandhi once said ? " It's easy to stand with the crowd.It takes courage to stand alone "
-
It's funny how sources of quotes takes on an importance when it suits. I remember the allegation document from about six or seven years ago. It was extensively referenced. A fact which Hartley remained very aloof about. You cant have it both ways.
Unbelievable. Everyone who reads this thread would like to know more
I am quite sure they are referencing the phone and I would like Bill to post more about this
It's called having an open mind
-
Is there a source for Bill's statement? I believe there was a lot of blood on the kitchen floor, of which there are no photographs, hence the possible confusion.
-
Is there a source for Bill's statement? I believe there was a lot of blood on the kitchen floor, of which there are no photographs, hence the possible confusion.
I believe Colin rang WHF on the morning of the murders and a policeman answered the phone. Thus a phone was handled by the police.
I cannot remember where I read this or whether its true or not.
-
I believe Colin rang WHF on the morning of the murders and a policeman answered the phone. Thus a phone was handled by the police.
I cannot remember where I read this or whether its true or not.
There's nothing about this in Colin's book. He was escorted to White House Farm almost immediately with Heather.
-
There's nothing about this in Colin's book. He was escorted to White House Farm almost immediately with Heather.
Page 56,57 it was Colins dad who rang WHF and police answered. (apparently)
-
Page 56,57 it was Colins dad who rang WHF and police answered. (apparently)
Yes but they were at Bourtree Cottage, not the crime scene.
-
Yes but they were at Bourtree Cottage, not the crime scene.
This is all I have to go on.
-
Have removed more posts from this thread. Some of the posts I removed were not abusive but were way off topic.
I believe Bill's thread is an interesting subject for debate so tried to keep the essence of it on track.
-
Page 56,57 it was Colins dad who rang WHF and police answered. (apparently)
Does it say it was on the morning after the murders?
-
Does it say it was on the morning after the murders?
Colin didn't complete his statement until 5:30pm (according to his statement).
So I think David's implied suggestion is off the mark. :-\
-
Page 56,57 it was Colins dad who rang WHF and police answered. (apparently)
Page 56, 57 of what?
-
Have removed more posts from this thread. Some of the posts I removed were not abusive but were way off topic.
I believe Bill's thread is an interesting subject for debate so tried to keep the essence of it on track.
Well done, Maggie...
-
6 August 2002 Stokenchurch investigation. Room 101 Trenchard House. DS 21 Stanley Jones speaking to DCI Jeannette McDiarmid about the kitchen telephone.
Jones) “I can’t even see anybody using the phone in that kitchen, the state of it, do you know what I mean. There’s no way I want to use that phone”
Every known photograph of the ivory coloured kitchen phone, including those on this website, shows the phone in pristine condition. What could Jones have meant by "the state of it"? Blood all over it?
Hi Bill, is this the information you referred to earlier?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7867.msg373230.html#msg373230
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7867.msg373234.html#msg373234
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7867.msg373240.html#msg373240.
Is this the start of the information that will aquit Jeremy?
-
This is all I have to go on.
It's false information.
-
Hi Bill, is this the information you referred to earlier?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7867.msg373230.html#msg373230
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7867.msg373234.html#msg373234
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7867.msg373240.html#msg373240.
Is this the start of the information that will aquit Jeremy?
Hi Justice any evidence that has been uncovered to free Jeremy will not be posted on the forum by Bill or indeed anyone else not at this stage :))
-
Hi Justice any evidence that has been uncovered to free Jeremy will not be posted on the forum by Bill or indeed anyone else not at this stage :))
Shucks, that's me £100 down then :(
-
Hi Justice any evidence that has been uncovered to free Jeremy will not be posted on the forum by Bill or indeed anyone else not at this stage :))
That's a pity.
It would be good to see the evidence JackieD, Roch & Bill have told the forum they have, showing Bamber is innocent.
Guilters have not got the luxury of not having to provide sources.
But at least we can all rest assurred that JackieD, Roch & Bill have passed their information onto the correct people & Bamber will be free soon. There may even be a 6 part documentary as well thanks to JackieD.
Not forgetting David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough' which was hand delivered to Bamber's legal advisors. A year ago.
-
Have removed more posts from this thread. Some of the posts I removed were not abusive but were way off topic.
I believe Bill's thread is an interesting subject for debate so tried to keep the essence of it on track.
Well done, Maggie...
-
Well done, Maggie...
So good you said it twice. ;D
-
Hi Justice any evidence that has been uncovered to free Jeremy will not be posted on the forum by Bill or indeed anyone else not at this stage :))
You seem to be in the know again Susan, lucky you ;)
-
Mike what is the latest with the picture of Sheila on the bed ? You said several years ago it was with you're legal advisors.
Surely this together with David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough' & Bill's, JackieD & Roch's information will free Bamber.
-
You seem to be in the know again Susan, lucky you ;)
Hahaha Justice no more than you sadly :)) :)) :))
-
Mike what is the latest with the picture of Sheila on the bed ? You said several years ago it was with you're legal advisors.
Surely this together with David's 'forensic evidence breakthrough' & Bill, JackieD & Roch's information will free Bamber.
Hello Adam you will have to be patient like the rest of us all will be revealed I suspect in due course not sure about the picture on the bed think Mike is keeping that one to himself :)
-
Hahaha Justice no more than you sadly :)) :)) :))
Sorry, you seemed pretty confident when you responded to my post asking Mike if it was all linked?
-
Shucks, that's me £100 down then :(
Justice 100 notes nothing to a man of your means and status it will just about buy you three pairs of walking socks :)) :)) :)) I went to the counter with two pairs last Sunday (I thought £3.50 a pair) she asked me for £70 when I picked myself up I said no thanks I am a frugal Yorkshire gal hehehe
-
Hello Adam you will have to be patient like the rest of us all will be revealed I suspect in due course not sure about the picture on the bed think Mike is keeping that one to himself :)
It's hard to be patient when Mike, David, Roch, JackieD & Bill say on the forum they have information that suggests Bamber is innocent.
But then won't say what it is.
But I will try.
-
Sorry, you seemed pretty confident when you responded to my post asking Mike if it was all linked?
Hi Justice I thought I had responded to you re Bill's post about the kitchen phone many think Bill is in the know and I am sure he is but he will not be sharing it with us on the forum we shall have to be patient. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression was not intended :)( I never read the links don't tell hehehe)
-
Hi Justice any evidence that has been uncovered to free Jeremy will not be posted on the forum by Bill or indeed anyone else not at this stage :))
I could be wrong - but I doubt he will be back on the forum for quite a while - bearing in mind that he disengaged from posting on the forum previously, for approximately two years. People should at least try to understand, that there are some interested parties out there who will only engage in the forum, if the forum is conducted along more serious lines, with some common courtesy.
We can all engage in flippant remarks and condescension - but it doesn't suit every member or every situation.
The members of the forum have to decide whether they are prepared to sacrifice some of the over-familiar and cocky jibes, to attract or keep more posters who can genuinely add to the debate.
-
It's hard to be patient when Mike, David, Roch, JackieD & Bill say on the forum they have information that suggests Bamber is innocent.
But then won't say what it is.
But I will try.
Adam think about it if these people have information that could help to free Jeremy they will have to give it to his Legal team and not make it public until they are told they can do so
-
I could be wrong - but I doubt he will be back on the forum for quite a while - bearing in mind that he disengaged from posting on the forum previously, for approximately two years. People should at least try to understand, that there are some interested parties out there who will only engage in the forum, if the forum is conducted along more serious lines, with some common courtesy.
We can all engage in flippant remarks and condescension - but it doesn't suit every member or every situation.
The members of the forum have to decide whether they are prepared to sacrifice some of the over-familiar and cocky jibes, to attract or keep more posters who can genuinely add to the debate.
Hi Roch that is very sad as I did engage posting with Bill and found him to be very interesting and I looked forward to him returning and I am ashamed of myself that to a certain extent I joined in with Justice over the toilet and on reflection I was totally out of order when a poster is trying to get a serious debate going it is so out of order to turn the whole post into a joke and I am seriously very upset with myself for stooping to that level and I feel like never posting again as it is so difficult to do right for doing wrong on the forum it is not as it use to be a good place to be. :( >:( In the future I will never get involved again in disrespectful posting never been in to it anyway.
-
Adam think about it if these people have information that could help to free Jeremy they will have to give it to his Legal team and not make it public until they are told they can do so
I'm not involved in gathering or investigating evidence that will free Jeremy. So I think Adam could be barking up the wrong tree at times. I did express a while ago that I have witnessed some evidence which immediately made me realise that Sheila was involved with the killings. I mean it was impossible to deny the fact, after I witnessed what I saw. But I personally have no evidence to pass on to legal etc. Or for that mater, AH.
-
Adam think about it if these people have information that could help to free Jeremy they will have to give it to his Legal team and not make it public until they are told they can do so
I bet you are feeling left out.
It seems all supporters on here have classified information that shows Bamber is innocent. What a pity none of it can be released until Bamber is free.
-
Hi Roch that is very sad as I did engage posting with Bill and found him to be very interesting and I looked forward to him returning and I am ashamed of myself that to a certain extent I joined in with Justice over the toilet and on reflection I was totally out of order when a poster is trying to get a serious debate going it is so out of order to turn the whole post into a joke and I am seriously very upset with myself for stooping to that level and I feel like never posting again as it is so difficult to do right for doing wrong on the forum it is not as it use to be a good place to be. :( >:( In the future I will never get involved again in disrespectful posting never been in to it anyway.
Hi Susan, I'm quite sure you are 'in the clear'. So don't worry about it.
And furthermore, I'm sorry to drag the thread further off topic. I think this is also a recurring bugbear for some posters. I think Tom G alluded to it recently.
-
Hi Roch that is very sad as I did engage posting with Bill and found him to be very interesting and I looked forward to him returning and I am ashamed of myself that to a certain extent I joined in with Justice over the toilet and on reflection I was totally out of order when a poster is trying to get a serious debate going it is so out of order to turn the whole post into a joke and I am seriously very upset with myself for stooping to that level and I feel like never posting again as it is so difficult to do right for doing wrong on the forum it is not as it use to be a good place to be. :( >:( In the future I will never get involved again in disrespectful posting never been in to it anyway.
Well said Susan, I don't know how some of you ladies stay on here at times, I supposed talking about toilets is better than being told to f""k off all the time, don't feel guilty Susan you did nothing wrong to what some posters are trying to make you feel guilty for, it's an easy cop out to put the blame on others, there was nothing in the toilet issue other than phrasing, so carry on posting Susan.
-
Well said Susan, I don't know how some of you ladies stay on here at times, I supposed talking about toilets is better than being told to f""k off all the time, don't feel guilty Susan you did nothing wrong to what some posters are trying to make you feel guilty for, it's an easy cop out to put the blame on others, there was nothing in the toilet issue other than phrasing, so carry on posting Susan.
What posters really could have done is responded to Bills post and ask him where his information came from so that it could be better understood.
Oh wait ............ as that's precisely what I did, maybe that won't count? :-\
-
What posters really could have done is responded to Bills post and ask him where his information came from so that it could be better understood.
Oh wait ............ as that's precisely what I did, maybe that won't count? :-\
Indeed so did you Justice.
-
What posters really could have done is responded to Bills post and ask him where his information came from so that it could be better understood.
Oh wait ............ as that's precisely what I did, maybe that won't count? :-\
Exactly Hartley, i only used the toilet as an example, ok it bought a bit of humour but nothing untold or out of order, poor Susan must feel deflated by this and not want to post anymore. You just don't know what to say or do in case you upset someone, I mean I've lost £100 on Bill telling us to put money on Bamber being released, but I had him in a round Robin, with Hartlepool and Chesterfield, all three let me down >:(
-
Exactly Hartley, i only used the toilet as an example, ok it bought a bit of humour but nothing untold or out of order, poor Susan must feel deflated by this and not want to post anymore. You just don't know what to say or do in case you upset someone, I mean I've lost £100 on Bill telling us to put money on Bamber being released, but I had him in a round Robin, with Hartlepool and Chesterfield, all three let me down >:(
Well, more fool you. ;D
-
Well said Susan, I don't know how some of you ladies stay on here at times, I supposed talking about toilets is better than being told to f""k off all the time, don't feel guilty Susan you did nothing wrong to what some posters are trying to make you feel guilty for, it's an easy cop out to put the blame on others, there was nothing in the toilet issue other than phrasing, so carry on posting Susan.
Hi Justice Roch is not trying to make me feel guilty he is my friend. Last night when I signed off I did feel within myself that I had been too silly and flippant and I was even worried that I had given that impression to Roch who I have a very high regard for. I know you and I know you would not be disrespectful on purpose but sometimes we human beings get carried away and forget where it all came from. I will carry on posting and Roch is not in the habit of swearing he was just pushed to the limit yesterday what people forget it is a different scenario when it is 4 posters to 1 I know it is not meant but it comes over as ganging up and taking the mickey. We all learn from our mistakes and I will behave myself a bit better from now on and I do hope Bill comes back as I think he has so much to offer and may share with us.Justice this post is not in anyway a criticism of any forum members as I think they are a good lot and nice people.
-
Have removed more posts from this thread. Some of the posts I removed were not abusive but were way off topic.
I believe Bill's thread is an interesting subject for debate so tried to keep the essence of it on track.
Thank you Maggie
-
Hi Justice Roch is not trying to make me feel guilty he is my friend. Last night when I signed off I did feel within myself that I had been too silly and flippant and I was even worried that I had given that impression to Roch who I have a very high regard for. I know you and I know you would not be disrespectful on purpose but sometimes we human beings get carried away and forget where it all came from. I will carry on posting and Roch is not in the habit of swearing he was just pushed to the limit yesterday what people forget it is a different scenario when it is 4 posters to 1 I know it is not meant but it comes over as ganging up and taking the mickey. We all learn from our mistakes and I will behave myself a bit better from now on and I do hope Bill comes back as I think he has so much to offer and may share with us.Justice this post is not in anyway a criticism of any forum members as I think they are a good lot and nice people.
Your being very hard on yourself Susan.
-
It's hard to be patient when Mike, David, Roch, JackieD & Bill say on the forum they have information that suggests Bamber is innocent.
But then won't say what it is.
But I will try.
Well my information is directly from a senior police officer so you can forget me posting it up here but he is writing a book if that helps Adam
You obviously believe what the police has to say so this should be an interesting read for you
-
Susan, I'm pretty confident that the membership is aware of who the regular offenders are. Those members who have developed a cocky arrogance and are wind-up merchants. You're not one of them.
-
Hi Justice Roch is not trying to make me feel guilty he is my friend. Last night when I signed off I did feel within myself that I had been too silly and flippant and I was even worried that I had given that impression to Roch who I have a very high regard for. I know you and I know you would not be disrespectful on purpose but sometimes we human beings get carried away and forget where it all came from. I will carry on posting and Roch is not in the habit of swearing he was just pushed to the limit yesterday what people forget it is a different scenario when it is 4 posters to 1 I know it is not meant but it comes over as ganging up and taking the mickey. We all learn from our mistakes and I will behave myself a bit better from now on and I do hope Bill comes back as I think he has so much to offer and may share with us.Justice this post is not in anyway a criticism of any forum members as I think they are a good lot and nice people.
I'm a bit bored of talking about Roch to be honest, he can have a wobbly and throw his dummy out of his pram as often as he likes.
Nobody was ganging up on anybody. Everybody (including Roch) offered an opinion that the quote was somewhat ambiguous and could be read in a number of different ways.
Roch's outburst and rudeness continues to be a mystery. If Bill has stopped posting then maybe Roch's antics are to blame.
It seems unlikely that Bill would ask a question and then be upset when he received replies. :-\
-
I could be wrong - but I doubt he will be back on the forum for quite a while - bearing in mind that he disengaged from posting on the forum previously, for approximately two years. People should at least try to understand, that there are some interested parties out there who will only engage in the forum, if the forum is conducted along more serious lines, with some common courtesy.
We can all engage in flippant remarks and condescension - but it doesn't suit every member or every situation.
The members of the forum have to decide whether they are prepared to sacrifice some of the over-familiar and cocky jibes, to attract or keep more posters who can genuinely add to the debate.
Roch
Just say it how it is, these people are just out to disrupt the forum
Fact
And they don't get away with it on other forums
-
Hi Roch that is very sad as I did engage posting with Bill and found him to be very interesting and I looked forward to him returning and I am ashamed of myself that to a certain extent I joined in with Justice over the toilet and on reflection I was totally out of order when a poster is trying to get a serious debate going it is so out of order to turn the whole post into a joke and I am seriously very upset with myself for stooping to that level and I feel like never posting again as it is so difficult to do right for doing wrong on the forum it is not as it use to be a good place to be. :( >:( In the future I will never get involved again in disrespectful posting never been in to it anyway.
Susan
You do it a lot and I am here because as I always believed and now know Jeremy is innocent
It's not a joking matter when an innocent man has been locked up for over 30 years
You can always go on the wide awake club
-
Susan, I'm pretty confident that the membership is aware of who the regular offenders are. Those members who have developed a cocky arrogance and are wind-up merchants. You're not one of them.
Hi Roch cocky arrogance is not part of my nature I think my problem is I want to please everyone and that does not work on forums works off the forum. I was out of order yesterday and I regret very much getting carried away Justice is my friend and such a nice person he would never try to disrupt the forum he likes a laugh.
-
Exactly Hartley, i only used the toilet as an example, ok it bought a bit of humour but nothing untold or out of order, poor Susan must feel deflated by this and not want to post anymore. You just don't know what to say or do in case you upset someone, I mean I've lost £100 on Bill telling us to put money on Bamber being released, but I had him in a round Robin, with Hartlepool and Chesterfield, all three let me down >:(
Your a laugh a minute, try discussing the case
-
Your a laugh a minute, try discussing the case
Advice you could offer yourself perhaps?
-
Susan
You do it a lot and I am here because as I always believed and now know Jeremy is innocent
It's not a joking matter when an innocent man has been locked up for over 30 years
You can always go on the wide awake club
Jackie I know I do and I have offered my sincere apologies I can do no more. It has never been my intention to offend I have done it not thinking but I am now going to be more careful sometimes I have been like that as the forum was getting heated and I was trying to change the mood as I said sometimes it is difficult to do right for doing wrong. Sorry.
-
Your a laugh a minute, try discussing the case
Oh Bless thanks Jackie, hugs and kisses
-
Hi Justice Roch is not trying to make me feel guilty he is my friend. Last night when I signed off I did feel within myself that I had been too silly and flippant and I was even worried that I had given that impression to Roch who I have a very high regard for. I know you and I know you would not be disrespectful on purpose but sometimes we human beings get carried away and forget where it all came from. I will carry on posting and Roch is not in the habit of swearing he was just pushed to the limit yesterday what people forget it is a different scenario when it is 4 posters to 1 I know it is not meant but it comes over as ganging up and taking the mickey. We all learn from our mistakes and I will behave myself a bit better from now on and I do hope Bill comes back as I think he has so much to offer and may share with us.Justice this post is not in anyway a criticism of any forum members as I think they are a good lot and nice people.
Susan the people who believe Jeremy is guilty are outnumbered that's why they behave how they do and then when they have there posts removed they sulk
Things are looking up
-
Oh Bless thanks Jackie, hugs and kisses
Glad to help
-
I'm a bit bored of talking about Roch to be honest, he can have a wobbly and throw his dummy out of his pram as often as he likes.
Nobody was ganging up on anybody. Everybody (including Roch) offered an opinion that the quote was somewhat ambiguous and could be read in a number of different ways.
Roch's outburst and rudeness continues to be a mystery. If Bill has stopped posting then maybe Roch's antics are to blame.
It seems unlikely that Bill would ask a question and then be upset when he received replies. :-\
I may have spat my dummy out - but I'm not cocky, arrogant, rude and disrespectful to serious posters giving their time and research on here. Or even posting on here. You and your cabal are. It's preventing the forum from progressing.
-
I'm a bit bored of talking about Roch to be honest, he can have a wobbly and throw his dummy out of his pram as often as he likes.
Nobody was ganging up on anybody. Everybody (including Roch) offered an opinion that the quote was somewhat ambiguous and could be read in a number of different ways.
Roch's outburst and rudeness continues to be a mystery. If Bill has stopped posting then maybe Roch's antics are to blame.
It seems unlikely that Bill would ask a question and then be upset when he received replies. :-\
You get bored a lot don't you. Maybe you need a change of direction?
-
Advice you could offer yourself perhaps?
I'm absolutely fine, I'm not here trying to protect someone's interest
I'm here for the truth
-
I may have spat my dummy out - but I'm not cocky, arrogant, rude and disrespectful to serious posters giving their time and research on here. Or even posting on here. You and your cabal are. It's preventing the forum from progressing.
Rubbish Roch.
Bill posted a question.
He was asked where his information came from as it could be read a number of ways and the context was important in deciphering a meaning.
Exactly what is it that has vexed you so?
I do think you are rude, I'm not sure what you mean by cabal and I don't belive I am stopping the forum from progressing. How could I possibly do that even if I wanted to (which I don't). In fact don't actually know what stopping the forum progressing actually means.
-
Jackie I know I do and I have offered my sincere apologies I can do no more. It has never been my intention to offend I have done it not thinking but I am now going to be more careful sometimes I have been like that as the forum was getting heated and I was trying to change the mood as I said sometimes it is difficult to do right for doing wrong. Sorry.
I know, I will be gutted if Bill stops posting
-
Rubbish Roch.
Bill posted a question.
He was asked where his information came from as it could be read a number of ways and the context was important in deciphering a meaning.
Exactly what is it that has vexed you so?
I do think you are rude, I'm not sure what you mean by cabal and I don't belive I am stopping the forum from progressing. How could I possibly do that even if I wanted to (which I don't). In fact don't actually know what stopping the forum progressing actually means.
Seriously Roch, what was the problem?
I am at a complete loss, please elucidate me.
-
I know, I will be gutted if Bill stops posting
I won't, I lost bloody £100 quid listening to him, bloody Bamber out this year
-
I know, I will be gutted if Bill stops posting
Jackie I found Bill's posts very refreshing and I did post with him in a very serious manner and I hope he posts again if he does I will offer my apologies if I engaged in any banter that may have offended him the last thing I want to do is drive anyone off the forum. You are quite right an innocent man serving time in prison for a crime he did not commit is no laughing matter :(
-
I'm absolutely fine, I'm not here trying to protect someone's interest
Well yes you are Jackie, by your own admission.
Where as I am independently giving views on a subject that I find interesting.
I originally joined the forum without any knowledge of the case and set out to see if JB was really guilty or innocent.
I'm not involved in any other way, whatever paranoid conspiracies people wish to manifest in their minds.
I think that's where the issue really lies.
-
Well said Susan, I don't know how some of you ladies stay on here at times, I supposed talking about toilets is better than being told to f""k off all the time, don't feel guilty Susan you did nothing wrong to what some posters are trying to make you feel guilty for, it's an easy cop out to put the blame on others, there was nothing in the toilet issue other than phrasing, so carry on posting Susan.
I won't stop posting, I'm not ashamed and I don't intend to change my posting style. And I fail to see how asking for a reference is is condescending to anyone.
-
Well yes you are Jackie, by your own admission.
Where as I am independently giving views on a subject that I find interesting.
I originally joined the forum without any knowledge of the case and set out to see if JB was really guilty or innocent.
I'm not involved in any other way, whatever paranoid conspiracies people wish to manifest in their minds.
I think that's where the issue really lies.
You have made numerous comments over the years about knowing the family who inherited the Bamber forums on Jeremy's conviction
I have never even met Jeremy. I am not here just to find out about the WHF murders but I want to get to the truth about what the police did, the silencer that magically appeared, the lies in court by the relatives and Julie Mugford
Now deny you have never met, or spoken to Ann Eaton or any of the other relatives?
-
I may have spat my dummy out - but I'm not cocky, arrogant, rude and disrespectful to serious posters giving their time and research on here. Or even posting on here. You and your cabal are. It's preventing the forum from progressing.
Progressing to where? All we have at the moment is people suggesting they have information that proves Sheila is guilty but not one of you can say what it is. How is that progress?
-
I won't, I lost bloody £100 quid listening to him, bloody Bamber out this year
There is still 6 months to go Justice ;D
-
I won't stop posting, I'm not ashamed and I don't intend to change my posting style. And I fail to see how asking for a reference is is condescending to anyone.
You carry on, nobody really takes notice anyway of what you post
As I have said before you have neither helped or hindered this case over the years
I put you on a par with Adam and you both skip from forum to forum
-
Well yes you are Jackie, by your own admission.
Where as I am independently giving views on a subject that I find interesting.
I originally joined the forum without any knowledge of the case and set out to see if JB was really guilty or innocent.
I'm not involved in any other way, whatever paranoid conspiracies people wish to manifest in their minds.
I think that's where the issue really lies.
Agree 100% - I have no mission, I'm not campaigning to keep him in prison and if some new bit of evidence gets him off - good luck to him.
-
Information has to come from the proper sources and can't be " leaked " in dribs and drabs for obvious reasons.
-
You carry on, nobody really takes notice anyway of what you post
As I have said before you have neither helped or hindered this case over the years
I put you on a par with Adam and you both skip from forum to forum
Well you just did - not only did you take notice, you took the time to reply!
I have no intention of helping or hindering but for all your efforts, where is Jeremy now?
I put you on a par with chopped liver and you can't skip from forum to forum because you're banned!
You are the rudest and person on the forum, you contribute nothing so perhaps Roch should scold you out because if anyone would put off new posters or posters who want serious debate - it's YOU!
-
You have made numerous comments over the years about knowing the family who inherited the Bamber forums on Jeremy's conviction
I have never even met Jeremy. I am not here just to find out about the WHF murders but I want to get to the truth about what the police did, the silencer that magically appeared, the lies in court by the relatives and Julie Mugford
Now deny you have never met, or spoken to Ann Eaton or any of the other relatives?
Don't believe everything you read.
I deny that I have never met, or spoken to Anne Eaton or any of the other relatives.
-
Don't believe everything you read.
I deny that I have never met, or spoken to Anne Eaton or any of the other relatives.
;D
-
There is still 6 months to go Justice ;D
Yes but I had him in a round Robin, with Chesterfield winning the league and Hartlepool retaining league two status, im done its over, No more tips Bill. I've just put a fiver on Bill coming back as Mike.
-
Well you just did - not only did you take notice, you took the time to reply!
I have no intention of helping or hindering but for all your efforts, where is Jeremy now?
I put you on a par with chopped liver and you can't skip from forum to forum because you're banned!
You are the rudest and person on the forum, you contribute nothing so perhaps Roch should scold you out because if anyone would put off new posters or posters who want serious debate - it's YOU!
It's a fair point.
-
Don't believe everything you read.
I deny that I have never met, or spoken to Anne Eaton or any of the other relatives.
I have and proud to admit it
-
Progressing to where? All we have at the moment is people suggesting they have information that proves Sheila is guilty but not one of you can say what it is. How is that progress?
Claims of evidence is not relevant to what I meant. He provided a 36 page report based on research and yes, granted, based on opinion or interpretation etc - which is open to debate - as it should be. For me, anything that discourages that kind of input in to the forum, is preventing the forum from progressing.
I already stated my case clearly, regarding the references issue. There have been incidents in the past where documents (fully referenced etc.) where posted up. The attitude was equally scoffing (presumably because some of the references related to material not on this forum). This is what I meant about double standards by some on here. They want referencing when it suits; and it relates to the body of material on this forum.
Sometimes it's not what is asked for - but the ways it is asked for. For example, if the post refers to material that is not this forum - the inference seems to be the poster has something to hide by not posting up a reference. They are being dishonest or chancing their arm.
The scoffing remarks such as 'room 101' etc. are not going to encourage serious posters to either provide references or continue to engage. To me - treating members like that is a form of gatekeeping on the forum.
I summed up my views regarding flippant dismissive remarks here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8404.msg400614.html#msg400614
-
Claims of evidence is not relevant to what I meant. He provided a 36 page report based on research and yes, granted, based on opinion or interpretation etc - which is open to debate - as it should be. For me, anything that discourages that kind of input in to the forum, is preventing the forum from progressing.
Is this the same document which I then explained to you how you could post it so it was visible on the forum without people having to download the pdf version?
Advice which you thanked me for.
-
Is this the same document which I then explained to you how you could post it so it was visible on the forum without people having to download the pdf version?
Advice which you thanked me for.
No. I was referring to the allegation document.
-
Is this the same document which I then explained to you how you could post it so it was visible on the forum without people having to download the pdf version?
Advice which you thanked me for.
Sorry, yes I was referring to that document - but not in relation to the references argument. When I was arguing about the references issue - I was referring to the allegation document.
-
No. I was referring to the allegation document.
I don't know what that is.
I think your comments about references is not really a true representation of the facts.
I cannot accept something to be true on hearsay, if references are given but referenced material is not available then I still have nothing to base an opinion on.
The same would be true regardless of the information and whether it potentially assisted either argument with regards to guilty or innocence.
I asked Bill where his information was from, I don't think that was unreasonable. We don't know what it referred to, with further information and context we may have been able to offer him a more informed opinion.
The 101 joke from Caroline was quite funny. You may not have thought so but I did.
-
Sorry, yes I was referring to that document - but not in relation to the references argument. When I was arguing about the references issue - I was referring to the allegation document.
That was me right there, stopping the forum progressing then?
-
I don't know what that is.
I think your comments about references is not really a true representation of the facts.
I cannot accept something to be true on hearsay, if references are given but referenced material is not available then I still have nothing to base an opinion on.
The same would be true regardless of the information and whether it potentially assisted either argument with regards to guilty or innocence.
I asked Bill where his information was from, I don't think that was unreasonable. We don't know what it referred to, with further information and context we may have been able to offer him a more informed opinion.
The 101 joke from Caroline was quite funny. You may not have thought so but I did.
You're not taking on board anything that I've tried to express, regarding common courtesy. Some people will simply not hang around or engage when it is lacking. To that extent it's horses for courses.
There is more material in this case, other than the material solely based within this forum. That is smply a fact and there is nothing that you or I can do about that. It certainly shouldn't be held against those who may have access to it - though I take your points about context and interpretation.
I've stated my feelings very clearly. There is a cockiness and arrogance on here that is off-putting to other potential posters taking part. I'm openly accusing you of being a key element in this. Given the back-drop of this whole discussion, your opinion about Caroline's remark simply validates my own opinion.
I'm not expecting anything positive to develop from this disagreement. If it does then it does and if it doesn't then so be it. I really want to leave this here - so I'm choosing not to respond further.
-
Claims of evidence is not relevant to what I meant. He provided a 36 page report based on research and yes, granted, based on opinion or interpretation etc - which is open to debate - as it should be. For me, anything that discourages that kind of input in to the forum, is preventing the forum from progressing.
I already stated my case clearly, regarding the references issue. There have been incidents in the past where documents (fully referenced etc.) where posted up. The attitude was equally scoffing (presumably because some of the references related to material not on this forum). This is what I meant about double standards by some on here. They want referencing when it suits; and it relates to the body of material on this forum.
Sometimes it's not what is asked for - but the ways it is asked for. For example, if the post refers to material that is not this forum - the inference seems to be the poster has something to hide by not posting up a reference. They are being dishonest or chancing their arm.
The scoffing remarks such as 'room 101' etc. are not going to encourage serious posters to either provide references or continue to engage. To me - treating members like that is a form of gatekeeping on the forum.
I summed up my views regarding flippant dismissive remarks here:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8404.msg400614.html#msg400614
I don't recall ANY such incidents but if claims are made they should be backed up.
Sorry you found the room 101 joke offensive - I'm not sorry I said it though. I've had a LOT worse thrown at me - it was a joke but recently you seem to have lost your sense of humour. I'm sure Bill wasn't offended by anything that was said yesterday. There was nothing wrong with the debate until you came out all guns blazing.
You may have a utopian ides of what the forum 'should' be like and perhaps we all do, however, we're all different people, with our own personalities and view points. If people choose not to post they will have their own reasons for not doing so, blaming this on the people that do post is counter productive because it's all that is keeping the forum going. You disappeared for quite some time but you returned of your own free will and I am sure others are capable of making that choice too.
-
You're not taking on board anything that I've tried to express, regarding common courtesy. Some people will simply not hang around or engage when it is lacking. To that extent it's horses for courses.
There is more material in this case, other than the material solely based within this forum. That is smply a fact and there is nothing that you or I can do about that. It certainly shouldn't be held against those who may have access to it - though I take your points about context and interpretation.
I've stated my feelings very clearly. There is a cockiness and arrogance on here that is off-putting to other potential posters taking part. I'm openly accusing you of being a key element in this. Given the back-drop of this whole discussion, your opinion about Caroline's remark simply validates my own opinion.
I'm not expecting anything positive to develop from this disagreement. If it does then it does and if it doesn't then so be it. I really want to leave this here - so I'm choosing not to respond further.
You haven't stated anything clearly, you keep trying to use things to justify your abusive outburst. I don't really understand your references argument.
It is interesting that you wish to suddenly garner these moral standards and apply them to myself alone. Surely there are others more deserving.
I admit that I am extremely sceptical when these various smoking gun claims of innocence are made, it is not due to arrogance, merely from experience of what has gone before.
I did not treat Bill unfairly or mockingly in any way. I think you are floundering.
Happy to leave it here though, along with any respect I previously had for you.
-
I don't recall ANY such incidents but if claims are made they should be backed up.
Sorry you found the room 101 joke offensive - I'm not sorry I said it though. I've had a LOT worse thrown at me - it was a joke but recently you seem to have lost your sense of humour. I'm sure Bill wasn't offended by anything that was said yesterday. There was nothing wrong with the debate until you came out all guns blazing.
You may have a utopian ides of what the forum 'should' be like and perhaps we all do, however, we're all different people, with our own personalities and view points. If people choose not to post they will have their own reasons for not doing so, blaming this on the people that do post is counter productive because it's all that is keeping the forum going. You disappeared for quite some time but you returned of your own free will and I am sure others are capable of making that choice too.
I'm responding because I last responded to Hartley.
I feel there is a distinct lack of common courtesy shown in certain situations - which is counter productive to the forum's benefit. Some members have become insular and too used to squabbling, scoffing, being generally dismissive and making cocky remarks.
None of this aids the forum in being an inclusive place for genuine debate.
These are my opinions and whether people agree with them is up to them. I've made several points now repeatedly, for example the double standards imposed by the referencing police on here - who think eveything should be linked to the material solely on this forum. A ridiculous notion, given all the material that exists outside of this forum.
I dont want to go round in circles - I've said my bit and that's it. Members can either be accommodating to other posters or off-putting. It's their choice / your choice.
-
I'm responding because I last responded to Hartley.
I feel there is a distinct lack of common courtesy shown in certain situations - which is counter productive to the forum's benefit. Some members have become insular and too used to squabbling, scoffing, being generally dismissive and making cocky remarks.
None of this aids the forum in being an inclusive place for genuine debate.
These are my opinions and whether people agree with them is up to them. I've made several points now repeatedly, for example the double standards imposed by the referencing police on here - who think eveything should be linked to the material solely on this forum. A ridiculous notion, given all the material that exists outside of this forum.
I dont want to go round in circles - I've said my bit and that's it. Members can either be accommodating to other posters or off-putting. It's their choice / your choice.
I haven't seen a single person complain about any references outside of the forum, if they have other sources then they would be welcomed. Or are you saying you think it's perfectly OK for someone to say something exists and the rest of us should just accept it?
You yourself showed a distinct lack of courtesy yesterday. I don't think in all the time I have been here I have dropped to the level of using the 'f' word. No one was unaccommodating to Bill - we responded to his post and gave an opinion - then we asked for a reference in order that the quote had context then all hell broke loose.
-
I haven't seen a single person complain about any references outside of the forum, if they have other sources then they would be welcomed. Or are you saying you think it's perfectly OK for someone to say something exists and the rest of us should just accept it?
You yourself showed a distinct lack of courtesy yesterday. I don't think in all the time I have been here I have dropped to the level of using the 'f' word. No one was unaccommodating to Bill - we responded to his post and gave an opinion - then we asked for a reference in order that the quote had context then all hell broke loose.
The allegation document was referenced to the hilt. All of the Holmes system references etc etc. It was dismissed out of hand by certain members on here - because much of the material in the referencing was not contained within this forum. If we have controlling members on this forum dismissing everything out of hand simply because it cant be linked to material on this forum - then this forum is existing in a silo. That's my point.
I havent fully checked the end notes in the report on the West thread - so I dont know if its' referenced to stuff solely on this forum or elsewhere - but I know that Bill does reference his work.
Put your self in a posistion of someone willing to post on here who has had access to material eslewhere. If you are dealing with people known to make flippant, dismissive remarks - is there not a risk that you could think - what's the point in bothering? - It's the wrong arena to debate in.
That's my point.
-
The allegation document was referenced to the hilt. All of the Holmes system references etc etc. It was dismissed out of hand by certain members on here - because much of the material in the referencing was not contained within this forum. If we have controlling members on this forum dismissing everything out of hand simply because it cant be linked to material on this forum - then this forum is existing in a silo. That's my point.
I havent fully checked the end notes in the report on the West thread - so I dont know if its' referenced to stuff solely on this forum or elsewhere - but I know that Bill does reference his work.
Put your self in a posistion of someone willing to post on here who has had access to material eslewhere. If you are dealing with people known to make flippant, dismissive remarks - is there not a risk that you could think - what's the point in bothering? - It's the wrong arena to debate in.
That's my point.
OK, I don't know which document you are talking about but I would be interested in reading it.
Having said that - remember the letters I posted from Jeremy and the absolute abuse I got for doing so? I was asked to post them and when I did the usual feeding frenzy ensued and I was called a liar. You know that I am not a liar and I appreciate you posting on my behalf. I also witnessed the affect of haloperidol recently but again, more abuse when I stated it and when I posted the proof - yet more abuse. However, the point is that the kind of behaviour you are talking about is on BOTH sides and is inherent. Scepticism is also a 'product of' the forum because of past claims that promised so much, yet came to nothing.
-
Well you just did - not only did you take notice, you took the time to reply!
I have no intention of helping or hindering but for all your efforts, where is Jeremy now?
I put you on a par with chopped liver and you can't skip from forum to forum because you're banned!
You are the rudest and person on the forum, you contribute nothing so perhaps Roch should scold you out because if anyone would put off new posters or posters who want serious debate - it's YOU!
That is funny when you are always in the middle of trouble when posts have to be removed
I am over the moon you are amongst the tiny band of guilty posters
When you were an innocent poster you did absolutely nothing to help Jeremy
Zilch
It's a very poor performance after thousands of posts and you sat on the computer day and night
You would have thought you could have found at least something
New
Never mind
-
That is funny when you are always in the middle of trouble when posts have to be removed
I am over the moon you are amongst the tiny band of guilty posters
When you were an innocent poster you did absolutely nothing to help Jeremy
Zilch
It's a very poor performance after thousands of posts and you sat on the computer day and night
You would have thought you could have found at least something
New
Never mind
You don't know what I have found or haven't found but if I found nothing, it would be no more or less than what you have discovered.
You've been banned from here more times than I've had hot dinner and you whine like a baby when your get posts removed - personally, I never complain if Maggie removes my posts. I trust her judgement.
-
Can you post it? Does he mean the state of the kitchen when he says the state of it? Or the state of the phone? Your wording is not clear.
It is not my wording, it is verbatim the wording on a typewritten report, which has no other identifying remarks. The only reason I posted the comment was to ask if anyone had any views on what he was referring to. I wish there was further discussion in the document about the state of the phone, but DCI McDiarmid changed the subject as soon as Stan mentioned the "state", of the phone or the room; who knows what he meant?
OK, I'm gone now...got better things to spend my time on, on behalf of Jeremy.
-
It is not my wording, it is verbatim the wording on a typewritten report, which has no other identifying remarks. The only reason I posted the comment was to ask if anyone had any views on what he was referring to. I wish there was further discussion in the document about the state of the phone, but DCI McDiarmid changed the subject as soon as Stan mentioned the "state", of the phone or the room; who knows what he meant?
OK, I'm gone now...got better things to spend my time on, on behalf of Jeremy.
Thanks for that Bill, glad to see you back, so like me and other posters you are questioning what Stan meant and unsure yourself? I take my hat off to you Bill ex police and all that, spending all your time fighting for Jeremy ;)
-
Thanks for that Bill, glad to see you back, so like me and other posters you are questioning what Stan meant and unsure yourself? I take my hat off to you Bill ex police and all that, spending all your time fighting for Jeremy ;)
Stan loved the sound of his own voice, and the sound of a whisky bottle being opened, so he had a bit of an inclination to shoot his mouth off at times.
Interesting, maybe, that when Stan retired a mob of COLP and Met officers attended his 'do'. He made a lot of friends among the enquiry teams. Enough said.
The 'main man' is innocent; can't give up on him.
-
Stan loved the sound of his own voice, and the sound of a whisky bottle being opened, so he had a bit of an inclination to shoot his mouth off at times.
Interesting, maybe, that when Stan retired a mob of COLP and Met officers attended his 'do'. He made a lot of friends among the enquiry teams. Enough said.
The 'main man' is innocent; can't give up on him.
I take it you you knew Stan well Bill? It would make me sick if the police were behind framing Jeremy having helped them out before and been a cog in Essex police, you would probably know some who I know and depending on how long you have been left the force you would know of an instance where I thought I was going to be shot. Scary times Bill
-
Just a thought Bill, because you spend a lot of time on behalf of Jeremy, could you arrange with Jackie for some sort of dialogue going between yourself and Jackies police informant, two voices and there looks like there is more, would be better than one? Sorry I can't help you or get my friends to help because they are not of this opinion or of this knowledge.
-
Bloody hell he's gone again, trust me and my big mouth, I think I was asking too much of him sorry everyone, I've waited up all night to catch him >:(
-
Stan loved the sound of his own voice, and the sound of a whisky bottle being opened, so he had a bit of an inclination to shoot his mouth off at times.
Interesting, maybe, that when Stan retired a mob of COLP and Met officers attended his 'do'. He made a lot of friends among the enquiry teams. Enough said.
The 'main man' is innocent; can't give up on him.
Hello Bill
nice to see you on here again and I am looking forward to posting with you as I believe you to be a very sincere honest man :)
-
Hello Bill
nice to see you on here again and I am looking forward to posting with you as I believe you to be a very sincere honest man :)
Hi Susan,I can assure you that he is as you describe and has been a loyal supporter for long enough and who works tirelessly on the case.
-
Hello Bill
nice to see you on here again and I am looking forward to posting with you as I believe you to be a very sincere honest man :)
Hello Susan
I do agree with you. Really good to have Bill posting here. Do hope he is given a fair hearing by all.
I find his posts really interesting.
-
Hello Susan
I do agree with you. Really good to have Bill posting here. Do hope he is given a fair hearing by all.
I find his posts really interesting.
Looking back at his old posts, I think he always has been, even though others opinions on the case differ.
-
Looking back at his old posts, I think he always has been, even though others opinions on the case differ.
I find his posts stimulating and different, breath of fresh air on here. Think we can sink into lethargy at times and need waking up and shaking up. :(
-
Bill is " in the know " Maggie. This is why his posts are interesting and refreshing,as the truth always is ;)
-
"I can't even (EVEN?) see (SEE?) anyone using (USING?) a phone in that (THAT?) kitchen.................."? COULD it be alluding to a suspicion that NO calls were made from the kitchen? However, if the emphasis is placed on "THAT........" it suggests that the kitchen is such a tip no one would want to use anything in it, "..........do you know what I mean, a subtle way of alluding to the chaos. ".................There's no way I'd (I'D?) want (WANT?) to use (USE?) that (THAT) phone"?
I've laid out all the ways in which that quote MAY have been said. It's certainly caused a bit of a hoo hah but I'm damned if I can see why there are so many twisted knickers regarding it, OR what offence Bill may have taken. Surely, on an open forum, an unwritten rule is that if one can't take the heat, it's better that one avoids the kitchen. I feel perfectly certain that IF Bill feels offended by anything said in respect of his quote, he's capable of dealing with it. I wonder if the sniping might have different roots and Bill is being used as a scapegoat? Just a thought. Belated Happy Bank Holiday, all.
-
I've laid out all the ways in which that quote MAY have been said. It's certainly caused a bit of a hoo hah but I'm damned if I can see why there are so many twisted knickers regarding it, OR what offence Bill may have taken. Surely, on an open forum, an unwritten rule is that if one can't take the heat, it's better that one avoids the kitchen. I feel perfectly certain that IF Bill feels offended by anything said in respect of his quote, he's capable of dealing with it. I wonder if the sniping might have different roots and Bill is being used as a scapegoat? Just a thought. Belated Happy Bank Holiday, all.
Maybe I did use it to let off steam. I dont think he 'took offence' as such. I think that the forum environment or arena (whatever term is appropriate) is not always very encompassing of non-regular posters. Some people (including Bill) would prefer it to be a more 'serious' arena. But it is what it is - and it has never been everyone's cup of tea. It takes on a life of its' own and that is well established - so I cant really see it becoming a more 'serious' place - because that is probably not what many members would want.
-
Maybe I did use it to let off steam. I dont think he 'took offence' as such. I think that the forum environment or arena (whatever term is appropriate) is not always very encompassing of non-regular posters. Some people (including Bill) would prefer it to be a more 'serious' arena. But it is what it is - and it has never been everyone's cup of tea. It takes on a life of its' own and that is well established - so I cant really see it becoming a more 'serious' place - because that is probably not what many members would want.
You know, Roch. There's a saying -isn't there always!!? ;D- we can't change the behaviour of others. All we can do is change the way in which we react to their behaviour. We're not responsible for fulfilling the needs of others. You so rightly say of the forum "It is what it is". It will never become more serious/intellectual because whilst there are those here who like nothing more than creating friction -which can certainly trigger some sort of dialogue!!!- there are also those here who can't cope with it and will say something inane/jokey to divert.
-
You know, Roch. There's a saying -isn't there always!!? ;D- we can't change the behaviour of others. All we can do is change the way in which we react to their behaviour. We're not responsible for fulfilling the needs of others. You so rightly say of the forum "It is what it is". It will never become more serious/intellectual because whilst there are those here who like nothing more than creating friction -which can certainly trigger some sort of dialogue!!!- there are also those here who can't cope with it and will say something inane/jokey to divert.
I'm thinking of trying something. I'm going to try and stay on-topic as much as possible to the thread title. It wont be easy. But I will give it a try - I think some posters appreciate it (I think TomG alluded to it recently and I know it's cropped up before).
-
I find his posts stimulating and different, breath of fresh air on here. Think we can sink into lethargy at times and need waking up and shaking up. :(
Trust me that's all I want, I accept what your saying BUT I will not be had no more and watch posters be taken in. I get slated for making fun and asking for Bill to clarify himself yet, a poster can accuse a family member and her father of being the ringleaders in what she calls a miscarriage of Justice, without one shred of evidence. Bill keeps coming on every now and then with his stories, accusing his colleagues of a cover up, we haven't had one shred of evidence from him about this to back it up. I have been on here longer than any other poster other than Mike, I want it to be a MOJ I really do, it's these silly nonsense stories that have turned my dedication into humour I'm afraid and we have returning posters telling me how to behave and swallow this crap all over again.
-
Trust me that's all I want, I accept what your saying BUT I will not be had no more and watch posters be taken in. I get slated for making jokes and asking for Bill to clarify himself yet, a poster can accuse a family member and her father of being the ringleaders in what she calls a miscarriage of Justice, without one shred of evidence. Bill keeps coming on every now and then with his stories, accusing his colleagues of a cover up, we haven't had one shred of evidence from him about this to back it up. I have been on here longer than any other poster other than Mike, I want it to be a MOJ I really do, it's these silly nonsense stories that have turned my dedication into humour I'm afraid and we have returning posters telling me how to behave and swallow this crap all over again.
What jokes ?
-
What jokes ?
Sorry Adam I have modified my post
-
Trust me that's all I want, I accept what your saying BUT I will not be had no more and watch posters be taken in. I get slated for making fun and asking for Bill to clarify himself yet, a poster can accuse a family member and her father of being the ringleaders in what she calls a miscarriage of Justice, without one shred of evidence. Bill keeps coming on every now and then with his stories, accusing his colleagues of a cover up, we haven't had one shred of evidence from him about this to back it up. I have been on here longer than any other poster other than Mike, I want it to be a MOJ I really do, it's these silly nonsense stories that have turned my dedication into humour I'm afraid and we have returning posters telling me how to behave and swallow this crap all over again.
It's because of your attitude I would never pm you as requested yesterday
Never ever
I have learnt by now never to trust anyone but a handful of people. You seem angry because I do not want to interact with you. Roch has said the same about the relatives yet you have jumped on my post.
You are proud to say you have met the relatives (who have spent all the money they inherited on Jeremy's conviction) but you have not met Jeremy? It might help if you kept an open mind
It stands to reason if there is evidence Sheila carried out the murders then you look at anyone who had a motive to frame Jeremy
-
Trust me that's all I want, I accept what your saying BUT I will not be had no more and watch posters be taken in. I get slated for making fun and asking for Bill to clarify himself yet, a poster can accuse a family member and her father of being the ringleaders in what she calls a miscarriage of Justice, without one shred of evidence. Bill keeps coming on every now and then with his stories, accusing his colleagues of a cover up, we haven't had one shred of evidence from him about this to back it up. I have been on here longer than any other poster other than Mike, I want it to be a MOJ I really do, it's these silly nonsense stories that have turned my dedication into humour I'm afraid and we have returning posters telling me how to behave and swallow this crap all over again.
Nobody attacked you for asking Bill a question on the case. I pointed out that you seemed to be asking for him to validate him self. And I pointed out that he had not asked anybody on here to validate their own backgrounds.
Regarding their being no shred of evidence of wrong-doing. If we look at the report about the calls and forgeries - I suppose it comes down to whether what is in the report arouses members' suspicions or not. There's 36 pages with end-notes, arguments and images for comparison.
I suspect some will be intrigued while others dismissive.
-
It's because of your attitude I would never pm you as requested yesterday
Never ever
I have learnt by now never to trust anyone but a handful of people. You seem angry because I do not want to interact with you. Roch has said the same about the relatives yet you have jumped on my post.
You are proud to say you have met the relatives (who have spent all the money they inherited on Jeremy's conviction) but you have not met Jeremy? It might help if you kept an open mind
It stands to reason if there is evidence Sheila carried out the murders then you look at anyone who had a motive to frame Jeremy
Ok I will say it, Roch is as bad as you. I wanted to interact with you to tell you to be careful what you say and how you say it, its very fine and dandy with me that you don't want to, you have interacted with me before and told me you wasn't sure of Jeremy's innocence, I cannot prove this because I no longer have the pm, unless someone could unlock my previous user name? I try to avoid Roch because of his language, I have met the relatives but not to talk about the case, I was proud of the position I gained and my role and it was a honour to mingle not only with the relatives but other holiday park owners from the East of England. Your right again I have not met Jeremy, but and this is what I would have discussed I have met the psychiatrist who worked with him, she also worked with other high profile murders/criminals, I have told other posters snippets but never revealed fully what she told me, she also has a partner who was the Chaplin at the same prison, I have spoke to NGB and other posters about this but I cannot reveal fully what she said, I don't think she would mind but I don't have her permission. Your right, I like you don't trust many now, it's a shame but that won't change and I think that's why I stepped back with a pm to you.
-
Ok I will say it, Roch is as bad as you. I wanted to interact with you to tell you to be careful what you say and how you say it, its very fine and dandy with me that you don't want to, you have interacted with me before and told me you wasn't sure of Jeremy's innocence, I cannot prove this because I no longer have the pm, unless someone could unlock my previous user name? I try to avoid Roch because of his language, I have met the relatives but not to talk about the case, I was proud of the position I gained and my role and it was a honour to mingle not only with the relatives but other holiday park owners from the East of England. Your right again I have not met Jeremy, but and this is what I would have discussed I have met the psychiatrist who worked with him, she also worked with other high profile murders/criminals, I have told other posters snippets but never revealed fully what she told me, she also has a partner who was the Chaplin at the same prison, I have spoke to NGB and other posters about this but I cannot reveal fully what she said, I don't think she would mind but I don't have her permission. Your right, I like you don't trust many now, it's a shame but that won't change and I think that's why I stepped back with a pm to you.
So you have changed user name ???
Great I think I know who you are and I still have the PM messages
Are you warning me because of what a senior police officer might have said to me??
I have only recently said I am absolutely sure Jeremy is 100% innocent because of what I was told
I only interested in a documentary series being aired at the moment because there have been so many cover ups
Everyone will have there chance to say there piece then
There has not been a single documentary on TV about this case that shows everything that went on starting with Sheila's illness
-
Nobody attacked you for asking Bill a question on the case. I pointed out that you seemed to be asking for him to validate him self. And I pointed out that he had not asked anybody on here to validate their own backgrounds.
Regarding their being no shred of evidence of wrong-doing. If we look at the report about the calls and forgeries - I suppose it comes down to whether what is in the report arouses members' suspicions or not. There's 36 pages with end-notes, arguments and images for comparison.
I suspect some will be intrigued while others dismissive.
Roch, I will say it again I don't believe Bill is real, not only me thinks this but other posters, I don't mind anyone taking on a different profile or being two people, it sometimes helps things when it's flagging, but to take on the role of being ex police and saying his colleagues have done this and that etc, carries a lot of weight with some posters giving false hope. Bill was on this morning but again had to rush, I don't for one minute think any police officer with any knowledge of mis giving over this case would converse on here. You and others might want to be taken in, I don't, I'm sorry. If I'm wrong and other posters are I will say sorry, I was giving Bill the opportunity to prove me wrong. This is how the forum has become Roch and it's not my FAULT, I have never lied but I have been very angry for being taken as a mug.
-
Roch, I will say it again I don't believe Bill is real, not only me thinks this but other posters, I don't mind anyone taking on a different profile or being two people, it sometimes helps things when it's flagging, but to take on the role of being ex police and saying his colleagues have done this and that etc, carries a lot of weight with some posters giving false hope. Bill was on this morning but again had to rush, I don't for one minute think any police officer with any knowledge of mis giving over this case would converse on here. You and others might want to be taken in, I don't, I'm sorry. If I'm wrong and other posters are I will say sorry, I was giving Bill the opportunity to prove me wrong. This is how the forum has become Roch and it's not my FAULT, I have never lied but I have been very angry for being taken as a mug.
Justice, to be fair, he's not been a prolific poster on here. He came on here in 2014 and disappeared after a relatively short while. I think he probably stopped posting because he personally didn't feel it was the right type of arena to be part of. So he concentrated efforts elsewhere - you know what they say about time being precious etc.
He only reappeared back on the forum in late 2016, when David happened to mention him in a post - which he just happened to read and decided to respond to. Prior to that he just lurked from time to time as a non-poster He's not been a profligate poster in that sense (to borrow a term from Tom G). I'm certain he is correct in stating that he had to learn about the case and he chose to study the first two hours - the communications etc - because he felt there was a rat away somewhere.
I regard him as completely bona fide and I think there is a certain level of quality in his work. But those are just my opinions and others are free to make their own decisions / form their own opinions.
He is not Mike Tesko. He doesn't agree that Cracknell and Norcup will have drawn arms from Force Amoury. Mike recently posted this in response to having read Bill's report on the calls.
-
Justice, to be fair, he's not been a prolific poster on here. He came on here in 2014 and disappeared after a relatively short while. I think he probably stopped posting because he personally didn't feel it was the right type of arena to be part of. So he concentrated efforts elsewhere - you know what they say about time being precious etc.
He only reappeared back on the forum in late 2016, when David happened to mention him in a post - which he just happened to read and decided to respond to. Prior to that he just lurked from time to time as a non-poster He's not been a profligate poster in that sense (to borrow a term from Tom G). I'm certain he is correct in stating that he had to learn about the case and he chose to study the first two hours - the communications etc - because he felt there was a rat away somewhere.
I regard him as completely bona fide and I think there is a certain level of quality in his work. But those are just my opinions and others are free to make their own decisions / form their own opinions.
He is not Mike Tesko. He doesn't agree that Cracknell and Norcup will have drawn arms from Force Amoury. Mike recently posted this in response to having read Bill's report on the calls.
Roch if he is real I will say sorry, surely you cannot blame me for having doubts. I have studied over the last two days his writing and other people's writing and I will leave it at that. I don't want to put other posters off, there is nothing I would like more Than for it to be a MOJ, that's why I came here in the first place, there was only Mike posting at the time, not another poster, I joined and was intrigued with what Mike was saying, I never posted and I have told you this before two people changed my view and my look on the case Hartley being one and Kaldin the other. I have never pm Hartley or Kaldin to discuss anything in the seven years I've been here. I know I get up people's back and I know I'm close to my termination maybe I have come to the end of the road, but I'm always drawn back because I want some meat on the bone and not fed crap. I want to be able to say to the psychiatrist you got that one wrong (although I won't see her again but that's another story)
-
Everybody is overlooking something of immense significance -
-
Everybody is overlooking something of immense significance -
Nobody ever asked PC West, or Malcom Bonnett, of PC Cracknell, or PC Norcup, whether Neville Bamber made a phone call to the police at around 3.20am / 3.26am, on that particular morning!
-
So you have changed user name ???
Great I think I know who you are and I still have the PM messages
Are you warning me because of what a senior police officer might have said to me??
I have only recently said I am absolutely sure Jeremy is 100% innocent because of what I was told
I only interested in a documentary series being aired at the moment because there have been so many cover ups
Everyone will have there chance to say there piece then
There has not been a single documentary on TV about this case that shows everything that went on starting with Sheila's illness
Jackie, I'm not warning you I was trying to help you. If you still have my messages you will see how I praised you then, the very first time Susan appeared on this forum I helped her and praised you to Susan and told her how I felt sorry you had been let down by Bamber, Susan will not remember this probably. I do so admire your fight and what you have given, not a single person can take that away from you. You have been on here as long as me and seen the crap we have been drip fed at times you cannot blame me for being suspicious when I see the same pattern over and over again, maybe I am thick and missing the reason for it?
-
Roch if he is real I will say sorry, surely you cannot blame me for having doubts. I have studied over the last two days his writing and other people's writing and I will leave it at that. I don't want to put other posters off, there is nothing I would like more Than for it to be a MOJ, that's why I came here in the first place, there was only Mike posting at the time, not another poster, I joined and was intrigued with what Mike was saying, I never posted and I have told you this before two people changed my view and my look on the case Hartley being one and Kaldin the other. I have never pm Hartley or Kaldin to discuss anything in the seven years I've been here. I know I get up people's back and I know I'm close to my termination maybe I have come to the end of the road, but I'm always drawn back because I want some meat on the bone and not fed crap. I want to be able to say to the psychiatrist you got that one wrong (although I won't see her again but that's another story)
Don't worry about it. I didn't set out to get other members backs up on here when I had my outburst. I'm sorry that I have got other member's backs up. But sometimes members do flip, including me. It escalates and turns things sour.
I've flipped wiith Adam recently as well. And accused him of being some kind of police presence etc. Luckily he has a thick skin. He just didn't seem bothered.
I think Kaldin was essentially a 50/50 poster and he would take Mike to task for making certain claims - though I think he kind of admired what Mike was trying to do and was also dubious about the prosecution case. If Mike reads my posts - he will know that I have nver agreed with his rationale, that if it was ok for the proecution to bend evidence to suit their case - then it's ok for him to do similar in reverse. A kind of tase of their own medicine. But I think it's counter-productive.
-
Nobody ever asked PC West, or Malcom Bonnett, of PC Cracknell, or PC Norcup, whether Neville Bamber made a phone call to the police at around 3.20am / 3.26am, on that particular morning!
Everything, every analysis of worth points to the fact that Jeremy Bambers call during which he spoke to PC West was made from 3.36am! With this in mind, the occupants the of CA07 (3.35am) and CA05 (3.36am) were deployed to the incident Prior to Jeremy calling the police at 3.36am! West, Bonnett, Cracknell, Norcup, Bews, Myalls and Saxby all knew the truth regarding the fact Neville Bamber was alive at least until 3.33am that morning - hence why Cracknell and Norcup reacted and left for the scene at 3.36am! I agree in general with Bills interpretation, it's a sound analysis and is by any bodies standards believable (supported by the facts)...
-
PC West updated the occupants of CA07 en route to the scene, a journey they had already commenced prior to Jeremy calling the police and speaking to PC West! I feel sure there is evidence somewhere in the file regarding this aspect of the case! West only spoke to the occupants of CA07 only once to the best of my recollection after West had spoken to Jeremy! It's just a matter of finding the time he made that call after 3.36am...
-
Don't worry about it. I didn't set out to get other members backs up on here when I had my outburst. I'm sorry that I have got other member's backs up. But sometimes members do flip, including me. It escalates and turns things sour.
I've flipped wiith Adam recently as well. And accused him of being some kind of police presence etc. Luckily he has a thick skin. He just didn't seem bothered.
I think Kaldin was essentially a 50/50 poster and he would take Mike to task for making certain claims - though I think he kind of admired what Mike was trying to do and was also dubious about the prosecution case. If Mike reads my posts - he will know that I have nver agreed with his rationale, that if it was ok for the proecution to bend evidence to suit their case - then it's ok for him to do similar in reverse. A kind of tase of their own medicine. But I think it's counter-productive.
I don't think you got anyone's back up, it's when the language starts, that's why no one interacts with Mike. The forum doesn't deserve it, not that I'm bothered I was used to it in the mines but it's very off putting when it's not face to face. I would hate to see a good poster go in the same grave yard as Mike.
-
Jackie, I'm not warning you I was trying to help you. If you still have my messages you will see how I praised you then, the very first time Susan appeared on this forum I helped her and praised you to Susan and told her how I felt sorry you had been let down by Bamber, Susan will not remember this probably. I do so admire your fight and what you have given, not a single person can take that away from you. You have been on here as long as me and seen the crap we have been drip fed at times you cannot blame me for being suspicious when I see the same pattern over and over again, maybe I am thick and missing the reason for it?
I don't know Bill so I cannot comment who he is. Jeremy has behaved badly at times not just to me but I other people I have introduced him to which I feel very guilt about but there is nothing normal about his life so I have made excuses for him but this does not making him a murderer
-
I don't know Bill so I cannot comment who he is. Jeremy has behaved badly at times not just to me but I other people I have introduced him to which I feel very guilt about but there is nothing normal about his life so I have made excuses for him but this does not making him a murderer
Jackie I am sure serving a life sentence for a crime you did not commit and being let down so badly by people you thought would only try to help you is bound to effect the way you behave especially to strangers who are trying to help you I guess he suspects everyone is trying to do him harm it is quite understandable and you are right to make excuses for him Jackie that is a wonderful thing to do. I admire you for fighting to try and get him released he needs more like you on his side and I am sad to say in some respects his CT do him more harm than good.
-
Bloody hell he's gone again, trust me and my big mouth, I think I was asking too much of him sorry everyone, I've waited up all night to catch him >:(
I apologise for having to leave earlier today and any frustration this caused you. My wife is disabled and needed my assistance.
I'm not really suitable for all the expectations of responding to forum stuff all day long, so I will not be posting any further. Best wishes for all your deliberations, and never forget - JB is innocent!
-
I apologise for having to leave earlier today and any frustration this caused you. My wife is disabled and needed my assistance.
I'm not really suitable for all the expectations of responding to forum stuff all day long, so I will not be posting any further. Best wishes for all your deliberations, and never forget - JB is innocent!
Thanks and best wishes Bill
-
I apologise for having to leave earlier today and any frustration this caused you. My wife is disabled and needed my assistance.
I'm not really suitable for all the expectations of responding to forum stuff all day long, so I will not be posting any further. Best wishes for all your deliberations, and never forget - JB is innocent!
Hi Bill I think it is a great shame you are not going to post on the forum but I can understand how difficult it is for you especially when some seem to think you are an impostor :o I believe JB is innocent too :)
-
I believe JB is innocent too :)
I remain confident that JB will be released before the end of this year, but can't reveal why!
-
Roch if he is real I will say sorry, surely you cannot blame me for having doubts. I have studied over the last two days his writing and other people's writing and I will leave it at that. I don't want to put other posters off, there is nothing I would like more Than for it to be a MOJ, that's why I came here in the first place, there was only Mike posting at the time, not another poster, I joined and was intrigued with what Mike was saying, I never posted and I have told you this before two people changed my view and my look on the case Hartley being one and Kaldin the other. I have never pm Hartley or Kaldin to discuss anything in the seven years I've been here. I know I get up people's back and I know I'm close to my termination maybe I have come to the end of the road, but I'm always drawn back because I want some meat on the bone and not fed crap. I want to be able to say to the psychiatrist you got that one wrong (although I won't see her again but that's another story)
Hi Justice
I am sure even psychiatrists have different opinions regarding a persons personality and I must add even if a person is classed as evil that does not mean they are capable of murdering their entire family two of which were wee boys. My take on the case has always been anyone who could blast those two boys with so many bullets whilst they slept must have mental health issues and as far as I know JB has never portrayed such.
-
I remain confident that JB will be released before the end of this year, but can't reveal why!
Bill I really understand and respect you for not revealing any sensitive information to this forum. Please stay I wanted to talk with you about Taff Jones. We on the forum who believe JB is innocent are delighted you are with us and cherish anything you can share with us :)
-
Bill I really understand and respect you for not revealing any sensitive information to this forum. Please stay I wanted to talk with you about Taff Jones. We on the forum who believe JB is innocent are delighted you are with us and cherish anything you can share with us :)
I don't know much about Taff, I only met him once, but feel free to ask questions, I know some stuff about him.
-
I don't know much about Taff, I only met him once, but feel free to ask questions, I know some stuff about him.
Bill I was told from a good source that Taff remained adamant that Jeremy was innocent upto the day he sadly died before his time do you believe this to be true Why was he taken off the case have you any idea was it because of his stance on the case. I understand if you are not able to answer.
-
I remain confident that JB will be released before the end of this year, but can't reveal why!
Hello Bill,I've always believed him innocent as you know and I'll continue supporting to the bitter end.
I don't need all this investigation rubbish to know,either, as it was all done to justify the crummy work done by EP,which should never have happened in the first place. What a waste !!
-
I don't know Susan, maybe if I pass you her details you can chat with her and tell her how much she is wrong about Jeremy and Jeremy has never shown any mental issues, I'm a bit fed up with it all to tell you the truth, you have known about this some while and never suggested this to me before, but now you have changed stance you have got your doubts about, not just a psychiatrist but one who was trusted to work with other high profile murders, not your run of the mill high street quack, I'm sorry if it comes across hard, I don't want to but I'm a bit pissed of with it at the moment.
-
I don't know Susan, maybe if I pass you her details you can chat with her and tell her how much she is wrong about Jeremy and Jeremy has never shown any mental issues, I'm a bit fed up with it all to tell you the truth, you have known about this some while and never suggested this to me before, but now you have changed stance you have got your doubts about, not just a psychiatrist but one who was trusted to work with other high profile murders, not your run of the mill high street quack, I'm sorry if it comes across hard, I don't want to but I'm a bit pissed of with it at the moment.
Justice I did not mean to imply your friend was wrong in her assessment what I meant I am sure other psychiatrists see him differently and yes I have known all about her for ages. I started off on here as innocent then I guess the majority became guilty I kinda followed but deep down I always thought I was wrong so gladly came out when Roch came back and spoke about his views although I always thought he was on the innocent stand. I have said in an earlier post we all see things as fits our own stance but I have always held my hands up and said when I have been wrong. You know your friend your assessment of her will be superior to mine don't be pissed off carry on Justice following your own thoughts you are a good man and I know you are a very honest man. Justice I don't honestly know if JB does have mental health issues I have not seen any reports posted and I am sure if any existed they would be out in the domain. Cheer up
Justice just to add if a man has been locked up and lost everything for a crime he knows he did not commit he will change and become bitter and possibly evil and this could have happened with JB I know others apart from Jackie who have been so good to him and he has let them down. Sorry if my post seemed to question the credibility of your friend that was not meant as you and I have been good friends I know you have strong links with people in Essex . Walk your wee doggie and get yourself back on here smiling you have always been so kind to me and indeed Jackie in the early days and I have never forgot that :-*
-
Justice,can I tell you something ? During my work in the NHS,I worked for a " top man " in his field of IVF treatment. It was well broadcast on both TV,and in the media. To cut a long story short,he proved to be a monster !
It takes a long time to put your trust in any professional.
We as a family lost all faith when a family member became critically ill this year,caused by the negligence of incorrect diagnoses from " professionals ".
-
I remain confident that JB will be released before the end of this year, but can't reveal why!
And if he's not?
-
Well there's got to be some good news for a change. The media are constantly geared up for all the bad news flung our way,so any imminent news of a future release will step up their game when they all learn of the " mistakes " that were made during the trial,so by the time the majority of the public see through it all,there'll be no question as to why he won't be released.
-
If the CPS had disclosed the C6 form (3.26am) filled out by Malcom Bonnett, and the C1 form (3.36am) completed by PC West, and both of PC Wests witness statements, one dated, 9 August, the other dated 13 September 1985, and PC Cracknell and PC Norcup had both given accounts regarding what the witnessed up until 3.33am when they were with PC West in the control room, and police had not destroyed copies of the audio recordings relating to the 3.26am call from Neville, the 3.36am audio recording of Jeremy's call to PC West, and contact between PC West and Malcom Bonnett after Neville's 3.26am call, and after Jeremy's 3.36am call, and a transcript of the first message PC West passed by HQ radio to the occupants of CA07 at 3.30am, and a transcript of the second occasion when PC West contacted CA07 after PC West had spoken with Jeremy, we would not be here three decades later debating this issue!
PC's Cracknell and Norcup would have witnessed what PC West told CA07 at 3.30am, information which could not have originated from Jeremy Bamber, because at the same time Jeremy (3.30am) was contacting Julie Mugford - he was actually in the process of speaking to Douglas Dale, who had to go and awaken Julie Mugford and tell her that Jeremy was on the phone! Jeremy was therefore effectively placed on hold whilst Dale went to fetch Julie from her room! Therefore, Jeremy couldn't have been on hold waiting for Dale to bring Mugford to the phone, and at one and the same time be on hold whilst PC West contacted his HQ Incident Room, followed by him contacting CA07 by use of the HQ police radio..
You can see why 'Stan' Jones, and other cops tried to alter the timing of Jeremy's call via Douglas Dale (3.30am) to Julie Mugford, between 3.00am to 3.30am! They attempted to do this, because they knew there was a real problem concerning calls that were made, and police radio messages that were passed between 3.26am and 3.42am! Jeremy couldn't be on the land line phone back at his cottage to PC West and to Douglas Dale/Julie Mugford at 3.30am! Everything points to the occupants of CA07 and CA05 having been deployed to the incident at whf (3.35am, and 3.36am) as a result of information received from a different source than from Jeremy because it is without doubt that he did not make his call to police until after he finished with his 3.30am call to Mugford via Dale! We know (now) that PC West spoke to the occupants of CA07 at 3.30am, passing on information that there was something serious developing at whf! That message was passed by West to CA07 before Jeremy had finished his call to Julie Mugford! Whilst it's on record that Mugford told Jeremy to go back to bed, the occupants of CA07 had already been told to go to the farmhouse! There was no mention of Jeremy Bamber in this first contact, there couldn't have been because he hadn't by that stage contacted the police by that (3.30am) stage! Of course, we know that Jeremy himself had tried to contact Witham police station himself by telephone but this was met with no response! He attempted that call prior to making his 3.30am call to Julie Mugford via Dale! During his trial testimony PC West sought to decieve the court and all interested parties by declaring that he only made two calls after being contacted by Jeremy and putting Jeremy on hold - he said that he called HQ Incident Room to get the name of the nearest police station to the remote farmhouse, which he found out was Witham police station, and he then said he called Witham police station on the phone! Well, that account cannot be true because by the time Jeremy had finished talking to Julie Mugford, and he had then contacted PC West by telephone (3.36am) and PC West had placed Jeremy on hold, the occupants of CA07 had already been contacted by PC West (3.30am), and they were on their way to the incident at whf long before PC West received Jeremy's call and placed him on hold!
These facts provide Jeremy Bamber with the perfect alibi!
Neville Bamber was clearly still alive by 3.26am, and beyond!
There is no evidence in either what Neville Bamber told police in his 3.26am call, or in the details provided by Jeremy Bamber in his 3.36am call to PC West, that anyone had in fact been shot, wounded or killed by that stage! Cops back in the control room were not in a hurry to deploy teams of firearms officers to the incident! They must have felt confident that Neville Bamber might be able to deal with his own daughter, otherwise, why wait until after 04.11am/04.16am before firearms were authorised? The first point of contact with the police was arguably prior to 3.26am, or thereabouts, irrespective of the nonsensical claim that it was Jeremy and not Neville who had made that 3.26am call! What we now know, is that although the telephone line between Neville and Jeremy was cut off, the same cannot be said about the telephone line between whf and the police from 3.26am, onward - the handset was effectively left off the hook by Neville Bamber! Therefore, police who had been speaking with Neville (PC West) would have been able to eavesdrop the kitchen phone after Neville Bamber concluded what he had time to say! There is every reason to believe that the kitchen phone was simply left off the hook by Neville Bamber at least from 3.26am, 03.42am, and until 3.56am! The telephone line in play when Neville Bamber spoke to Jeremy, cannot have remained open if Neville did make the 3.26am call to police (as per Malcom Bonnetts C6 form). The call to Jeremy by Neville was cut short, and Neville then called the police! When Jeremy tried to re-establish contact with Neville he kept getting the engaged tone! This is consistent with Neville contacting the police using the kitchen phone!
This provided time for Jeremy to try to contact Witham police station, without success! Of course we now know that PC West was already in contact with Witham officers by use of the HQ police radio! Jeremy then phoned his girlfriend Julie Mugford (3.30am) via being placed on hold by Dale who had to fetch her to the phone! She told Jeremy to go back to bed! But Jeremy phoned Chelmsford police and spoke to PC West (3.36am), once he had spoken to PC West, West put Jeremy on hold whilst he updated HQ Incident Room, about Mr Bambers son (Jeremy) having contacted the police, mentioning that the son had said his father had called him, telling him that his sister had got the gun, and that she was going crazy, before the telephone line went dead! PC West then updated the occupants of CA07 regarding the son, telling them that he would tell him to meet the police at the farmhouse! By the time PC West spoke to Jeremy again, police were already deployed to whf (CA07 - 3.35am, and CA05 - 3.36am), West told Jeremy this!
-
Thanks and best wishes Bill
justice has this per son you talk of ever met jb
-
justice has this per son you talk of ever met jb
Which person Notsure? I would assume so she was his psychiatrist and he was his Chaplin? They both said the same things. I really don't want to try and convince anyone about these people, NGB was the first person I spoke to about them, I have met them twice and she knows I'm on the Bamber forum my daughter passed some messages in between, I'm not going to repeat them, I don't for one minute think she would mind but I have to be mindful, I will try to get her second name and Susan can try and make contact so long as she doesn't mention me or my family. I don't know how she will do it and then she can report back to forum, I can't be any fairer. I don't lie Notsure and the offer is still open to Bill if he gives me proof. I have 3 friends still in Essex police, I take offence anyone posing as police.
-
Which person Notsure? I would assume so she was his psychiatrist and he was his Chaplin? They both said the same things. I really don't want to try and convince anyone about these people, NGB was the first person I spoke to about them, I have met them twice and she knows I'm on the Bamber forum my daughter passed some messages in between, I'm not going to repeat them, I don't for one minute think she would mind but I have to be mindful, I will try to get her second name and Susan can try and make contact so long as she doesn't mention me or my family. I don't know how she will do it and then she can report back to forum, I can't be any fairer. I don't lie Notsure and the offer is still open to Bill if he gives me proof. I have 3 friends still in Essex police, I take offence anyone posing as police.
I really don't get it? You assume she was his psychiatrist, she either was or she wasn't ?
I cannot imagine a psychiatrist would talk to anyone about a patient especially a high profile prisoner like Jeremy Bamber
-
Justice, I offered very much the same information, as have you, when I first joined. I was threatened with all the retributions in hell for so doing. I believe the police were alluded to and also BACP to revoke my qualifications. It was a very frightening time. I didn't know THEN that they we idle threats. I will say NOW, with total confidence, that your psychiatrist friend isn't alone in her assessment of Jeremy. There is at least another who agrees. I can only believe the reason for them not making statements is because they were never asked. Like you, I feel incensed when I see experts in their field, put down by those who know nothing.
Jane, I have even told you we're they live
-
Which person Notsure? I would assume so she was his psychiatrist and he was his Chaplin? They both said the same things. I really don't want to try and convince anyone about these people, NGB was the first person I spoke to about them, I have met them twice and she knows I'm on the Bamber forum my daughter passed some messages in between, I'm not going to repeat them, I don't for one minute think she would mind but I have to be mindful, I will try to get her second name and Susan can try and make contact so long as she doesn't mention me or my family. I don't know how she will do it and then she can report back to forum, I can't be any fairer. I don't lie Notsure and the offer is still open to Bill if he gives me proof. I have 3 friends still in Essex police, I take offence anyone posing as police.
oh OK justice I just wasn't sure . I don't know the story so iI was a little confused. No worries though I understand why you wouldn't want to repeat what she told you. X
-
Jane, I have even told you we're they live
Yes, I can verify that, Justice.
-
I really don't get it? You assume she was his psychiatrist, she either was or she wasn't ?
I cannot imagine a psychiatrist would talk to anyone about a patient especially a high profile prisoner like Jeremy Bamber
I assume that Justice was using irony. If you had a friend who was a psychiatrist you could be very surprised at what they talk about without ever actually using names. Jeremy might be special to you. To them, he's just another patient , albeit a convicted one.
-
I assume that Justice was using irony. If you had a friend who was a psychiatrist you could be very surprised at what they talk about without ever actually using names. Jeremy might be special to you. To them, he's just another patient , albeit a convicted one.
It's rubbish and you know it
-
I really don't get it? You assume she was his psychiatrist, she either was or she wasn't ?
I cannot imagine a psychiatrist would talk to anyone about a patient especially a high profile prisoner like Jeremy Bamber
Justice said in a response to a question from Notsure asking if the person he know had met JB "I assume so she was a psychiatrist and he was his Chaplin". You didn't read the sentence correctly.
-
I really don't get it? You assume she was his psychiatrist, she either was or she wasn't ?
I cannot imagine a psychiatrist would talk to anyone about a patient especially a high profile prisoner like Jeremy Bamber
Jackie she is retired now and doesn't give a f""k about Bamber, she hates him more than anything in the world, she hates him, yes she did work with him, I honestly don't know if she would mind me telling everything, I haven't out of courtesy, she is a lovely lady and her partner was a Chaplin, he repeated the same things to me, I can't tell you more, it was out of the blue that we got connected about Bamber. I have never told anyone fully what she said. Most was messages sent between family. I'm not saying anything more on it
-
Jackie she is retired now and doesn't give a f""k about Bamber, she hates him more than anything in the world, she hates him, yes she did work with him, I honestly don't know if she would mind me telling everything, I haven't out of courtesy, she is a lovely lady and her partner was a Chaplin, he repeated the same things to me, I can't tell you more, it was out of the blue that we got connected about Bamber. I have never told anyone fully what she said.
Maybe she is someone prepared to be involved in a documentary series
-
Jackie she is retired now and doesn't give a f""k about Bamber, she hates him more than anything in the world, she hates him, yes she did work with him, I honestly don't know if she would mind me telling everything, I haven't out of courtesy, she is a lovely lady and her partner was a Chaplin, he repeated the same things to me, I can't tell you more, it was out of the blue that we got connected about Bamber. I have never told anyone fully what she said. Most was messages sent between family. I'm not saying anything more on it
I really am interested in hearing from anyone that is absolutely genuine who has anything good or bad to say about Jeremy
-
Maybe she is someone prepared to be involved in a documentary series
Could do, I don't know, you find her and ask her
-
I just don't like pm messages, I prefer everything out in the open as I have had so many fake people contact me
-
I really am interested in hearing from anyone that is absolutely genuine who has anything good or bad to say about Jeremy
When you write to Jeremy ask him who they were.
-
I agree Justice, I don;t have bind faith in anyone. But he does seem to have contradicted himself - although I'm sure there will be an excuse forthcoming.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5566.msg243411.html#msg243411
That's not a contradiction, he knew him or he met him once?
If Taff was known for being an honest cop and had strong beliefs there is nothing wrong with Bills posts and at the moment Bill has not given us enough evidence to discuss further
-
justice has this per son you talk of ever met jb
Hi Notsure, I have not bought this person out of thin air and to try and convince anyone, the forum has always run best with truth and honesty, I have been on here and witnessed so much untruth and joined in and I'm ashamed of it, ashamed I was hoodwinked. Jackie first brought up a conversation saying I have never met Jeremy, she is right I haven't I told her that, I replied back about this psychiatrist I know who had, that's the only reason this was brought up. I don't want anyone to believe it, but it's the truth what she told me. I will never ever reveal what she said in full. I have seen the same pattern starting all again.
-
Hi Notsure, I have not bought this person out of thin air and to try and convince anyone, the forum has always run best with truth and honesty, I have been on here and witnessed so much untruth and joined in and I'm ashamed of it, ashamed I was hoodwinked. Jackie first brought up a conversation saying I have never met Jeremy, she is right I haven't I told her that, I replied back about this psychiatrist I know who had, that's the only reason this was brought up. I don't want anyone to believe it, but it's the truth what she told me. I will never ever reveal what she said in full. I have seen the same pattern starting all again.
Assuming this person was truthful. You do realise prison psychiatrists have to accept the conviction by default in their examinations. Just like the psychiatrist that made a note of Stefan Kiszko suffering from "delusions of innocence".
Watch This https://youtu.be/L9iec6lWq0Y?t=20m18s (https://youtu.be/L9iec6lWq0Y?t=20m18s)
-
Assuming this person was truthful. You do realise prison psychiatrists have to accept the conviction by default in their examinations. Just like the psychiatrist that made a note of Stefan Kiszko suffering from "delusions of innocence".
Watch This https://youtu.be/L9iec6lWq0Y?t=20m18s (https://youtu.be/L9iec6lWq0Y?t=20m18s)
Are you saying that it invalidates the opinion those who interview him prior to conviction?
-
Assuming this person was truthful. You do realise prison psychiatrists have to accept the conviction by default in their examinations. Just like the psychiatrist that made a note of Stefan Kiszko suffering from "delusions of innocence".
Watch This https://youtu.be/L9iec6lWq0Y?t=20m18s (https://youtu.be/L9iec6lWq0Y?t=20m18s)
Yes I do David, I honestly can't give you more, I think she was s person with open mind about everyone, I've said she might have it wrong and there's is nothing better I would like than to say so, I am truthful
It's always been a problem David, the forum has been built on lies and posters don't like the truth, they question the truth more than the lies. That's why the truth never gets believed.
-
Another thing...
I am not convinced that the telephone used by Neville Bamber to call Jeremy and then the police was the kitchen phone (as depicted in the crime scene photographs)! We know that a request was made for DC Harris to call ACC Peter Simpson using the land line at the farmhouse because its documented in one of the police logs...
We know that Harris, Gibbons, and Montgomery, entered the kitchen just after the three other bodies had been reportedly found upstairs, which when added to the two bodies already found downstairs made five dead in total by 8.10am...
We also know (highly significant) that the 999 eavesdrop set up by the operator was terminated at precisely 7.47am (just after 'Linda' in the control room contacted (SOCO) DS Davidson (7.45am) at his home addresss, to request that he come on duty into the office because police were dealing with an incident at whf, involving 'a murder, and a suicide'. Why was the landline eavesdrop stopped so soon after 'Linda' had spoken with DS Davidson about the discovery of two bodies downstairs in the kitchen by 7.45am?
-
Another thing...
I am not convinced that the telephone used by Neville Bamber to call Jeremy and then the police was the kitchen phone (as depicted in the crime scene photographs)! We know that a request was made for DC Harris to call ACC Peter Simpson using the land line at the farmhouse because its documented in one of the police logs...
We know that Harris, Gibbons, and Montgomery, entered the kitchen just after the three other bodies had been reportedly found upstairs, which when added to the two bodies already found downstairs made five dead in total by 8.10am...
We also know (highly significant) that the 999 eavesdrop set up by the operator was terminated at precisely 7.47am (just after 'Linda' in the control room contacted (SOCO) DS Davidson (7.45am) at his home addresss, to request that he come on duty into the office because police were dealing with an incident at whf, involving 'a murder, and a suicide'. Why was the landline eavesdrop stopped so soon after 'Linda' had spoken with DS Davidson about the discovery of two bodies downstairs in the kitchen by 7.45am?
If we go by 'the facts' that two bodies were reportedly found downstairs in the kitchen (by a reliance upon the various log contents, and the witness statement of DCI 'Terry' Gibbons), we have two bodies downstairs, clearly identified in police records between 7.35am and 7.42am! Yet, within 3 minutes of everybody with an interest in the matter being informed or told that two bodies have been found (the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female), a civilian operator with the Christian name of 'Linda' is contacting DS Davidson (SOCO) at his home address (7.45am)requesting him to come on duty to the office, because police are dealing with an incident at whf involving two bodies, that is 'a murder' and 'a suicide'. Then 2 minutes later (7.47am) the 999 open line created by the operator, is requested to be closed down...
-
If we go by 'the facts' that two bodies were reportedly found downstairs in the kitchen (by a reliance upon the various log contents, and the witness statement of DCI 'Terry' Gibbons), we have two bodies downstairs, clearly identified in police records between 7.35am and 7.42am! Yet, within 3 minutes of everybody with an interest in the matter being informed or told that two bodies have been found (the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female), a civilian operator with the Christian name of 'Linda' is contacting DS Davidson (SOCO) at his home address (7.45am)requesting him to come on duty to the office, because police are dealing with an incident at whf involving two bodies, that is 'a murder' and 'a suicide'. Then 2 minutes later (7.47am) the 999 open line created by the operator, is requested to be closed down...
There were clearly two bodies reportedly found in the kitchen upon entry, PC Collins and anyone else who promoted the suggestion that only one body was found because of a mistake, are clearly dishonest and what I refer to as 'Criminals in uniform'...
The 999 open line was closed down at 7.47am, because those back in the control room and the incident room could overhear PS Woodcocks protestations that Sheila had pulled the barrel of his rifle into and against her own throat / neck...
-
There were clearly two bodies reportedly found in the kitchen upon entry, PC Collins and anyone else who promoted the suggestion that only one body was found because of a mistake, are clearly dishonest and what I refer to as 'Criminals in uniform'...
The 999 open line was closed down at 7.47am, because those back in the control room and the incident room could overhear PS Woodcocks protestations that Sheila had pulled the barrel of his rifle into and against her own throat / neck...
This was why, 'Linda' back in the control room contacted DS Davidson (SOCO) at his home address by 7.45am, requesting him to come on duty to the office, because police were dealing with an incident at whf involving a murder, and a suicide...
-
This was why, 'Linda' back in the control room contacted DS Davidson (SOCO) at his home address by 7.45am, requesting him to come on duty to the office, because police were dealing with an incident at whf involving a murder, and a suicide...
Only after 'Linda' had contacted DS Davidson (SOCO) at his home address and told him that police were dealing with an incident at whf involving a murder and a suicide, was a request made to terminate the open 999 line to the farmhouse...
-
I would say that the vast majority of you have no idea whatsoever of the lengths police are prepared to go to in some instances to to cover things up, lie, and to secure convictions against innocent people, or to protect themselves...
-
I would say that the vast majority of you have no idea whatsoever of the lengths police are prepared to go to in some instances to to cover things up, lie, and to secure convictions against innocent people, or to protect themselves...
In the vast majority of cases, unless you are a victim of police corruption yourself, most people think police officers would not lie, that they would tell you the correct time of day if you asked them it, and that their sole purpose is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - well, sadly the vast majority of you are all mistaken. It doesn't work out quite like that, and this is why miscarriages of justice occur...
-
OK I've locked this thread.
This argument is going to run and run so I feel I have no option.
Please don't just move this argument to anther thread as I am on the verge of warning some posters and will do so if it continues.
-
In the vast majority of cases, unless you are a victim of police corruption yourself, most people think police officers would not lie, that they would tell you the correct time of day if you asked them it, and that their sole purpose is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - well, sadly the vast majority of you are all mistaken. It doesn't work out quite like that, and this is why miscarriages of justice occur...
The evidence for DCI Harris using the land line telephone in the kitchen is emphatic!
Its well documented, examine to oh so true police radio message logs, all of you 'holier than thou, people' who think they know everything despite the fact they have never been on the receiving end of police brutality, police dishonesty, police fabrication, police perjury, etc, etc, etc...
Just read your heroes message log contents, to find the truth, and to know the truth...
DCI Harris used the round finger dial phone in the kitchen to call ACC Peter Simpson to update him about how the firearm operations had just gone dramatically wrong! What 'I' Mean by the firearm operations going wrong by that stage, is that from that point onward there was only one body downstairs, and only three bodies upstairs - Sheila's body was missing from the kitchen by the time Gibbons, Harris and Montgomery arrived there! As far as I am concerned, Harris, Gibbons, Montgomery, and Simpson were Criminals in uniform who let an innocent man stand trial for murdering his sister and staging her death scene on the floor of the upstairs main bedroom, when all along these criminals in uniform knew that her body had been reported discovered downstairs in the kitchen! Too much evidence has been uncovered supporting the case for Sheila's body being in the kitchen (7.35am to 8.10am) prior to it ending up in the main bedroom on the floor! Cops wouldn't pass live radio messages about there being two bodies found in the kitchen upon entry if it was not true! Come on, stop acting like you ain't got a brain...
There is far too much detail contained in these versions of the police logs for it not to be true!
Not just two bodies (7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am), but the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female (7.35am, 7.37am, and 7.38am), not just the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, but 'a suicide' and 'a murder' (7.45am) - this was all documented, it can't simply be put down to an error as described by the Criminal in uniform, PC Collins! These facts are further corroborated by the message passed at 8.10am, am, 'a further three bodies found upstairs, five dead in total'...
Cops don't pass false live radio messages, they only manipulate the contents of witness statements, and other statements they take from independent witnesses which the cop in question paraphrases to support the mindset of the police case in general. They don't like witnesses making their own witness statements, because they might write down something which challenges the mindset of the police and the case they are trying to prove!
-
The fact that the 'kitchen phone' was found under some magazines on a rack in the kitchen, suggests to me, that police brought the round finger dial phone downstairs from the main bedroom and disconnected the digital kitchen phone (hiding it amongst magazine on the magazine rack in the kitchen) and that they plugged in the round finger dial phone which DCI Harris used to contact ACC Peter Simpson after 8.20am, that morning...
-
The fact that the 'kitchen phone' was found under some magazines on a rack in the kitchen, suggests to me, that police brought the round finger dial phone downstairs from the main bedroom and disconnected the digital kitchen phone (hiding it amongst magazine on the magazine rack in the kitchen) and that they plugged in the round finger dial phone which DCI Harris used to contact ACC Peter Simpson after 8.20am, that morning...
I don't believe that in an enquiry of this nature, that somebody like DCI Harris would have used the actual phone which had been discovered with its handset off the cradle, to make the aforementioned call! I think that because the 999 eavesdrop had been stopped at 7.47am, Harris waited until Sheila had been relocated on top of the bed, and then had the round finger dial phone brought downstairs and it was plugged in the socket where the digital phone had originally been plugged in...
Notice how Cops and CPS don't disclose the timing and the duration of the Harris, Simpson call, and or its nature!!
-
I don't believe that Sheila Caffell at the height of her insanity, or Jeremy Bamber for that matter, brought the ivory coloured round finger dial phone down from the bedroom to plug it into a socket in the kitchen where a digital phone was already plugged in...
Two phones ended up in the kitchen (digital one, and round finger dialled one)!
It would have been to Jeremy Bambers advantage, had he been the killer to set the digital phone with its handset off the cradle, he having dialled his home address for a few seconds then terminating the call, because the digital phone had a last 10 numbers dialled facility. There was no advantage for Sheila having done this, other than she knew she would have to attack and kill her father downstairs in the kitchen! But, when you look at DCI Harris's predicament, he would not want to use the digital phone in the kitchen with its handset off its cradle because he would have known its evidential value, and it would make sense that he might bring the round finger dial phone downstairs to the kitchen from the main bedroom to enable him to make his requested call to ACC Peter Simpson! Then again, Harris may well have made his call to Peter Simpson from the main bedroom after Sheila's body had been relocated there in a collapsed state (bearing only a solitary wound to the neck)! This suggestion is possible, because what we now know is that one of the relatives phoned whf using the landline number, and they were told by a police officer who answered the call to go to Bourtree cottage, where Jeremy lived!
Bedroom phone could have been moved downstairs to the kitchen either by the time of this relatives call, or sometime afterwards, but certainly prior to 10 am, when PC Bird (SOCO) started taking his crime scene photographs...
-
I wonder if this was why 358 of the 581 photographs which were taken in this investigation never got to see the light of day?
-
I wonder if this was why 358 of the 581 photographs which were taken in this investigation never got to see the light of day?
Do photographs exist which either show the digital phone plugged in at the kitchen socket, and the round finger dial phone plugged in at the main bedroom socket?
Somebody must make a note of steadfastly checking out this possibility!
-
At the end of the day, with the benefit of my vast experience of being a victim of police dishonesty and brutality, I am 100% certain that Neville Bamber, and not Jeremy Bamber, made the 3.26am telephone call to the police! The call which was made by Neville Bamber (if he made it) would almost certainly have commenced at least 4/5 minutes prior to 3.26am, and the recipient who dealt with Nevilles call must have been and was PC West - I agree with Bill's scenario that the 3.26am call must have been made around 3.20am, and that it continued and remained open until beyond 3.30am...
As if to confirm what Bill has said (independently of me) as being true, I took the opportunity some years previously to speak with a BT engineer, who knew other older engineers who worked during the mid 80's on the old exchange type systems applicable in Glodhanger and Maldon at the time of the tragedy, and I gleaned some really useful information at the time which now seems to be pertinent in the present matter...
-
At the end of the day, with the benefit of my vast experience of being a victim of police dishonesty and brutality, I am 100% certain that Neville Bamber, and not Jeremy Bamber, made the 3.26am telephone call to the police! The call which was made by Neville Bamber (if he made it) would almost certainly have commenced at least 4/5 minutes prior to 3.26am, and the recipient who dealt with Nevilles call must have been and was PC West - I agree with Bill's scenario that the 3.26am call must have been made around 3.20am, and that it continued and remained open until beyond 3.30am...
As if to confirm what Bill has said (independently of me) as being true, I took the opportunity some years previously to speak with a BT engineer, who knew other older engineers who worked during the mid 80's on the old exchange type systems applicable in Glodhanger and Maldon at the time of the tragedy, and I gleaned some really useful information at the time which now seems to be pertinent in the present matter...
Without going into all the technical jargon which can prove to be something of a minefield to ordinary folk not in the trade, I learned two important features which to this day have remained at the forefront of my mind, one which I later accepted could not have applied in this instance, but the other which is capable of throwing the whole case wide open...
-
One of the technical matters I was advised about involved the plunger of the phone 'sticking' in the downward position, particularly involving round finger type phones, of the type shown in the crime scene photographs! This could occur and did occur, apparently if the unit was dropped or it received a hard knock! According to the expert opinion that I was given, once the 'plunger set' in this way, it could not be released until an engineer resolved the problem! With the 'plunger' stuck in the down position, there was no dialling tone, and the phone could not be used to make calls out, or to receive calls! More significantly, the operator could not eavesdrop a handset which was connected to a plunger stuck in the down ward position...
I can now discount this possibility, because we know that the operator checked the telephone line at whf after Jeremys call to PC West (commencing at 3.36am) at 3.42am, and 3.56am...
What this alerts us to is the fact that the telephone call from Neville Bamber to Jeremy was not terminated because the plunger had got stuck in the downward position, but rather that Neville had tapped the plunger on the cradle so that he could make another telephone call! And, he did! At probably 3.20am, or thereabouts, Neville Bamber called the police, and by 3.26am, PC West was relaying to Malcom Bonnet what Neville Bamber was telling him!
-
One of the technical matters I was advised about involved the plunger of the phone 'sticking' in the downward position, particularly involving round finger type phones, of the type shown in the crime scene photographs! This could occur and did occur, apparently if the unit was dropped or it received a hard knock! According to the expert opinion that I was given, once the 'plunger set' in this way, it could not be released until an engineer resolved the problem! With the 'plunger' stuck in the down position, there was no dialling tone, and the phone could not be used to make calls out, or to receive calls! More significantly, the operator could not eavesdrop a handset which was connected to a plunger stuck in the down ward position...
I can now discount this possibility, because we know that the operator checked the telephone line at whf after Jeremys call to PC West (commencing at 3.36am) at 3.42am, and 3.56am...
What this alerts us to is the fact that the telephone call from Neville Bamber to Jeremy was not terminated because the plunger had got stuck in the downward position, but rather that Neville had tapped the plunger on the cradle so that he could make another telephone call! And, he did! At probably 3.20am, or thereabouts, Neville Bamber called the police, and by 3.26am, PC West was relaying to Malcom Bonnet what Neville Bamber was telling him!
How do I know this to be true?
-
Well, I know this to be true, not because PC West received news from the operator at 3.42am that the phone at whf was off the hook, or that by 3.56am that Malcom Bonnet was notified by the operator that a dog could be heard barking in the background, but because of one highly significant piece of information that almost everyone interested in this case has either ignored or lacked intelligence to enable them to grasp the nettle, as it were...
What is it that I am talking about?
-
It was something I was told by a BT engineer several years ago, something so basic in its execution, that it beggars belief that no-one (until now) has realised the significance of it...
-
It was something I was told by a BT engineer several years ago, something so basic in its execution, that it beggars belief that no-one (until now) has realised the significance of it...
Please, bear with me, have a look at this..............
Malcom Bonnetts C6 form states that the time the message was received was at 3.26am,
and PC Wests C1 form states that the time the information was received was at 3.36am...
The contents of both the C6 and the C1 forms cannot have been received at one and the same time!
These facts are irrefutable evidence,both documents clearly state that the recorded times (3.26am, and 3.36am) are the times the information was received by Bonnet, and by West...
-
But wait, there is more...
-
But wait, there is more...
The information which I received several years ago whilst acting in the capacity of Jeremys McKensie man, was that the operator could not patch through an exchange line call to either the incident room, or the control room, only that the operator could patch through to the aforementioned if the original call had been a '999' call...
-
Now, there came a moment in the police operation that morning, as I understand it, that when the operator was asked by police to again check the telephone line at whf, that instead of saying that she could hear the dogs barking, or for that matter any screaming or yelling or gasping by any victim or perpetrator, the operator simply reported that...
'THE PHONE WAS ENGAGED'...
-
Now, there came a moment in the police operation that morning, as I understand it, that when the operator was asked by police to again check the telephone line at whf, that instead of saying that she could hear the dogs barking, or for that matter any screaming or yelling or gasping by any victim or perpetrator, the operator simply reported that...
'THE PHONE WAS ENGAGED'...
Why had the phone suddenly changed in status, from being off the hook,(as checked by the operator)to becoming engaged?
-
Please, if you don't mind, do your own research into the point at which the telephone line suddenly became engaged, and whilst you are doing this, also pinpoint the exact moment when the operator patched through the line using the 999 system...
-
Please, if you don't mind, do your own research into the point at which the telephone line suddenly became engaged, and whilst you are doing this, also pinpoint the exact moment when the operator patched through the line using the 999 system...
You see, I was reliably informed several years ago by a BT engineer, that an operator could not patch through an exchange line call , via the type of exchanges in operation in that vicinity to the police, unless it was a 999 call...
-
And so...
-
And so...
What I now believe to be true, based upon the reliable information I received, is that the status of the 3.26am call altered from it being an 'exchange line call' at 3.26am, into a 999 call at ...
-
Excuse me, are you all paying attention?
-
Please, pay attention - Jeremy only ever made an exchange line call to the police (3.36am, commenced),If any of you mother fukkers know anything different then please, respectfully please put me right!
-
I am a victim of police dishonesty, and violence, and corruption, therefore I have personal experience of the lengths these criminals in uniform are prepared to go to, and will go to, to try and justify the mindset these criminals have when it comes to this potential prosecution or that potential prosecution...
-
I am a victim of police dishonesty, and violence, and corruption, therefore I have personal experience of the lengths these criminals in uniform are prepared to go to, and will go to, to try and justify the mindset these criminals have when it comes to this potential prosecution or that potential prosecution...
I wish some of you non believers would stand back from wholeheartedly supporting every lie these criminals in uniform are capable of telling, and in certain circumstances they are prepared and do to tell...
-
You see, I have it on good authority that the phone call from whf which was received at 3.26am, mysteriously changed, and became altered into a 999 call, whilst Jeremy Bamber was in Pages Lane in the company of PS Saxby!
-
You see, I have it on good authority that the phone call from whf which was received at 3.26am, mysteriously changed, and became altered into a 999 call, whilst Jeremy Bamber was in Pages Lane in the company of PS Saxby!
Now, you mother fukkers, if this is true, how the fuk does that make my old friend Jeremy Bamber a fukking murderer?
-
The status of the 3.26am call to police (see Bonnett C6 log) altered early morning from an exchange line call, to a 999 call whilst Jeremy was in the company of PS Saxby. Now, please, explain to me in simple English how could this be true, if Jeremy had already killed everyone, including his dad, and his sister? Who the fuck tapped the cradle of the phone inside the farmhouse and dialled '999'?
-
The status of the 3.26am call to police (see Bonnett C6 log) altered early morning from an exchange line call, to a 999 call whilst Jeremy was in the company of PS Saxby. Now, please, explain to me in simple English how could this be true, if Jeremy had already killed everyone, including his dad, and his sister? Who the fuck tapped the cradle of the phone inside the farmhouse and dialled '999'?
This reminds me, of the case against me, at Barnsley Magistrates court by the despicable South Yorkshire Police, and the local CPS who prosecuted me, when two police officers (The despicable DC Caulfield, and the equally despicably DS Shepherd) claimed to have been inside an observation van at 5.20pm on Wednesday, 22nd January, 1986, and they falsely and maliciously claimed they had seen me driving a stolen vehicle which they both falsely claimed had pulled up outside some target premises they were supposed to have been keeping an eye on for whatever reason - the fukking van they were supposed to have been inside at 5.20pm, was still parked up in the fukking police compound according to a detective police Inspector, until 5.55pm and was not actually parked up in the street outside the aforementioned target premises until 6.30pm. One of these criminals in uniform was later promoted to the rank of DCI...
So, please don't try to lecture me about police dishonesty and criminality...
-
So, now we know with absolute proof, the guilters are hiding, because they know Essex police under the leadership of that criminal in uniform, DCS Mick Ainsley, knew full well that the status of the so called 3.26am call changed from it being an exchange line call, into a 999 call, whilst Jeremy was outside the farmhouse in the company of PS Saxby in CA07 which was parked up hundreds of feet away, outside the premises!
Who made the 999 call?
The dog...
-
So, now we know with absolute proof, the guilters are hiding, because they know Essex police under the leadership of that criminal in uniform, DCS Mick Ainsley, knew full well that the status of the so called 3.26am call changed from it being an exchange line call, into a 999 call, whilst Jeremy was outside the farmhouse in the company of PS Saxby in CA07 which was parked up hundreds of feet away, outside the premises!
Who made the 999 call?
The dog...
It makes me fukking angry, that so called decent members of the public, support this kind of dishonesty and corruption...
-
I doubt that many of you reading this can ever begin to imagine the toll it takes on an individual (lets say, such as all the victims of miscarriages of justice, including myself), who knows with 100% certainty that what is being spoken about them / me, is nothing but speculation and damn right lies...
-
I am telling the lot of you, that the status of the 3.26am call altered from it being an exchange line call, into a 999 call, whilst Jeremy was in the company of PS Saxby in his patrol car that was parked up in Pages Lane, now please how could Jeremy Bamber have had a hand in that?
He can't have............................................................................................
-
When is everyone suddenly going to wake up to reality?
The operator couldn't transfer the exchange line from whf after it became engaged by way of the 999 call system - the call had to be a 999 call in the first instance before that could be done, but as we have seen it started off as an exchange line call!!!
-
Please, all of you do your own research to confirm what I am saying...
An innocent mans liberty is resting upon your judgement!
-
Just remember this (if you are brainwashed by Essex police and the local CPS bullshit), the 3.26am call to police started off as an exchange line call (3,26am), and became transformed into a 999 call, which did not get terminated by the cops until 7.47am...
Can, any of you understand the significance of this, sorry for saying this, but are you really that thick?
-
Essex police do not stand alone in being accused of framing an innocent person for crimes they could not have committed, all the forces are at the same game, it depends from the outset on the mindset of the investigating force, they can paraphrase a witnesses statement to suite the case they are bringing! I believe that the CPS should be prosecuted for perjury when they persue a dishonest case!
-
Essex police do not stand alone in being accused of framing an innocent person for crimes they could not have committed, all the forces are at the same game, it depends from the outset on the mindset of the investigating force, they can paraphrase a witnesses statement to suite the case they are bringing! I believe that the CPS should be prosecuted for perjury when they persue a dishonest case!
The persons who needs to be prosecuted, are the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Chief Constable of whichever force is bringing the false prosecution, so that they can be potentially found guilty of bringing a false prosecution - let the vile evil monsters be prosecuted and convicted and if applicable, be sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment......
They are no better than us...
-
the status of the 3.26am call altered from it being an exchange line call, into a 999 call, . . . how could Jeremy Bamber have had a hand in that?
The documented 3:26am call was from Pc West to Malcolm Bonnett at the police HQ. The police later asked to monitor the WHF line, but its status wasn't changed until after the monitoring ended, and the police didn't suggest Jeremy had a hand in changing its status.
-
The 3.26am call to Malcom Bonnett from PC West was via an exchange line, not a 999 call! It is not known whether the reference to the 'exchange line' is to the fact that Neville Bambers call to PC West was by way of the exchange line call, or if PC West told Malcom Bonnett that, otherwise Neville's call was by way of a 999 call, and Bonnett recorded the fact that PC West contacted him by way on the exchange line?
What we do know, is that from the offset by 3.42am and 3.56am, the phone at the farm was off the hook, but It became engaged (5.47am), and then at 6.08am the operator was asked to switch the phone at the farm to the police using the 999 system. The phone status at the farm did change, from being off the hook, to becoming engaged, and then the operator was asked to switch the phone at the farm to the police using the 999 system...
-
There is nothing to suggest that Nevill made a 999 call. Pc West got the engaged tone when he tried to call WHF, which was consistent with what Jeremy had told him. The BT operator informed Pc West that the reason for the engaged tone was that the receiver was off-hook (as distinct from the line being in use for a call at the time of the check). The wording used in logs to refer to the status of the line may have varied, but that doesn't imply that the line's status had changed. The line didn't "become engaged" at 5:47am - it was engaged and simply off-hook until the BT operator connected it to police HQ.
. . . the operator was asked to switch the phone at the farm to the police using the 999 system.
The operator wasn't asked to "switch" the line, just to connect it to the police HQ. She might have been asked to do that using the 999 system, but she wasn't allowed to do that, so she used a normal exchange line.
-
There is nothing to suggest that Nevill made a 999 call. I disagree, because the operator could not patch through an exchange line call from whf in that era, because of the old type of exchange system, the only way the operator could patch the line through from the farmhouse to the police using the 999 system, was if Nevilles call (or at least one of them) had in fact been a 999 call! I was told this by telephone engineers whilst I was operating as Bambers McKensie man! Pc West got the engaged tone when he tried to call WHF, which was consistent with what Jeremy had told him. PC West may have used a second line to try to make that call, hence why he would get an engaged tone! Failing that, Nevilles 3.26am call may not have changed into a 999 staus until much later in the early hours of the morning! The BT operator informed Pc West that the reason for the engaged tone was that the receiver was off-hook (as distinct from the line being in use for a call at the time of the check). Sorry, the operator reported she could hear a dog barking when she reported the phone at the farm being off the hook, this is a totally different status of the phone which she later referred to now being engaged! If she had previously reported hearing the dog barking when the phone was off the hook, why would it suddenly become engaged at 5.47am? Something dramatic occurred here at this stage, and I believe it involved someone inside the farmhouse making a 999 call!The wording used in logs to refer to the status of the line may have varied, But only if the status of the phone changed, or altered! but that doesn't imply that the line's status had changed. It changed in accordance with the circumstances described here by me..The line didn't "become engaged" at 5:47am it did as distinct from the phone being off the hook and the operator being able to hear the dog barking previously...- it was engaged No, it wasn't the operator could hear a dog barking originally when she reported the phone inside the farmhouse being off the hook, but by 5.47am she did not report hearing anything, she simply reported that the phone was engaged!and simply off-hook no, it had become engaged.. until the BT operator connected it to police HQ. Sorry, no - the status of the phone at the farm altered at 5.47am, from being off the hook, to being engaged!
The operator wasn't asked to "switch" the line, Oh, but she was at 6.08am...just to connect it to the police HQ. She might have been asked to do that using the 999 system, but she wasn't allowed to do that, so she used a normal exchange line.It states that she was asked to switch the line from the farmhouse using the 999 system, that was possible because at the time (5.47am) the status of the telephone changed from being off the hook (3.42am) to it becoming engaged (5.47am) somebody inside the farmhouse made a 999 emergency call requesting ambulances!!
-
There is nothing to suggest that Nevill made a 999 call. Pc West got the engaged tone when he tried to call WHF, which was consistent with what Jeremy had told him. The BT operator informed Pc West that the reason for the engaged tone was that the receiver was off-hook (as distinct from the line being in use for a call at the time of the check). The wording used in logs to refer to the status of the line may have varied, but that doesn't imply that the line's status had changed. The line didn't "become engaged" at 5:47am - it was engaged and simply off-hook until the BT operator connected it to police HQ.
The operator wasn't asked to "switch" the line, just to connect it to the police HQ. She might have been asked to do that using the 999 system, but she wasn't allowed to do that, so she used a normal exchange line.
Well said Reader!
-
The 3.26am call to Malcom Bonnett from PC West was via an exchange line, not a 999 call! It is not known whether the reference to the 'exchange line' is to the fact that Neville Bambers call to PC West was by way of the exchange line call, or if PC West told Malcom Bonnett that, otherwise Neville's call was by way of a 999 call, and Bonnett recorded the fact that PC West contacted him by way on the exchange line?
What we do know, is that from the offset by 3.42am and 3.56am, the phone at the farm was off the hook, but It became engaged (5.47am), and then at 6.08am the operator was asked to switch the phone at the farm to the police using the 999 system. The phone status at the farm did change, from being off the hook, to becoming engaged, and then the operator was asked to switch the phone at the farm to the police using the 999 system...
Where does it say '999 system'?
-
I've seen that on a police log,but don't ask me where.
-
Somebody inside the farmhouse requested ambulances, no such request was ever made by any police officer at the scene, or elsewhere, yet the ambulances mysteriously appeared at the scene at just before 7am, two ambulances in fact, one for immediate use at the farmhouse, the other on stand by in Pages Lane..
-
Why have Essex police and the CPS strove to keep any information relating to why two ambulances were requested just after 6am, to attend the incident - three decades down the line and they are still concealing significant detail and information capable of determining that people, or at least one person was still very much alive inside that farmhouse that 20 armed officers were surrounding and containing!
-
I've seen that on a police log,but don't ask me where.
Oh well, that proves that then ::)
-
Oh well, that proves that then ::)
I do know what I've seen.
-
I do know what I've seen.
Yes, you frequently claim that. Mike posted a document in which he claimed it suggested the GPO patched into WHF using the 999 system. It doesn't say that.
-
Yes, you frequently claim that. Mike posted a document in which he claimed it suggested the GPO patched into WHF using the 999 system. It doesn't say that.
I'd read that the call from WHF which had been left open was the 999 line,so said the operator anyway and an officer wrote down same. It was on a thread not long ago showing that particular police report.
-
I'd read that the call from WHF which had been left open was the 999 line,so said the operator anyway and an officer wrote down same. It was on a thread not long ago showing that particular police report.
Then someone should be able to find it then.
-
During the phone-call from JB to JM on the night of the murders,JB had said that his father had told him that " Sheila was going mad ". JM's diary states this as she'd reiterated what JB told her.
Why hasn't this part of the conversation come to the fore the same as " it's all going well " has been flogged ??
-
During the phone-call from JB to JM on the night of the murders,JB had said that his father had told him that " Sheila was going mad ". JM's diary states this as she'd reiterated what JB told her.
Why hasn't this part of the conversation come to the fore the same as " it's all going well " has been flogged ??
But everything Julie said was a reiteration of what Jeremy had told her.
-
During the phone-call from JB to JM on the night of the murders,JB had said that his father had told him that " Sheila was going mad ". JM's diary states this as she'd reiterated what JB told her.
Why hasn't this part of the conversation come to the fore the same as " it's all going well " has been flogged ??
And the 999 system?
-
And the 999 system?
That was shown via a document on the forum not so long ago. I haven't forgotten it ! But you'll do your damndest to avoid/evade ( which is done often ) what JB told JM after Neville had called. That's obvious by the diversion of the original post.
-
That was shown via a document on the forum not so long ago. I haven't forgotten it ! But you'll do your damndest to avoid/evade ( which is done often ) what JB told JM after Neville had called. That's obvious by the diversion of the original post.
So what if he DID say that Nevill had said Sheila had gone mad and got hold of a gun? How does that make it true? As I said, everything Julie said was a reiteration of what Jeremy had told her.
-
So what if he DID say that Nevill had said Sheila had gone mad and got hold of a gun? How does that make it true? As I said, everything Julie said was a reiteration of what Jeremy had told her.
Because JM hadn't disputed it being as she's supposed to have put a spin on everything.
-
The 999 call is on Mikes thread on the 30th of May----" Neville Bamber's 3.26 am exchange line call turned into a 999 call." The written document is there.
Not that it makes any difference to the guilters of course,I'm wasting my time there. ::)
-
Because JM hadn't disputed it being as she's supposed to have put a spin on everything.
I'm not certain what you're saying. If Julie simply delivered a reiteration of Jeremy's words, why would one sentence out of many be disputed? Julie, to the best of my knowledge, wasn't in a position to say if any of what he said was true because she wasn't there. I don't know what you mean by "spin". As she was only repeating what she'd been told, there was no need for a slant. People could make up their own minds.
-
The 999 call is on Mikes thread on the 30th of May----" Neville Bamber's 3.26 am exchange line call turned into a 999 call." The written document is there.
Not that it makes any difference to the guilters of course,I'm wasting my time there. ::)
I think we all have our own thoughts about some of the 'documents' Mike has produced.
-
I think we all have our own thoughts about some of the 'documents' Mike has produced.
Have you even bothered to look ? I might add that some of the guilters documents are dodgy too !
-
At least Mike's documents are "acquired" and not cobbled/doctored.
-
At least Mike's documents are "acquired" and not cobbled/doctored.
All documents are acquired from somewhere, Lookout. The question is WHERE.
-
All documents are acquired from somewhere, Lookout. The question is WHERE.
I think we know more of the source in Mike's case,do we not ? Seeing that he was once a McKenzie Friend for JB,so therefore his notes would have had to have been kosher. Solicitors,JB's requested notes from EP-----those would have been the sources,WHERE ELSE ?
-
I think we know more of the source in Mike's case,do we not ? Seeing that he was once a McKenzie Friend for JB,so therefore his notes would have had to have been kosher. Solicitors,JB's requested notes from EP-----those would have been the sources,WHERE ELSE ?
I feel certain that Mike must feel reassured by your devotion.
-
I feel certain that Mike must feel reassured by your devotion.
Whether he does or he doesn't,I came onto this forum KNOWING the truth as I know it,that JB hadn't committed those murders. It's immaterial to me what people think or feel.
-
Whether he does or he doesn't,I came onto this forum KNOWING the truth as I know it,that JB hadn't committed those murders. It's immaterial to me what people think or feel.
So is it also immaterial to you if false evidence -with the potential to destroy the reputation of others- is produced in order to make him appear innocent?
-
So is it also immaterial to you if false evidence -with the potential to destroy the reputation of others- is produced in order to make him appear innocent?
I didn't say that.
-
I didn't say that.
I didn't say you did. I just asked if you thought it immaterial that docs., possibly less than kosher, are used to alter what was originally said, to 'prove' that Jeremy is innocent.
-
I didn't say you did. I just asked if you thought it immaterial that docs., possibly less than kosher, are used to alter what was originally said, to 'prove' that Jeremy is innocent.
There's no getting away from the fact that you'd implied that's what I'd said.
However-----all the altering/editing reducing volume of certain statements ( probably by destruction ) was done by EP and those on the side of the prosecution.
Because of the sheer reduction of documents meant for the defence,I'd hardly imagine that any of those would have been altered in any way.
The prosecution only presented those documents which they'd cherry-picked to make the biggest impact------the silencer,which had been an afterthought and JM's ramblings which were written out of spite. What else was there when no evidence was found that connected JB to the murders ?
-
There's no getting away from the fact that you'd implied that's what I'd said.
However-----all the altering/editing reducing volume of certain statements ( probably by destruction ) was done by EP and those on the side of the prosecution.
Because of the sheer reduction of documents meant for the defence,I'd hardly imagine that any of those would have been altered in any way
The prosecution only presented those documents which they'd cherry-picked to make the biggest impact------the silencer,which had been an afterthought and JM's ramblings which were written out of spite. What else was there when no evidence was found that connected JB to the murders ?
I know what I said, Lookout. It was a straightforward question. I have no responsibility in how you choose to read it.
I'm perfectly certain that you believe EP responsible for reducing/destroying documents. It's said here on an almost daily basis and chanted like a mantra. The Bamber case is certainly not the only one in which a conviction has been given on mostly circumstantial evidence. I'm inclined to believe it's spite which causes some to say it was out of such that Julie gave her evidence.
-
I know what I said, Lookout. It was a straightforward question. I have no responsibility in how you choose to read it.
I'm perfectly certain that you believe EP responsible for reducing/destroying documents. It's said here on an almost daily basis and chanted like a mantra. The Bamber case is certainly not the only one in which a conviction has been given on mostly circumstantial evidence. I'm inclined to believe it's spite which causes some to say it was out of such that Julie gave her evidence.
Once upon a time you too thought that JM's statements were a disgrace. I can understand you changing from innocent to guilty,but can't understand why you would change your mind with what are deemed to be lies which JM rattled off.
-
I disagree, because the operator could not patch through an exchange line call from whf in that era, because of the old type of exchange system, the only way the operator could patch the line through from the farmhouse to the police using the 999 system, was if Nevill's call (or at least one of them) had in fact been a 999 call! I was told this by telephone engineers
There was obviously some misunderstanding. If the WHF line had completed a 999 call (by hanging up) and then been left off-hook, the prior 999 call would be irrelevant to the current status. If the 999 call hadn't been completed, the operator wouldn't have told Pc West that the receiver was simply off-hook. The operator made a statement in which she said that she connected the WHF line to the police HQ without using the 999 system, because she wasn't allowed to use the 999 system for that purpose.
Pc West may have used a second line to try to make that call, hence why he would get an engaged tone!
It doesn't matter what line Pc West was using, as the engaged tone implies that the WHF line wasn't available. The operator told Pc West that the engaged tone was because the receiver at WHF was off-hook.
Failing that, Nevilles 3.26am call may not have changed into a 999 status until much later in the early hours of the morning
There is no evidence that the WHF line ever had a 999 status.
. . . the operator reported she could hear a dog barking when she reported the phone at the farm being off the hook
At 3:42am (according to Pc West's log), the operator told Pc West that the explanation of the engaged tone was that the receiver at WHF was off-hook. She didn't mention hearing a dog barking until later on, after another line check had been requested. On that later occasion, the line was still engaged due to being off-hook, but there was a new piece of information, that a dog had been heard barking. The line's status hadn't changed. What the operator could hear, whether a dog barking, sounds possibly caused by the raid team, or anything else of that nature, had no bearing on the line status. The line remained engaged because it was off-hook. Whether the police happened to write "off-hook" or "engaged" in their log on each occasion is irrelevant.
. . . why would it suddenly become engaged at 5.47am?
It didn't suddenly become engaged. It was necessarily engaged at all times when the receiver was off-hook.
. . . at 6.08am...
The police log suggests that the police asked the operator to switch the line to the police HQ using the 999 system, but the operator explained in her statement that she connected the WHF line to the police HQ using a normal exchange line, not the 999 system (which she wasn't allowed to use for that purpose).
. . . somebody inside the farmhouse made a 999 emergency call requesting ambulances
I've seen no evidence that the WHF line was used to make a 999 call for that purpose or that any 999 call was used to request the ambulances. However, the police could have asked for ambulances to attend using that line whilst it was off-hook and being listened to by the operator. I haven't seen anything to indicate that occurred, but it's technically possible. I think it's more likely that the police at WHF used their radio instead.
-
Once upon a time you too thought that JM's statements were a disgrace. I can understand you changing from innocent to guilty,but can't understand why you would change your mind with what are deemed to be lies which JM rattled off.
Yes. I hold my hands up to it. I'll even go as far as to say that Julie MAY have gone to the police after he dumped her because she felt safe to do that. It doesn't make her a liar, though. WAY too many people have been called liars in an effort to prove that Jeremy is innocent. It stands to reason that they can't all be such. If you're going to say that each of them had a motive, it must make Jeremy the most disliked person in the whole of Essex prior to the murders, and that everyone of those who 'framed' him had been biding their time until they could find a way to do so.
-
There's no getting away from the fact that you'd implied that's what I'd said.
However-----all the altering/editing reducing volume of certain statements ( probably by destruction ) was done by EP and those on the side of the prosecution.
Because of the sheer reduction of documents meant for the defence,I'd hardly imagine that any of those would have been altered in any way.
The prosecution only presented those documents which they'd cherry-picked to make the biggest impact------the silencer,which had been an afterthought and JM's ramblings which were written out of spite. What else was there when no evidence was found that connected JB to the murders ?
Hello lookout IMO EP have evidence that shows Sheila murdered her family then herself. Sadly they may have destroyed it when they burnt evidence against the Courts instructions it must have been items they did not want anyone else to see :(
-
Yes. I hold my hands up to it. I'll even go as far as to say that Julie MAY have gone to the police after he dumped her because she felt safe to do that. It doesn't make her a liar, though. WAY too many people have been called liars in an effort to prove that Jeremy is innocent. It stands to reason that they can't all be such. If you're going to say that each of them had a motive, it must make Jeremy the most disliked person in the whole of Essex prior to the murders, and that everyone of those who 'framed' him had been biding their time until they could find a way to do so.
was she a liar when you thought he was innocent Jane. . ? Or did you believe what she had said was the truth then.
-
Once upon a time you too thought that JM's statements were a disgrace. I can understand you changing from innocent to guilty,but can't understand why you would change your mind with what are deemed to be lies which JM rattled off.
Lookout it has proved without a doubt that Mugford is a pathological liar. She has even held her hands up to the fact. Most people on this forum agree with this and that's why there are only a handful of people on this forum who believe Jeremy is guilty.
The next documentary that airs I am sure she will have the chance to have her say about her involvement in the WHF murders. I believe it will be detrimental for her not to be involved
-
was she a liar when you thought he was innocent Jane. . ? Or did you believe what she had said was the truth then.
Notsure, I'm pretty certain, back then, I thought she'd acted out of vengeance because he'd dumped her, but there are ALWAYS two sides to the same story and looking at it from the OTHER side, it was starting to feel as if everyone connected with the case -that is EVERYONE. The whole kit and caboodle- were HAVING to be said to be liars and incompetents, in order for Jeremy to be innocent. It simply ceased to make any sort of sense. Add to that 20/25 wasted minutes of diddling through a phone book and a call to Julie -for no reason, other than to tell her everything was going well- BEFORE calling the police following a "panicked" call from his father at silly o'clock to say that his sister had gone mad and had hold of a gun, and suddenly, Jeremy doesn't appear quite as innocent.
-
Lookout it has proved without a doubt that Mugford is a pathological liar. She has even held her hands up to the fact. Most people on this forum agree with this and that's why there are only a handful of people on this forum who believe Jeremy is guilty.
The next documentary that airs I am sure she will have the chance to have her say about her involvement in the WHF murders. I believe it will be detrimental for her not to be involved
Please point us all to where Julie has held up her hands and confessed to being a liar. I feel perfectly confident that she won't be taking part in any documentary any time soon.
-
Notsure, I'm pretty certain, back then, I thought she'd acted out of vengeance because he'd dumped her, but there are ALWAYS two sides to the same story and looking at it from the OTHER side, it was starting to feel as if everyone connected with the case -that is EVERYONE. The whole kit and caboodle- were HAVING to be said to be liars and incompetents, in order for Jeremy to be innocent. It simply ceased to make any sort of sense. Add to that 20/25 wasted minutes of diddling through a phone book and a call to Julie -for no reason, other than to tell her everything was going well- BEFORE calling the police following a "panicked" call from his father at silly o'clock to say that his sister had gone mad and had hold of a gun, and suddenly, Jeremy doesn't appear quite as innocent.
thanks but what do you suppose happens when miscarriages of justice happen Jane. It has been proven that because police THINK they have the guilty person they ensure the story fits to get a conviction. This is happening all the time Jane, people are being fitted up. Circumstantial evidence cases are dangerous because it's who tells the better story on the day.
Im not sure why you seem to use the fact that you can't see this amount of people lying in this case when it's clearly happened in so many others.
-
thanks but what do you suppose happens when miscarriages of justice happen Jane. It has been proven that because police THINK they have the guilty person they ensure the story fits to get a conviction. This is happening all the time Jane, people are being fitted up. Circumstantial evidence cases are dangerous because it's who tells the better story on the day.
Im not sure why you seem to use the fact that you can't see this amount of people lying in this case when it's clearly happened in so many others.
Are you saying that just because MOJ's DO happen, this has to be one? As I said to Lookout, I wonder just how many of the 700 cases of alleged MOJ's are the real deal.
-
Hello lookout IMO EP have evidence that shows Sheila murdered her family then herself. Sadly they may have destroyed it when they burnt evidence against the Courts instructions it must have been items they did not want anyone else to see :(
It wouldn't surprise me if EP have burned all the documents and photographs that have been requested for months now,and they're too dishonest to say so. Which,if they have,will show the world just what they're like and how underhanded they'd been about this case.
-
Are you saying that just because MOJ's DO happen, this has to be one? As I said to Lookout, I wonder just how many of the 700 cases of alleged MOJ's are the real deal.
no I'm not saying that, I'm saying I don't get why you seem so adamant that it couldn't be because so many people couldn't have lied
-
no I'm not saying that, I'm saying I don't get why you seem so adamant that it couldn't be because so many people couldn't have lied
And I'm equally interested to know why you're so adamant that he's innocent and a huge and diverse number of people lied -most having NOTHING to gain from it- and have kept faith with each other for 30+ years.
-
It wouldn't surprise me if EP have burned all the documents and photographs that have been requested for months now,and they're too dishonest to say so. Which,if they have,will show the world just what they're like and how underhanded they'd been about this case.
Hello lookout
and this evidence would show Sheila was the one who murdered her family then herself. I have never thought EP set out to be dishonest I thin k they got themselves in a pickle after Taff had said 4 murders one suicide I keep saying and saying when Taff studied the crime scene what he saw must have brought him to the conclusion it did otherwise he would have kept and open mind till a full investigation had been carried out this stays with me all the time and can never get me off Sheila being the killer.
-
There was obviously some misunderstanding. If the WHF line had completed a 999 call (by hanging up) and then been left off-hook, the prior 999 call would be irrelevant to the current status. If the 999 call hadn't been completed, the operator wouldn't have told Pc West that the receiver was simply off-hook. The operator made a statement in which she said that she connected the WHF line to the police HQ without using the 999 system, because she wasn't allowed to use the 999 system for that purpose.
It doesn't matter what line Pc West was using, as the engaged tone implies that the WHF line wasn't available. The operator told Pc West that the engaged tone was because the receiver at WHF was off-hook.
There is no evidence that the WHF line ever had a 999 status. Yes there is, its mentioned in one of the contemporaneously recorded police radio message logs that at 7.47am, the 999 open line from inside the kitchen to police back in the conytrol room, or the Communications room or wherever, was requested to be closed down!
At 3:42am (according to Pc West's log), the operator told Pc West that the explanation of the engaged tone was that the receiver at WHF was off-hook. She reported the line was off the hook,
then later on she reported the line was enaged, and then she linked the open line from inside the farm to the police back in the control room! She was only able to do this because by the time she transferred that line to the police at 6.08am, the phone inside whf had already made a 999 call! That link via the 999 system remained in use for one hour and 39 minutes before it was requested that the 999 open line to the farmhouse should be closed down..She didn't mention hearing a dog barking until later on, after another line check had been requested. The line being off the hook, is the same as when the operator heard the dog barking! She would not have been able to hear the dog barking if the phone was engagedOn that later occasion, the line was still engaged a phone off the hook where the operator can hear a dog barking is not the same as a phone that is recorded as being engaged..due to being off-hook,You are trying to merge two different states in which the phone inside the farmhouse was in, as representing the same which I do not believe to be true and its not technically possible... but there was a new piece of information, that a dog had been heard barking. A dog heard barking because when the operator heard the dog barking the handset of the phone was off the hook, not engaged!The line's status hadn't changed. It had..What the operator could hear, whether a dog barking, sounds possibly caused by the raid team, or anything else of that nature, had no bearing on the line status.
It does, because if when the operator checked the phone at the farmhouse (5.47am) and she got an engaged tone, she would not also be able to hear a dog barking, its not technically possible! The line remained engaged because it was off-hook. It did not remain in the same state,
it could not be off the hook, and producing an engaged tone when the operator checked it at 5.47am,
and she be able to hear a dog barking unless the state of the phone altered or changed, unless the caller had attempted to make a 999 call, which allowed the operator to bypass the engaged tone she was receiving by 5.47am, and switch the phone using the 999 system to the police by 6.08am. There was clearly a 999 open line link created by the operator at 6.08am, which was requested to be closed down at 7.47am, after only two of the five bodies had been found...Whether the police happened to write "off-hook" or "engaged" in their log on each occasion is irrelevant. I disagree, its a significant difference, technically and factually...
It didn't suddenly become engaged. It did at 5.47am, and the fact that it had become engaged was noted in the log... It was necessarily engaged at all times when the receiver was off-hook.No, it wasn't engaged at all times, it was clearly off the hook at one time or another, and it became engaged at 5.47am, and by 6.08am the operator patched the farmhouse phone directly to the police back in the control room or wherever, by the 999 system, which was closed down at 7.47am. There were clear differences in the state of the farmhouse phone at different stages of the siege which was ongoing from after 3.48am, all the way through incorporating the reports that two bodies were found upon entry to the kitchen (7.30am, 7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, and 7.45am), until the line in question was itself closed down at precisely 7.47am. It was closed down, yet in the crime scene photographs we see the kitchen phone with its handset off the hook, and we find that a request was made for Harris to make contact with ACC Peter Simpson via the landline phone, once he, Gibbons and Montgomery entered the kitchen!
The police log suggests that the police asked the operator to switch the line to the police HQ using the 999 system, And she did.. but the operator explained in her statement that she connected the WHF line to the police HQ using a normal exchange line impossible, that couldn't be done back in the mid 1980's because of the old exchange system in use. There was simply no way an operator could patch a phone line with its handset off the hook, and be engaged at one and the same time, through to the police and the operator bypassing the engaged tone, to allow the police to listen in, lets say for a dog barking, or whatever, unless the original off the hook, or engaged phone had at some stage been used to either make, or attempt to make a 999 call! If we treat the information on Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am C6 log as Neville Bambers call to PC West as being made by an exchange line call, there is no way in all you have alluded to, with that handset being off the hook from 3.42am, onward, engaged tone blurting out after so many minutes of time had elapsed, for anybody including the operator to hear a dog barking, unless the status of the phone changed from it starting off as an exchange line call to PC West by 3.26 am, or thereabouts, and someone inside the farmhouse then dialling, or trying to dial 999. The explanation I have given is an accurate one! The operator did switch the call from the phone at the farm to the police by the 999 system, because by that stage (long after 3.42am) somebody who was still very much alive inside the house used that phone intending to summon ambulances for the wounded,
the dying, or for what its worth, the dead..., not the 999 system (which she wasn't allowed to use for that purpose). She wouldn't have been able to switch the exchange line phone call from the house to the police, in the circumstances you are implying, it simply would not have been technically possible because of the old exchange system in use at that time!
I've seen no evidence that the WHF line was used to make a 999 call for that purpose or that any 999 call was used to request the ambulances. Wait until the statements become available which deals with who requested the ambulances, and why...However, the police could have asked for ambulances to attend using that line whilst it was off-hook There's absolutely no evidence suggesting that,
for reasons best known to Essex police and the CPS and its affiliates, they don't want anyone knowing anything at all about this feature in the case, but somebody called for the ambulances, and they had a specific reason for doing so! One ambulance to go directly to the house, and the other ambulance to remain on standby parked up in Pages Lane, so what is that all about? and being listened to by the operator. I haven't seen anything to indicate that occurred, but it's technically possible. I think it's more likely that the police at WHF used their radio instead. Very odd though that there is no contemporaneous message log record confirming the truth...
-
And I'm equally interested to know why you're so adamant that he's innocent and a huge and diverse number of people lied -most having NOTHING to gain from it- and have kept faith with each other for 30+ years.
Well
I am open to him being guilty Jane it's just none of it seems to convince me. That's the problem isn't it with circumstantial cases it's whose story you believe. I would not have convicted on the evidence fence we have available.
I don't actually think that many people lied Jane but then again why do any of them lie in mojs. None have f it makes
Much sense
-
Please point us all to where Julie has held up her hands and confessed to being a liar. I feel perfectly confident that she won't be taking part in any documentary any time soon.
.
She carried out several cheque frauds which she held her hands up
Obviously in any documentary Mugford had major role in the whole case and she would obviously be given the chance to tell her side of the story and why she decided to cash in on the tragedy
-
Are you saying that just because MOJ's DO happen, this has to be one? As I said to Lookout, I wonder just how many of the 700 cases of alleged MOJ's are the real deal.
Well you obviously have no idea which ones are real
Are you suggesting we keep them all locked up incase there is one that gets away
-
And I'm equally interested to know why you're so adamant that he's innocent and a huge and diverse number of people lied -most having NOTHING to gain from it- and have kept faith with each other for 30+ years.
I suggest you look at the numerous highly intelligent people who do believe Jeremy is innocent and let's start with Ewen smith, Mark Williams Thomas and Simon McKay
-
Well
I am open to him being guilty Jane it's just none of it seems to convince me. That's the problem isn't it with circumstantial cases it's whose story you believe. I would not have convicted on the evidence fence we have available.
I don't actually think that many people lied Jane but then again why do any of them lie in mojs. None have f it makes
Much sense
To make him innocent you have to make very sweeping excuses for his callous behaviours post massacre.
If his lack of urgency after the alleged call from Nevill fails to make you suspicious, there's his story to Colin about how Ann -allegedly- wanted to cover Sheila's coffin with black roses. There are his attempts to raise cash by selling nude pictures of Sheila to the press. There's his discourtesy in having Sheila cremated without asking Colin what he'd like -albeit they were divorced, she was the mother of his children. There's his total disrespect for the rest of the family in not keeping them in the loop over funeral arrangements. Whilst it maybe said that he wasn't on the best of terms with most of them, what about Auntie Pam, June's sister. Couldn't he have extended a little sympathy by acknowledging her loss? Of course, you can argue that none of this makes him a murderer. However, it surely must make you question his innocence.
-
Well you obviously have no idea which ones are real
Are you suggesting we keep them all locked up incase there is one that gets away
Well, you obviously have no idea which ones are real.
Are you suggesting we let them all out in case one might be innocent?
-
I suggest you look at the numerous highly intelligent people who do believe Jeremy is innocent and let's start with Ewen smith, Mark Williams Thomas and Simon McKay
Those are the only ones you ever mention! Not sure that any of them believe he's innocent!
-
Well, you obviously have no idea which ones are real.
Are you suggesting we let them all out in case one might be innocent?
I never suggested anything you did.
I personally believe there are numerous innocent people in prison due to the discraceful behaviour of some police officers who still believe in noble cause corruption
-
Well
I am open to him being guilty Jane it's just none of it seems to convince me. That's the problem isn't it with circumstantial cases it's whose story you believe. I would not have convicted on the evidence fence we have available.
I don't actually think that many people lied Jane but then again why do any of them lie in mojs. None have f it makes
Much sense
Hello notsure I thought Jeremy was guilty for a short while then I came back to where I started and I firmly believe he is innocent. IMO I think without the silencer evidence and Julie's statement he would have walked free and I have had it from a good source that his Defence team thought the case would be dismissed. I have so many doubts about Julie and I honestly believe if Jeremy had stayed with her the case would never have gone to trial. I have never read that Jeremy has mental health problems but IMO anyone who could murder those two wee boys whilst they slept must have had mental problems.
-
.
She carried out several cheque frauds which she held her hands up
Obviously in any documentary Mugford had major role in the whole case and she would obviously be given the chance to tell her side of the story and why she decided to cash in on the tragedy
So one misdemeanour at 20 creates her a liar for the rest of her life, despite that she owned up to it. Obviously, I imagine there are those who would take care to warn her and her family that there's a move afoot to create a pro Jeremy documentary. Having kept such a low profile for so long, I can't see her being eager to participate.
-
To make him innocent you have to make very sweeping excuses for his callous behaviours post massacre.
If his lack of urgency after the alleged call from Nevill fails to make you suspicious, there's his story to Colin about how Ann -allegedly- wanted to cover Sheila's coffin with black roses. There are his attempts to raise cash by selling nude pictures of Sheila to the press. There's his discourtesy in having Sheila cremated without asking Colin what he'd like -albeit they were divorced, she was the mother of his children. There's his total disrespect for the rest of the family in not keeping them in the loop over funeral arrangements. Whilst it maybe said that he wasn't on the best of terms with most of them, what about Auntie Pam, June's sister. Couldn't he have extended a little sympathy by acknowledging her loss? Of course, you can argue that none of this makes him a murderer. However, it surely must make you question his innocence.
Is this post a joke?
How about Mugfords callous behaviour when she couldn't wait to get in the mortuary and her callous behaviour selling herself to the News of the World
-
I suggest you look at the numerous highly intelligent people who do believe Jeremy is innocent and let's start with Ewen smith, Mark Williams Thomas and Simon McKay
Yeah. OK. That's 3
-
So one misdemeanour at 20 creates her a liar for the rest of her life, despite that she owned up to it. Obviously, I imagine there are those who would take care to warn her and her family that there's a move afoot to create a pro Jeremy documentary. Having kept such a low profile for so long, I can't see her being eager to participate.
So you have just accepted you were wrong again
-
Well you obviously have no idea which ones are real
Are you suggesting we keep them all locked up incase there is one that gets away
Are you suggesting we let them all out just in case one might be a real MOJ?
-
Is this post a joke?
How about Mugfords callous behaviour when she couldn't wait to get in the mortuary and her callous behaviour selling herself to the News of the World
OH Jackie, Jackie! You've done that one to death. How many more times must you be told that she didn't give the others sleeping pills which left her the only option. Yes. I agree that the NOTW debacle showed her in appalling light....................on the other hand she didn't slaughter her family.
-
So you have just accepted you were wrong again
Wrong about WHAT?
-
Yeah. OK. That's 3
I know you spend your life forum hopping but I have no intention of making a list for you but I suggest you start with with the members list here and then the ct
That should keep you busy for a bit
-
Please point us all to where Julie has held up her hands and confessed to being a liar. I feel perfectly confident that she won't be taking part in any documentary any time soon.
Put your glasses on Jane.
Did Mugford admit to the Cheque book numerous frauds
-
OH Jackie, Jackie! You've done that one to death. How many more times must you be told that she didn't give the others sleeping pills which left her the only option. Yes. I agree that the NOTW debacle showed her in appalling light....................on the other hand she didn't slaughter her family.
You bought it up
FACT. Julie Mugford was a nasty CALLOUS piece of work
Good job she wasn't strong enough to suffocate Jeremy with that pillow or she would have been up for murder
-
Lookout it has proved without a doubt that Mugford is a pathological liar.....................
I'm not entirely certain that "pathological" can be attributed to Julie. There was a definite period in her life when she withheld certain truths, but pathological describes a liar who does it habitually and incessantly. There has been no proof of Julie doing so.
-
You bought it up
FACT. Julie Mugford was a nasty CALLOUS piece of work
Good job she wasn't strong enough to suffocate Jeremy with that pillow or she would have been up for murder
As is happened ........
-
You bought it up
FACT. Julie Mugford was a nasty CALLOUS piece of work
Good job she wasn't strong enough to suffocate Jeremy with that pillow or she would have been up for murder
FACT. In your OPINION JM "was a nasty CALLOUS piece of work". Your opinion has never been verified. Lovers do strange things at times, wouldn't you agree?
-
FACT. In your OPINION JM "was a nasty CALLOUS piece of work". Your opinion has never been verified. Lovers do strange things at times, wouldn't you agree?
I'm not entirely certain that "pathological" can be attributed to Julie. There was a definite period in her life when she withheld certain truths, but pathological describes a liar who does it habitually and incessantly. There has been no proof of Julie doing so.
How many shops did Mugford confidently carry out the Cheque book frauds in ?
-
FACT. In your OPINION JM "was a nasty CALLOUS piece of work". Your opinion has never been verified. Lovers do strange things at times, wouldn't you agree?
I don't know what people you mix with but I don't know anyone who has put a pillow over their boyfriends head
That's callous
-
Put your glasses on Jane.
Did Mugford admit to the Cheque book numerous frauds
Yes, but since WHEN does that make her a pathological liar which is someone who lies habitually every time they open their mouth?
-
I don't know what people you mix with but I don't know anyone who has put a pillow over their boyfriends head
That's callous
Perhaps none of them have told you. I agree it's not the friendliest thing to do but you'd be surprised how some relationships thrive on a little violence..................and she did say he'd shown her sex like never before.
-
To make him innocent you have to make very sweeping excuses for his callous behaviours post massacre.
If his lack of urgency after the alleged call from Nevill fails to make you suspicious, there's his story to Colin about how Ann -allegedly- wanted to cover Sheila's coffin with black roses. There are his attempts to raise cash by selling nude pictures of Sheila to the press. There's his discourtesy in having Sheila cremated without asking Colin what he'd like -albeit they were divorced, she was the mother of his children. There's his total disrespect for the rest of the family in not keeping them in the loop over funeral arrangements. Whilst it maybe said that he wasn't on the best of terms with most of them, what about Auntie Pam, June's sister. Couldn't he have extended a little sympathy by acknowledging her loss? Of course, you can argue that none of this makes him a murderer. However, it surely must make you question his innocence.
Exactly Jane you would convict because of the stories which you believe. It might be right for all I know but it's no way to conduct our criminal justice system
-
Exactly Jane you would convict because of the stories which you believe. It might be right for all I know but it's no way to conduct our criminal justice system
The jury should and did convict on the mountain of forensic and circumstantial evidence. Which shows 100% Bamber is guilty. Some of it is below from the 2002 COA report. It was posted this week and added to the library. Maybe you missed it.
But appreciate JackieD will always champion Bamber because Julie identified the twins. Susan said she is going to ignore the evidence & will continue to accuse Sheila of murdering her parents and children.
You need to decide what to do.
-----------------
Both hands and feet were covered with plastic bags at the crime scene.
Hands
Perfectly clean.
One blood mark on back of hand.
Extremley low levels of lead found on hands. Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected.
Finger nails
Well manicured.
Not broken.
Nails in tact.
Fingers
No marks or indentations.
No blood on finger tips.
No dirt on finger tips.
No powder on finger tips.
No trace of any lead dust coating.
No traces of the lubricant from reloading twice.
Feet
Perfectly clean.
Free from blood staining.
No debris such as sugar.
No mention of foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight.
Nightdress
Only Sheila Caffell's blood on it.
No presence of firearm residue.
No trace of rifle oil.
No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight.
-
Perhaps none of them have told you. I agree it's not the friendliest thing to do but you'd be surprised how some relationships thrive on a little violence..................and she did say he'd shown her sex like never before.
You are trying to normalise everything she does
It is not normal behaviour, that was violent and callous behaviour because she couldn't have what she wanted
A very dangerous women
-
Is this post a joke?
How about Mugfords callous behaviour when she couldn't wait to get in the mortuary and her callous behaviour selling herself to the News of the World
Jackie my thoughts exactly Julie was posing showing her thigh smiling she forgot that the money she was to receive was because of the deaths of 5 people two of them children and the man she loved had just been convicted of their murders this seems callous to me she really should have been heart broken.
-
You are trying to normalise everything she does
It is not normal behaviour, that was violent and callous behaviour because she couldn't have what she wanted
A very dangerous women
Jackie, in my world, 'normal' means something different to each individual. Guess what, everyone has their own view of what normal is.
-
To make him innocent you have to make very sweeping excuses for his callous behaviours post massacre.
If his lack of urgency Stop right there, for a moment!after the alleged call from Nevill fails to make you suspicious Nothing Jeremy says in his account of the truth looks suspicious!, there's his story to Colin about how Ann -allegedly- wanted to cover Sheila's coffin with black roses. Whether true or false, it hardly establishes the Jeremy murdered his sister, and staged her death scene on the bedroom floor frm 10am, onward.. There are his attempts to raise cash by selling nude pictures of Sheila to the press. How does this make Jeremy guilty, even if what your alluding to,
is or could be correct? There's his discourtesy in having Sheila cremated without asking Colin what he'd like if this was even true, how does this establish Jeremy's culpability for shooting dead his sister (after 8.10am) and staging her body as a supposed suicide on the bedroom floor, considering that Sheila's body was reportedly found in the kirchen upon entry (7.30am, 7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am and 7.45am) that Sheila's body was laid on top of the bed when DS Stan Jones and DC Mick Clark viewed Sheila's body on top of the bed in the main bedroom after their arrival there at the scene after 9.05am, only for Sheila's body to end up on the bedroom floor by 10am, her body in possession of an anshuzt rifle (please) that at and from 7.15am that morning was resting there at the first floor box room window (not the main bedroom window)? How did the anshuzt rifle manage to get from its original location against the first floor box room window at 7.15am, onto Sheila's body by 10am, and even if this were true, please, how the hell or by the grace of god, could Jeremy have manipulated that rifle, from the box room window at 7.15am, into and onto the body of Sheila Caffell, by and from 10am, onward? -albeit they were divorced, she was the mother of his children. There's his total disrespect for the rest of the family in not keeping them in the loop over funeral arrangements. I don't necessarily agree with this point of view!Whilst it maybe said that he wasn't on the best of terms with most of them, Well, let's try to put it into perspective Jeremy felt very strongly from a very early stage that all his relatives were what I can only describe as being ' money grabbers'.. what about Auntie Pam, June's sister. excluding PamelàCouldn't he have extended a little sympathy by acknowledging her loss? I'm sure he did, I don't think Jeremy ever suspected that his aunty Pam was trying to rip him off!Of course, you can argue that none of this makes him a murderer. It doesn't..However, it surely must make you question his innocence. or that it establishes his innocence!!
-
Had you read what I'd written, you'd have seen that I accepted that whilst nothing I'd said made him a murderer, it certainly DID make his innocence questionable. As for the rest, it's words you've added, NOT words I've suggested.
-
I don't think this forum is going anywhere until the legal forces behind it and Jeremy's team spill some of the beans they've got in their can..
-
I don't think this forum is going anywhere until the legal forces behind it and Jeremy's team spill some of the beans they've got in their can..
I'm not convinced the can even exists Steve, let alone the beans. :-\
-
I'm not convinced the can even exists Steve, let alone the beans. :-\
Keep convincing yourself if you like egg on your face. ;)
-
. . . it's mentioned in one of the contemporaneously recorded police radio message logs that at 7.47am, the 999 open line from inside the kitchen to police back in the control room, or the Communications room or wherever, was requested to be closed down
At best, that would merely show that the officer who wrote that in the log thought that reference was correct. We know, however, that the BT operator isn't allowed to use the 999 system in that way, and she stated that she didn't.
She reported the line was off the hook, then later on she reported the line was engaged, and then she linked the open line from inside the farm to the police back in the control room!
At about 3:42 am, she was specifically asked why the line was engaged. She informed Pc West that the handset was off-hook. Hence the line was both off-hook and engaged at that time. She didn't at that time mention hearing a dog barking.
She was only able to do this because by the time she transferred that line to the police at 6.08am, the phone inside whf had already made a 999 call!
You've provided no proof of that - it's just your assertion, apparently based on mistakenly taking some log entries as being accurate in every particular, even though the relevant detail was explicitly denied by the BT operator.
That link via the 999 system remained in use for one hour and 39 minutes
The BT operator explicitly stated that she set up the connection to police HQ to let them listen in by using a normal line, as she wasn't allowed to use the 999 system for that purpose. The police might have suggested using the 999 system, but she was careful to state that she didn't do that. The officer who made the request might have assumed that she used the 999 system, but she didn't. Thus when the police wanted the link to be closed down, the way they described what happened could well have referred to the 999 system, even though the operator hadn't used it.
The line being off the hook, is the same as when the operator heard the dog barking!
The operator stated at 3:42am that the line was off-hook, but didn't mention hearing a dog barking until later.
She would not have been able to hear the dog barking if the phone was engaged
That's incorrect. At that time, the operator could eavesdrop on a line while it was off-hook, whether or not it was in use to make a call.
. . . a phone off the hook where the operator can hear a dog barking is not the same as a phone that is recorded as being engaged
The handset was known to be off-hook, and the handset being off-hook is sufficient to ensure that the line is engaged when anyone tries to dial it. Only operator-connected eavesdroppers (or BT technicians) can listen in on the line. The line status was still off-hook and engaged, even when the line was eavesdropped, and regardless of what was written in the logs, until the eavesdropping ceased and the handset was replaced on-hook, allowing the line to be used normally again. The police could then have taken the handset off its rest again to make a call or to restage the scene (or both).
. . . which I . . . believe to be technically possible
It's possible, and the handset being off-hook ensures that the line is engaged (or disconnected altogether).
. . . the phone was off the hook, not engaged
It's technically impossible for the handset to be taken off-hook without the line immediately becoming engaged, unless the line was disconnected (but it wasn't). Being engaged doesn't mean that an engaged tone is placed on the line. The engaged tone is instead placed on the line of anyone who attempts to make a call to the engaged number. The only exception is when BT eavesdrops on the line.
. . . she would not also be able to hear a dog barking, its not technically possible
The engaged tone is intermittent, so it wouldn't prevent the operator from listening. However, it is probably the case that the operator could choose to terminate the engaged tone she heard, and eavesdrop on the line instead. Anyone else who dialled the WHF number would still receive the engaged tone in those circumstances.
. . . unless the state of the phone altered or changed
The only change was the creation of an eavesdrop, but the handset remained off-hook and the line remained engaged due to the handset being off-hook. That didn't change until the eavesdropping ended and the handset was replaced.
. . . unless the caller had attempted to make a 999 call
Attempting to make any outgoing call from WHF would have failed unless the handset was first replaced and then lifted again so that a dial tone could be obtained.
There was clearly a 999 open line link created by the operator at 6.08am, which was requested to be closed down at 7.47am
That's incorrect, as the operator explicitly stated that the eavesdrop she set up didn't use the 999 system. The log's mention of 999 was therefore just an incorrect assumption by the officer who made the log entry.
. . that it had become engaged was noted in the log
The operator confirmed that it was still engaged, not that it had just become engaged. Off-hook is not a line status, just an explanation of why the line is engaged.
impossible, that couldn't be done back in the mid 1980's because of the old exchange system in use. There was simply no way an operator could patch a phone line with its handset off the hook, and be engaged at one and the same time, through to the police and the operator bypassing the engaged tone, to allow the police to listen in, lets say for a dog barking, or whatever, unless the original off the hook, or engaged phone had at some stage been used to either make, or attempt to make a 999 call
That's definitely incorrect. It's important that BT can eavesdrop on a line with a handset off-hook, especially when asked to do so by the police. This is independent of the 999 system.
. . . somebody who was still very much alive inside the house used that phone intending to summon ambulances for the wounded
That would be easy to do by just replacing the handset and then lifting it again, which would result in a dial tone and allow any outgoing call to be made.
. . . One ambulance to go directly to the house, and the other ambulance to remain on standby parked up in Pages Lane
How do you know that unless it's mentioned in at least one log or statement, or in court?
-
The ambulances are mentioned in a log.
-
Keep convincing yourself if you like egg on your face. ;)
If he is innocent Lookout, and something comes out to prove it, then I'll provide the eggs.
I hate eggs. >:(
-
At best, that would merely show that the officer who wrote that in the log thought that reference was correct. We know, however, that the BT operator isn't allowed to use the 999 system in that way, and she stated that she didn't.
At about 3:42 am, she was specifically asked why the line was engaged. She informed Pc West that the handset was off-hook. Hence the line was both off-hook and engaged at that time. She didn't at that time mention hearing a dog barking.
You've provided no proof of that - it's just your assertion, apparently based on mistakenly taking some log entries as being accurate in every particular, even though the relevant detail was explicitly denied by the BT operator.
The BT operator explicitly stated that she set up the connection to police HQ to let them listen in by using a normal line, as she wasn't allowed to use the 999 system for that purpose. The police might have suggested using the 999 system, but she was careful to state that she didn't do that. The officer who made the request might have assumed that she used the 999 system, but she didn't. Thus when the police wanted the link to be closed down, the way they described what happened could well have referred to the 999 system, even though the operator hadn't used it.
The operator stated at 3:42am that the line was off-hook, but didn't mention hearing a dog barking until later.
That's incorrect. At that time, the operator could eavesdrop on a line while it was off-hook, whether or not it was in use to make a call.
The handset was known to be off-hook, and the handset being off-hook is sufficient to ensure that the line is engaged when anyone tries to dial it. Only operator-connected eavesdroppers (or BT technicians) can listen in on the line. The line status was still off-hook and engaged, even when the line was eavesdropped, and regardless of what was written in the logs, until the eavesdropping ceased and the handset was replaced on-hook, allowing the line to be used normally again. The police could then have taken the handset off its rest again to make a call or to restage the scene (or both).
It's possible, and the handset being off-hook ensures that the line is engaged (or disconnected altogether).
It's technically impossible for the handset to be taken off-hook without the line immediately becoming engaged, unless the line was disconnected (but it wasn't). Being engaged doesn't mean that an engaged tone is placed on the line. The engaged tone is instead placed on the line of anyone who attempts to make a call to the engaged number. The only exception is when BT eavesdrops on the line.
The engaged tone is intermittent, so it wouldn't prevent the operator from listening. However, it is probably the case that the operator could choose to terminate the engaged tone she heard, and eavesdrop on the line instead. Anyone else who dialled the WHF number would still receive the engaged tone in those circumstances.
The only change was the creation of an eavesdrop, but the handset remained off-hook and the line remained engaged due to the handset being off-hook. That didn't change until the eavesdropping ended and the handset was replaced.
Attempting to make any outgoing call from WHF would have failed unless the handset was first replaced and then lifted again so that a dial tone could be obtained.
That's incorrect, as the operator explicitly stated that the eavesdrop she set up didn't use the 999 system. The log's mention of 999 was therefore just an incorrect assumption by the officer who made the log entry.
The operator confirmed that it was still engaged, not that it had just become engaged. Off-hook is not a line status, just an explanation of why the line is engaged.
That's definitely incorrect. It's important that BT can eavesdrop on a line with a handset off-hook, especially when asked to do so by the police. This is independent of the 999 system.
That would be easy to do by just replacing the handset and then lifting it again, which would result in a dial tone and allow any outgoing call to be made.
How do you know that unless it's mentioned in at least one log or statement, or in court?
Have you changed your stance on the case Reader? Do you believe JB is guilty?
-
I'm not convinced the can even exists Steve, let alone the beans. :-\
Well you and your mates have got nothing to worry about have you
-
Well you and your mates have got nothing to worry about have you
Most of my mates don't even know about the case, the rest (like me) couldn't care less, so I'm not quite sure what you mean? :-\
-
Have you changed your stance on the case Reader? Do you believe JB is guilty?
No, but I'm less confident that the statement made by Pc Cracknell is reliable in all of its details. If it is, Bill Robertson's points are supported. Of course, Bill also asserted he has found more that goes beyond what's available on this site.
-
No, but I'm less confident that the statement made by Pc Cracknell is reliable in all of its details. If it is, Bill Robertson's points are supported. Of course, Bill also asserted he has found more that goes beyond what's available on this site.
That's fair enough, I can't really have a view on claims regarding information that isn't available.
I'm not sure what you mean about Cracknell, is there anything in particular which causes you concern?
-
I've only seen this statement.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg34511.html#msg34511
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1091.msg34511.html#msg34511)
-
Have you changed your stance on the case Reader? Do you believe JB is guilty?
I was thinking the same thing!
-
Reader may be agreeing with the trial judge, who said it could only be Sheila or Bamber. With all the forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila, stance changes have to be made.
There have been post trial suggestions that RB, AE, a random stranger, a hit man or SAS style hit man team committed the massacre. These are unproven.
TomG said his 27th May post was his 'last hoot' after his innocence posts were taken apart & Sherlock said this month 'it was not possible for Sheila to have shot herself'.
But not everyone will change stance. JackieD bases her support on Julie's actions rather than forensic evidence, while Roch constantly & Bill once a year saying they have undisclosed evidence is very persuasive to Susan.
-
Reader may be agreeing with the trial judge, who said it could only be Sheila or Bamber. With all the forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila, stance changes have to be made.
There have been post trial suggestions from supporters of RB, AE, a random stranger, a hit man or SAS style hit man team committing the massacre. These suggestions are unlikely to have any impact if the CCRC ever look at the case again.
TomG said his 27th May post was his 'last hoot' after his innocence posts were taken apart & Sherlock agreed this month that Sheila 'couldn't have killed herself'.
Some supporters base their guilt/innocence stance on Julie's actions rather than forensic evidence, which again would not influence the CCRC. While Roch constantly & Bill once a year saying they have undisclosed evidence is very persuasive to Susan.
Does it never occur to you that Roch just MIGHT have undisclosed evidence which cannot be denied/disproved?
It is always wise to hedge your bets Adam, you can never be totally sure you have backed the right horse. ;)
-
Does it never occur to you that Roch just MIGHT have undisclosed evidence which cannot be denied/disproved?
It is always wise to hedge your bets Adam, you can never be totally sure you have backed the right horse. ;)
Well I'm getting sick and tired of undisclosed evidence from whatever quarter it may emanate. Since this is Bill Robertson's thread I'll recall his recent comment and give those concerned until Christmas to put the material in the public domain and let us all make up our own minds.
-
Well I'm getting sick and tired of undisclosed evidence from whatever quarter it may emanate. Since this is Bill Robertson's thread I'll recall his recent comment and give those concerned until Christmas to put the material in the public domain and let us all make up our own minds.
It's not really about 'us making up our own minds' is it Steve? Surely it's about whether someone who has been in prison for 53 years actually deserves to be there or not.
If he shouldn't be there I hope justice takes it course but of course like the wheels of hell, justice also grinds extremely slow.
-
Reader may be agreeing with the trial judge, who said it could only be Sheila or Bamber. With all the forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila, stance changes have to be made.
There have been post trial suggestions that RB, AE, a random stranger, a hit man or SAS style hit man team committed the massacre. These are unproven.
TomG said his 27th May post was his 'last hoot' after his innocence posts were taken apart & Sherlock said this month 'it was not possible for Sheila to have shot herself'.
But not everyone will change stance. JackieD bases her support on Julie's actions rather than forensic evidence, while Roch constantly & Bill once a year saying they have undisclosed evidence is very persuasive to Susan.
::)
"Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."
-
Does it never occur to you that Roch just MIGHT have undisclosed evidence which cannot be denied/disproved?
It is always wise to hedge your bets Adam, you can never be totally sure you have backed the right horse. ;)
I think people should be wary of having the wool pulled over their eyes, by either argument.
As we can't even agree on an interpretation of the information which IS available, it's really quite difficult to have any faith in a person's interpretation of something which isn't available.
-
At best, that would merely show that the officer who wrote that in the log thought that reference was correct. Or to put it in the simplest way possible, what the officer wrote was correct..We know, however, that the BT operator isn't allowed to use the 999 system in that way, and she stated that she didn't. She did not make her own witness statement about this, it was prepared for her by a police officer who had a mindset to try and conceal the truth about the phone changing status whilst armed police officers surounded the farm, changing from being off the hook, into it becoming engaged, then becoming a 999 call, which the police logs clear state was patched through to the police at 6.08am, and closed down at 7.47am...
At about 3:42 am, she was specifically asked why the line was engaged.No, she was asked to check the phone and she reported back that the phone was off the hook.. She informed Pc West that the handset was off-hook. Because it was off the hook it wasn't engaged.. Hence the line was both off-hook and engaged at that time. No, thats just your assumption, if the phone had been engaged when the operator was asked to check the line, she would have told PC West that the phone was engaged, and the operator would have been able to obtain the telephone number of the phone it was engaged with, or to. When the phone is off the hook it is not engaged to an operator, it is simply off the hook with its own dialling tone! If anyone elsewhere tries to phone the phone which has its hanset off the hook, of course the caller will receive an engaged tone!She didn't at that time mention hearing a dog barking. She did not hear the dog barking because the phone was not engaged with another line, it was just off the hook with its own dialling tone! By 3.42am, after Neville Bamber had made his call to PC West (3.26am, or shortly beforehand the exchange line call either remained open and was engaged with the police until for whatever reason it got terminated. If it got terminated somewhere inbetween say around 3.26am and 3.42am when the operator checked the phone, this would fit in snugly with the phone being off the hook by 3.42am, but the dialing tone would have automatically kicked in after a few minutes, leaving the phone at the farm off its cradle, or off the hook, with a dialling tone sounding in the handset! Yes, the operator back in the mid 1980's would have been able to check the line and confirm the phone was off the hook, but she would not be able to eavesdrop the background beyond the handset once the dialing tone was operating in the handset of the phone. An operator couldn't do this back in the mid 1980's because of the old exchange system in use in that era! That's why she didn't report hearing a dog barking by that stage! She only reported hearing a dog barking in the background once the status of the phone altered, into it becoming engaged! It became engaged because someone who was still very much alive inside the farmhouse depressed the cradle on the phone which dismissed the dialling tone and the caller was able to make a call, the caller was in the process of calling someone, or trying to call someone when at 5.47am, the operator was asked to check the phone again and she found it to be engaged, and thats what she reported to the police at the time of that check! What becomes apparent is that the operator has used different jargon at different stages of her involvement in checking the farmhouse phone, initially she uses the jargon, phone is off the hook, which changes at 5.47am, when she uses the jargon that the phone is engaged - both of these states of the phone do not relate to one condition in the state of a phone! Since, a phone can be off the hook with its dialing tone sounding and the phone not be engaged with any other phone! You can't say the phone is engaged in those circumstances because it isn't, its just off the hook! Admittedly, should any outsider try to ring that phone with its handset off its cradle sounding its dialing tone, any such outside caller would be greeted by an engaged tone but that would only be to the caller, since the phone off the hook would still be chiming out its dialling tone! This was what Jeremy was met with when he tried to phone Neville Bamber back after the call was cut short, Jeremy quite correctly states that he kept getting a constant engaged tone! Same thing happened when PC West tried ringing the farmhouse he got the same engaged tone, whilst back at the farm the phone was simply off the hook blurting out its dialing tone! The operator then checked the phone and she was able to say with a degree of certainty that the phone in question was off the hook! She knew this because when she checked the phone she did not get an engaged tone like Jeremy and then PC West had both done beforehand, she was able to tell the phone was off the hook because by that stage (3.42am, or thereabouts) she knew that the phone was in a state where its dialling tone was operating, and no new telephone number had been dialled, by that stage, so she called it as it was, the phone was simply off the hook! But things changed later, because by 5.47am the same phone was checked by the operator and by then it was reportedly now engaged! This is a different state in the phone than the handset simply being off the hook with its dialing tone sounding! When a phone is engaged, and there is an obvious difference between a laymen trying to ring a phone with its handset off the hook sounding its dialling tone, and an operator checking the line of such a phone in such a state! The layman will get an engaged tone and may presume the phone is engaged, whereas the operator can tell the phone in question is not engaged, but simply has its handset off the hook..
You've provided no proof of that - it's just your assertion Well, what I can say is that when Nevilles call to Jeremy was cut short and Jeremy tried to recontact Neville and he kept getting an engaged tone, and similarly when PC West also checked the same phone and he got the same engaged tone, that neither Jeremy, nor PC West could have known that back at the farmhouse Neville was talking to somone on the farm phone, or whether the phone back at the farm was simply off the hook with its dialling tone sounding - but the operator could.., apparently based on mistakenly taking some log entries as being accurate in every particular Recorded in real time as things were happening and unfolding, with no time to edit or to try and exclude features of the truth, by way of paraphrasing for the sake of trying to hide the truth, as happened much later once the mindset of police altered..., even though the relevant detail was explicitly denied by the BT operator.The operator never testified during the trial or the appeal as far as I know. How do you know she made that witness statement herself?
The BT operator explicitly stated that she set up the connection to police HQ to let them listen in by using a normal line, Yes, and I think you have misinterpreted what is put in that particular statement! She is saying that she could not patch through the line she was eavesdropping on, through to the police because the line she was eavesdropping on was a 999 call, and she could not patch an extension of that line through to the police directly without the connection she had control over becoming disabled, so she patched the 999 call through to the police using a normal line! Just like a receptionist does in an office complex!as she wasn't allowed to use the 999 system for that purpose. But then again, maybe she did! Maybe she did patch the line through using the 999 system she was not supposed to use!The police might have suggested using the 999 system, Because she did use the 999 system. If she couldn't do that, for whatever reason, she would have told the police that, and that woulld have been noted in the log.. but she was careful to state that she didn't do that. It's not entirely clear what she stated, it depends how you treat what is said in the witness statement, and whether or not its her words or the paraphrased words of a police officer with a mindset who intends to conceal the fact that the call was patched through using the 999 system from 6.08am all the way through to 7.47am, all being recorded on audio tape! The officer who made the request might have assumed that she used the 999 system, He would have known that the line was switched using the 999 system because the call would be being recorded on the audio tapes which record all 999 calls1 These audio recordings would have had reference numbers, or serial numbers... but she didn't. I believe that she did, whats more the police know she did, and they know why a decision was taken to send two ambulances to the scene, one to go straight to the farmhouse and the other on standby...Thus when the police wanted the link to be closed down, the way they described what happened could well have referred to the 999 system, Because the 999 system was used, and it recorded the two bodies being reportedly found upon entry to the kitchen, it recorded the sound of the shot being discharged in the kitchen, to which an officers report (1612) refers... even though the operator hadn't used it.I don't believe it means what you are trying to imply...
The operator stated at 3:42am that the line was off-hook, Because it was.. but didn't mention hearing a dog barking until later.The dog was heard barking once the operator reported that the line had become engaged (5.47am)..
That's incorrect. At that time, the operator could eavesdrop on a line while it was off-hook, whether or not it was in use to make a call.Not if the phone was off the hook and it was sounding its own dialling tone, not back then in the mid 1980's with the old exchange system they had back then in that region...
The handset was known to be off-hook, please, include that its dialling tone was sounding... and the handset being off-hook is sufficient to ensure that the line is engaged when anyone tries to dial it. Only to the layman, but to an operator she could tell whether somebody was calling somebody else (in which case the line was engaged), or if the dialling tone was working Only operator-connected eavesdroppers (or BT technicians) can listen in on the line. Yes, but an operator could not patch through a normal line call to the police using the 999 system, since for that to happen the originall call being patched through would need to have been a 999 call..The line status was still off-hook but only in that state for a limited period of time (3.42am to 4.46am)and engaged yes, from 5.47am, onwards).., even when the line was eavesdropped it was eavesdropped using the 999 system from 6.08am to 7.47am that morning! From the operators point of view, she knew that the phone back at the farmhouse was linked to the police! Once she arranged that she never referred to the phone at the farm being off the hook, or engaged, but to the layman who might have been trying to get in touch with those inside the house they would keep getting the intermittent engaged tone. Once the operator switched the call from the house to the police using the 999 system which was documented and is there for all to see, it depends what state the phone back at the farm was in at the time the operator linked the house and the police together, as to what state the phone was in back at the house! The phone was either engaged, or it was off the hook displaying a dialling tone after it had ceased being engaged! Once the operator patched the house phone through to the police the phone back at the house would no longer be displaying a dialling tone, or an engaged tone, because the line between the house and the police remained open in its 999 state from 6.08am all the way through to just beyond the time of the shooting in the kitchen, the 999 open line was effectively closed down thereafter at 7.47am.., and regardless of what was written in the logs, Whats the point of keeping logs if your going to ignore them? until the eavesdropping ceased (7.47am).. and the handset was replaced on-hook Who replaced the kitchen phone back on its receiver?, allowing the line to be used normally again Used normally again? Who used it and what was the purpose of using such a significant piece of evidence? What did whoever talk about? Why is it that once the eavesdrop by way of the 999 open line was closed off, that we never got to hear what happened downstairs in the kitchen (after 7.47am) covering how Sheila regained consciousness and fled upstairs, and the commotion that occurred when Harris, Gibbons, and Montgomery entered the kitchen via the same route the raid team had entered!. The police could then have taken the handset off its rest again to make a call or to restage the scene (or both).
It's possible, and the handset being off-hook ensures that the line is engaged (or disconnected altogether). displaying its dialing tone, unless somebody unplgged the lead to the socket!
It's technically impossible for the handset to be taken off-hook without the line immediately becoming engaged Not necessarily, since when the handset is lifted from its cradle or receiver, the phone displays a dialling tone to the person in possession of the handset.Once that person dials a number to some other phone, the caller hears a ringing tone! To anybody else trying to ring that number they would get an engaged tone and would not be able to know whether the person at the other end of the line was talking to someone else on another line, or if the phone was off the hook, or if the phone off the hook was displaying a dialling tone, whereas an operator would be able to tell that difference.., unless the line was disconnected (but it wasn't). Being engaged doesn't mean that an engaged tone is placed on the line.No, it doesn't because what is happening with a phone subject of this issue, is different to how a layman might perceive that same phone, and this might be different to what the operator might know is happening with that phone - its not the same interpretation for everybody.. The engaged tone is instead placed on the line of anyone who attempts to make a call to the engaged number or, to the phone which is simply off the hook, displaying a dialling tone... The only exception is when BT eavesdrops on the line. Back in the mid 1980's the operator could not patch through a normal call line to the police, they could only patch through 999 calls using the open line 999 system, this was because of the old type of exchanges in use in that region at the time of this tragedy at whf...
The engaged tone is intermittent, so it wouldn't prevent the operator from listening. but any lay person ringing that number would not be able to hear a dog barking However, it is probably the case that the operator could choose to terminate the engaged tone she heard, and eavesdrop on the line instead. Ok, I can go along with that..Anyone else who dialled the WHF number would still receive the engaged tone in those circumstances. I've just said this..
The only change was the creation of an eavesdrop, No, the state of the phone changed from the operators perspective, from being off the hook at 3.42am, into an engaged call at 5.47am, into the line being switched by the operator from the house to the police using the 999 system, it remained in that state until 7.47am at which time the 999 open line was closed down, thats what did happen. Around the time the line from the farmhouse was switched to the police using the 999 system, ambulances were summoned for, two ambulances in fact, one to go to the farmhouse immediately, the other to be placed on standby parked up in Pages Lane! This request for ambulances to be brought to the scene coincided with the changes I have drawn attention to, in the state of the farmhouse phone, which went from being off the hook at 3.42 am, onwards, to becoming engaged at 5.47am, and then being switched by the operator via the 999 system at 6.08am so that police had a direct line into the heart of the farmhouse!but the handset remained off-hook As I have already explained, with the phone off the hook, it could be displaying a dialling tone, which to a person would mean they would get an engaged tone if they tried to ring the farmhouse phone with it in that state! But if an operator checked the line, the operator would be able to tell if the phone was off the hook because it was in use, or if the handset was off its cradle with its dialling tone sounding off. People in different places might get a different response and presume something which might not ordinarily be true insofar as the beliefs of other people in the same equation might apply. The person who left the phone off the hook, a lay person trying to ring that number, and the operator who knows why the lay person is getting an engaged tone, is the correct intepretation...and the line remained engaged due to the handset being off-hook. Not to an operator who would be able to tell that the phone was simply off the hook, not engaged in calling anyone at all.. That didn't change until the eavesdropping ended It did, because its recorded in the police message logs, phone off hook at 3.42am, onwards, phone engaged at 5.47am, phone switched using 999 system at 6.08am, 999 open line from kitchen to police closed down at 7.47am, with only two bodies reportedly found by that stage... and the handset was replaced. Who replaced it?
Attempting to make any outgoing call from WHF would have failed unless the handset was first replaced and then lifted again so that a dial tone could be obtained.So, when Harris entered the kitchen with Gibbopns and Montgomery, Harris used the kitchen phone to call ACC Simpson! We know he was on that phone with Simpson until around 8.30am, once Sheila had been relocated on the bed upstairs. Officially that was the time when the body count of two bodies downstars, and three bodies upstairs by 8.10am, altered into the body count downstairs (1) and upstairs (4) occurring! Harris spoke to Simpson regarding this in the presence of Gibbons and Montgomery! At that stage (8.30am) Montgomery assumed Commandership of the firearm operation from PS Adams, the reason for this was because the operation headed by PS Adams until 8.10am, had gone dramatically wrong and pearshaped!
That's incorrect, as the operator explicitly stated that the eavesdrop she set up didn't use the 999 system. The operator would not have been able to patch a normal call that had its handset off its cradle for so long that the exchange did an automatic reset and produced a dialling tone in the handset off the hook, through to the police using the 999 system, or by any other means because when the old exchange reset the dialling tone with the phone at the farm, any connection was forever lost and could not be retrieved... The log's mention of 999 was therefore just an incorrect assumption by the officer who made the log entry. No, it was accurately recorded!
The operator confirmed that it was still engaged,The operator said at first the phone was off the hook (3.42am), then it was engaged (5.47am, and at 6.08am she switched the line from the house to the police using the 999 system - use of the 999 system is restricted to 999 calls only, at least it was back in that part of Essex in the mid 1980's... not that it had just become engaged thats what is recorded in the contemporaneously recorded message logs!. Off-hook is not a line status It is, hence why when a phone was left off the hook the exchange system reset the dialing tone automatically after a few minutes. One the dialing tone was set it sure has to be termed as a state of the line!, just an explanation of why the line is engaged.It depends whose saying the phone is engaged, the caller, or the operator, the former might use that to described their attempt to ring a number, but the operator would know if the line was being used and therefore engaged, or if the phone was off the hook displaying a dialling tone!
That's definitely incorrect. It's important that BT can eavesdrop on a line with a handset off-hook, especially when asked to do so by the police. This is independent of the 999 system. Not back in that neck of the woods in the mid 1980's, and there was no way an operator could switch a normal line call that had already reverted to its dialing tone hours beforehand, to the police using the 999 system - it had to0 be a 999 call in the first instance for an operator to do that or this then...
-
::)
"Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."
Yes TomG did say my 8 facts why Bamber chose the rifle he did were 'straw man' reasons.
When I asked him what weapon Bamber should have used instead, he denied saying Bamber "used a totally inappropriate weapon" & asked me to find proof he did say it.
After I quoted his post he still wouldn't answer & then left the forum.
-
::)
"Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues."
Anyway how are you getting on with the 20 pieces of forensic evidence from the COA. Showing Sheila did not fire a rifle ?
Oh yes. You have posted a picture of a clean, bloodless, undamaged foot.
Then again, Julie did identify the twins.
-
I think people should be wary of having the wool pulled over their eyes, by either argument.
As we can't even agree on an interpretation of the information which IS available, it's really quite difficult to have any faith in a person's interpretation of something which isn't available.
Seeing is believing and Bill couldn't even decide if he knew Taff Jones or not. Alarm bells!
-
No, but I'm less confident that the statement made by Pc Cracknell is reliable in all of its details. If it is, Bill Robertson's points are supported. Of course, Bill also asserted he has found more that goes beyond what's available on this site.
Thank you for making that clear Reader. I always look forward to readin your posts
-
Well I'm getting sick and tired of undisclosed evidence from whatever quarter it may emanate. Since this is Bill Robertson's thread I'll recall his recent comment and give those concerned until Christmas to put the material in the public domain and let us all make up our own minds.
I would like to say when Mark Williams Thomas was in touch with me on a regular basis re the TV documentary he often sent me stuff and asked me not to post certain stuff on the open forum
I would never have gone against his wishes
-
It's not really about 'us making up our own minds' is it Steve? Surely it's about whether someone who has been in prison for 53 years actually deserves to be there or not.
If he shouldn't be there I hope justice takes it course but of course like the wheels of hell, justice also grinds extremely slow.
Maggie I can wait, I am just excited that Roch is confirming what I always believed. Roch is the last person who would make something up
-
Seeing is believing and Bill couldn't even decide if he knew Taff Jones or not. Alarm bells!
That's not true
Again!!!
-
Seeing is believing and Bill couldn't even decide if he knew Taff Jones or not. Alarm bells!
And he didn't know that a C1 form is a two ply carbon duplicate form.
-
I would like to say when Mark Williams Thomas was in touch with me on a regular basis re the TV documentary he often sent me stuff and asked me not to post certain stuff on the open forum
I would never have gone against his wishes
Is that the 2012 documentary just before the CCRC application ?
Not sure why he would ask for things to be kept private when he is simultaneously making a documentary on what the CCRC application is going to be on.
-
That's not true
Again!!!
I seem to recall that Bill once said he knew him, then at a later date,m said he'd once seen him/seen him once, which in my book,no more constitutes 'knowing' someone, than does the fact of someone lying, on ONE proven occasion, render them a pathological liar.
-
Anyway how are you getting on with the 20 pieces of forensic evidence from the COA. Showing Sheila did not fire a rifle ?
Oh yes. You have posted a picture of a clean, bloodless, undamaged foot.
Then again, Julie did identify the twins.
::)
"Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues."
-
::)
"Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues."
So that's how you are getting on with the COA's 20 pieces of forensic evidence that show Sheila didn't fire a rifle 26 times, reload twice & fight a big man.
Then again it's only been 32 years.
-
I seem to recall that Bill once said he knew him, then at a later date,m said he'd once seen him/seen him once, which in my book,no more constitutes 'knowing' someone, than does the fact of someone lying, on ONE proven occasion, render them a pathological liar.
Shall I make this crystal clear for you Jane. If something bad happened to a work colleague I could say I knew that person but I might have only seen this person once . I could also know stuff about this person because we work in the same business
Explain how this is being a liar?
-
Is that the 2012 documentary just before the CCRC application ?
Not sure why he would ask for things to be kept private when he is simultaneously making a documentary on what the CCRC application is going to be on.
Well he did, that is a fact and Mark Williams Thomas was happy for me to copy in NGB who can confirm that if you are calling me a liar
Mark did a lot of work on that case that has not been made available to the general public like you
-
Shall I make this crystal clear for you Jane. If something bad happened to a work colleague I could say I knew that person but I might have only seen this person once . I could also know stuff about this person because we work in the same business
Explain how this is being a liar?
Jackie I believe Bill met Taff once
-
Well he did, that is a fact and Mark Williams Thomas was happy for me to copy in NGB who can confirm that if you are calling me a liar
Mark did a lot of work on that case that has not been made available to the general public like you
Just strange that the only reason given on this forum on why information cannot be posted on here is 'it would give the crown more time to prepare'. Yet Mark Williams Thomas made a documentary on what the CCRC will be given.
-
I believe that the state of the farmhouse phone altered during the course of the incident at whf, in the following manner:-
(1) - the phone was on the kitchen worktop with its handset on its cradle/receiver
(2) - Neville Bamber called Jeremy, call was cut short, receiver possibly depressed, to get a dialling tone
(3) - Jeremy tried to ring Neville back, but kept getting engaged tone
Jeremy kept getting engaged tone because Neville had decided to call the police and was using the farmhouse phone which Neville had used to call Jeremy..
(4) - Neville phoned police, subject of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am C6 phone log, hence why phone engaged when Jeremy called Neville
Neville called police via an exchange line link
Jeremy tried to ring Witham police station but got no response
Jeremy called Julie Mugford to tell her there was something wrong at home, she told him to go back to bed..
the call to police by Neville at around 3.26am, got terminated for whatever reason and the handset left off the hook, displaying a dialling
(5) - PC West checked farmhouse phone and found it to be engaged after receiving a separate call from Jeremy Bamber at 3.36am
(6) - Operator checked farmhouse phone at 3.42am, reported phone was off its hook
(7) - phone at farm became engaged, possibly making a 999 call
phone remained engaged for up to 8/9 minutes or even longer
(8) - Operator checked farmhouse phone at 3.56am, reported phone was off its hook
Operator found phone at farm off its hook, as described
(9) - phone at farmhouse became engaged at 5.47am
possible request from someone still alive inside the farmhouse for ambulances to be brought to the scene to help the injured, wounded, and dying
(10) - Operator switched phone line at farmhouse to police using the 999 system
two ambulances arrive at the scene (7am), one for use and to go immediately to the house, the second ambulance to remàin parked up in nearby Pages Lane on standby.
As a gesture of goodwill, Sheila placed the anshuzt rifle at the first floor box room window, to show that she was preparing to surrender herself to the police who wete surrounding the farmhouse.
Audio recording made of entire eavesdrop, including entry into the farmhouse, and the shooting incident involving Sheila in the kitchen which was reported as a suicide
(11) - requested that 999 open line be closed down at 7.47am, after only two of the five bodies had been found...
In conjunction with these events, various lights had been turned off and then on, in different rooms of the farmhouse downstairs and upstairs by someone who was still very much alive by the time armed police forced entry into the house at 7.30am!!
-
Shall I make this crystal clear for you Jane. If something bad happened to a work colleague I could say I knew that person but I might have only seen this person once . I could also know stuff about this person because we work in the same business
Explain how this is being a liar?
Oh, I'm willing to bet you do know "stuff" about those you work with -work places are generally dens of gossip- but whether they've shared it with you, or others have passed it to you, or it's simply what you think you know, are very different things. Personally, I wouldn't be arrogant enough to claim I knew anyone I'd only met once.
Don't know what you're implying with the question.
-
I believe that the state of the farmhouse phone altered during the course of the incident at whf, in the following manner:-
(1) - the phone was on the kitchen worktop with its handset on its cradle/receiver
(2) - Neville Bamber called Jeremy, call was cut short, receiver possibly depressed, to get a dialling tone
(3) - Jeremy tried to ring Neville back, but kept getting engaged tone
Jeremy kept getting engaged tone because Neville had decided to call the police and was using the farmhouse phone which Neville had used to call Jeremy..
(4) - Neville phoned police, subject of Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am C6 phone log, hence why phone engaged when Jeremy called Neville
Neville called police via an exchange line link
Jeremy tried to ring Witham police station but got no response
Jeremy called Julie Mugford to tell her there was something wrong at home, she told him to go back to bed..
the call to police by Neville at around 3.26am, got terminated for whatever reason and the handset left off the hook, displaying a dialling
(5) - PC West checked farmhouse phone and found it to be engaged after receiving a separate call from Jeremy Bamber at 3.36am
(6) - Operator checked farmhouse phone at 3.42am, reported phone was off its hook
(7) - phone at farm became engaged, possibly making a 999 call
phone remained engaged for up to 8/9 minutes or even longer
(8) - Operator checked farmhouse phone at 3.56am, reported phone was off its hook
Operator found phone at farm off its hook, as described
(9) - phone at farmhouse became engaged at 5.47am
possible request from someone still alive inside the farmhouse for ambulances to be brought to the scene to help the injured, wounded, and dying
(10) - Operator switched phone line at farmhouse to police using the 999 system
two ambulances arrive at the scene (7am), one for use and to go immediately to the house, the second ambulance to remàin parked up in nearby Pages Lane on standby.
As a gesture of goodwill, Sheila placed the anshuzt rifle at the first floor box room window, to show that she was preparing to surrender herself to the police who wete surrounding the farmhouse.
Audio recording made of entire eavesdrop, including entry into the farmhouse, and the shooting incident involving Sheila in the kitchen which was reported as a suicide
(11) - requested that 999 open line be closed down at 7.47am, after only two of the five bodies had been found...
In conjunction with these events, various lights had been turned off and then on, in different rooms of the farmhouse downstairs and upstairs by someone who was still very much alive by the time armed police forced entry into the house at 7.30am!!
Most of your thoughts are too convoluted for most people to discern, Mike. Maybe that's why so few disagree. ;D
-
I think people should be wary of having the wool pulled over their eyes, by either argument.
As we can't even agree on an interpretation of the information which IS available, it's really quite difficult to have any faith in a person's interpretation of something which isn't available.
True Harters, there's nothing wrong with a bit of humility from both sides, dontcha think? :)
-
The real significance of the telephone evidence at the scene, is that it serves to expose the claim that Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am C6 log, and PC Wests 3.36am C1 relate to the same and one and only call made by Jeremy! Well, one of those two calls certainly came from the farmhouse, and Bonnetts C6 log timed at 3.26am, clearly states that it was a call received by way of the exchange line, and not by the 999 system! Similarly, PC Wests C1 log of Jeremy's call states that it was made also by way of an exchange line call from Jeremy's cottage at 3.36am! What is not in dispute, is that at 5.47am the phone back at the farmhouse had mysteriously become engaged, as opposed to it previously being reported as being off the hook! By 6.08am, the operator switched the line from the farmhouse to the police by way of the 999 system, after which a dog could be heard to be barking in the background back at the house! This eavesdrop was only possible to set up (in those days, in that region) if the line from whf involved a 999 call! The evidence points to the state of the phone at the farm changing from a state of it being off its hook (3.42am), to it becoming engaged (5.47am), and someone dialling 999 to request ambulances, a call which the operator switched directly to the police using the 999 system! The operator may have transferred the link she had to the line at the farmhouse from a 999 call, by use of a separate exchange line link that she was able to create, enabling those back in the control room to eavesdrop what she could hear simultaneously on her 999 link to the scene!
How and why and by whom has it been proved requested the ambulances? They daren't tell us because to do so means that there was somebody definitely still alive inside the farmhouse by 5.47am when the farm phone changed from being off the hook, into a state of engaged! It became engaged because somebody who was still alive inside the farmhouse at 5.47am, simply dialled 999 and requested ambulances! That call was later transferred by the operator at 6.08am to the police in the control room! This eavesdrop arrangement lasted until 7.47am, when the 999 open line inside the kitchen at the house to the police back in the control room got closed down!
-
The real significance of the telephone evidence at the scene, is that it serves to expose the claim that Malcom Bonnetts 3.26am C6 log, and PC Wests 3.36am C1 relate to the same and one and only call made by Jeremy! Well, one of those two calls certainly came from the farmhouse, and Bonnetts C6 log timed at 3.26am, clearly states that it was a call received by way of the exchange line, and not by the 999 system! Similarly, PC Wests C1 log of Jeremy's call states that it was made also by way of an exchange line call from Jeremy's cottage at 3.36am! What is not in dispute, is that at 5.47am the phone back at the farmhouse had mysteriously become engaged, as opposed to it previously being reported as being off the hook! By 6.08am, the operator switched the line from the farmhouse to the police by way of the 999 system, after which a dog could be heard to be barking in the background back at the house! This eavesdrop was only possible to set up (in those days, in that region) if the line from whf involved a 999 call! The evidence points to the state of the phone at the farm changing from a state of it being off its hook (3.42am), to it becoming engaged (5.47am), and someone dialling 999 to request ambulances, a call which the operator switched directly to the police using the 999 system! The operator may have transferred the link she had to the line at the farmhouse from a 999 call, by use of a separate exchange line link that she was able to create, enabling those back in the control room to eavesdrop what she could hear simultaneously on her 999 link to the scene!
How and why and by whom has it been proved requested the ambulances? They daren't tell us because to do so means that there was somebody definitely still alive inside the farmhouse by 5.47am when the farm phone changed from being off the hook, into a state of engaged! It became engaged because somebody who was still alive inside the farmhouse at 5.47am, simply dialled 999 and requested ambulances! That call was later transferred by the operator at 6.08am to the police in the control room! This eavesdrop arrangement lasted until 7.47am, when the 999 open line inside the kitchen at the house to the police back in the control room got closed down!
And then there were all the lights in different rooms downstairs and upstairs being turned off and on, around the same time there was all this compelling telephone evidence, which can only lead to the conclusion that Jeremy Bamber did not kill all his family, or even any of his family, because dead victims can't make phone calls, dead victims can't alter the state of a phone from off the hook into it becoming engaged, and dead victims can't transform an exchange line call from the scene (which is what Neville Bambers 3.26am call had been) into a 999 call requesting ambulances! Somebody who was certainly alive inside the farmhouse at 3.26am , when police received Neville's call, at 5.47am, when the phone altered in state from being off the hook, into it becoming engaged, and it should be quite clear that somebody must have dialled 999 using that same phone so that the operator could patch the call through to the police, as she did so!
Bamber then is not a killer, cops have known for over three decades thàt a 999 call was made from inside the farmhouse which the operator switched through to police at 6.08am, at a time when Jeremy was in the company of at least a dozen police officers outside of the farmhouse! It's called having the perfect alibi...
-
True Harters, there's nothing wrong with a bit of humility from both sides, dontcha think? :)
Yes, a little humility along with a little bit of reasonableness from the other side certainly wouldn't go amiss.
-
Bamber then is not a killer, cops have known for over three decades thàt a 999 call was made from inside the farmhouse which the operator switched through to police at 6.08am, at a time when Jeremy was in the company of at least a dozen police officers outside of the farmhouse! It's called having the perfect alibi...
This fact alone helps to determine that everything that Jeremy has said from day one, was true, and is true!
He didn't kill anyone, he was not inside whf when any of the victims got shot and died - he wasn't inside the farmhouse at 3.42am when the operator checked the phone and reported it being off the hook! Jeremy was not inside the farmhouse when at 5.47am the farmhouse phone mysteriously became transformed from being in a state off the hook, into an engaged one! He was not inside the farmhouse at 6.08am when the operator switched the line from the farmhouse to the police by way of the 999 system so they could eavesdrop what the operator herself could hear! This monitoring endured all the way through to 7.47am at which point the 999 open line was closed down rather dramatically so soon after the report of two bodies found upon entry to the kitchen, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, a murder, and a suicide all wrapped up and recorded in police message logs which were passed and recorded between 7.30am and 7.45am!
Within two minutes, the 999 open line was closed down rather abruptly!
-
This fact alone helps to determine that everything that Jeremy has said from day one, was true, and is true!
He didn't kill anyone, he was not inside whf when any of the victims got shot and died - he wasn't inside the farmhouse at 3.42am when the operator checked the phone and reported it being off the hook! Jeremy was not inside the farmhouse when at 5.47am the farmhouse phone mysteriously became transformed from being in a state off the hook, into an engaged one! He was not inside the farmhouse at 6.08am when the operator switched the line from the farmhouse to the police by way of the 999 system so they could eavesdrop what the operator herself could hear! This monitoring endured all the way through to 7.47am at which point the 999 open line was closed down rather dramatically so soon after the report of two bodies found upon entry to the kitchen, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female, a murder, and a suicide all wrapped up and recorded in police message logs which were passed and recorded between 7.30am and 7.45am!
Within two minutes, the 999 open line was closed down rather abruptly!
For all those interested in the truth in this matter, the closing down of the 999 open line at 7.47am was a watershed, is a watershed...
-
Something happened when the armed officers entered that kitchen which Essex police and their CPS counterparts do not want the watching public to know about, or to find out about! That something was a shooting incident! I know a lot of you have scoffed at this suggestion previously, but the truth is there was a shooting incident at that time, a shot got discharged, and there is an officers report that had to be filled out because of that shooting! That officers report bears the reference 1612, the incident was also overheard back in the control room, and more importantly everything was recorded on Audio tape because the telephone line from the farmhouse was switched by the operator to the police using the 999 system from 6.08am all the way through to 7.47am, this more than covers the entry by the firearm officers into the kitchen, the shooting incident in the kitchen, the report of two bodies, one male, and a female, not a male misidentified as a female, a murder, and a suicide, all over and dusted with by 7.45am, and that was that, the 999 open line had to be closed down, an unarmed Sheila Caffell had been shot across the neck by a police bullet!
-
Something happened when the armed officers entered that kitchen which Essex police and their CPS counterparts do not want the watching public to know about, or to find out about! That something was a shooting incident! I know a lot of you have scoffed at this suggestion previously, but the truth is there was a shooting incident at that time, a shot got discharged, and there is an officers report that had to be filled out because of that shooting! That officers report bears the reference 1612, the incident was also overheard back in the control room, and more importantly everything was recorded on Audio tape because the telephone line from the farmhouse was switched by the operator to the police using the 999 system from 6.08am all the way through to 7.47am, this more than covers the entry by the firearm officers into the kitchen, the shooting incident in the kitchen, the report of two bodies, one male, and a female, not a male misidentified as a female, a murder, and a suicide, all over and dusted with by 7.45am, and that was that, the 999 open line had to be closed down, an unarmed Sheila Caffell had been shot across the neck by a police bullet!
Much later, senior officers gathered around the bed in the main bedroom upon which Sheila's body was laying, they engaged in the practice of 'informatives', which by that stage concerned themselves in finding a different solution that could hypothetically account for that single bullet entry wound upon her throat? Of course, they already knew how that shot had taken its toll! But it was always sound policy to look for every possible eventuality, different ways the apparent death of this young woman on the bed could have technically died! Whilst endorsing this technique the body of Sheila was carefully lifted off the bed and plonked on the bedroom floor for convenience sake more than anything, so that everyone present could stand around her body and get a better look at what they intended to try and suggest could have occurred! She had taken her own life, with - 'bring that rifle she placed at the first floor box room window', barked George Harris, 'get me that rifle'...
-
Oh, I'm willing to bet you do know "stuff" about those you work with -work places are generally dens of gossip- but whether they've shared it with you, or others have passed it to you, or it's simply what you think you know, are very different things. Personally, I wouldn't be arrogant enough to claim I knew anyone I'd only met once.
Don't know what you're implying with the question.
Because you are trying to make it look like Bill is a liar
-
'bring that rifle she placed at the first floor box room window', barked George Harris, 'get me that rifle'.
Of course, what Essex police did not want anyone knowing was that the anshuzt rifle was already resting at the first floor box room window, and had been there from around 7.15am, it was still resting there when the shooting incident in the kitchen took place, which included the suggestion that Sheila was dead in the kitchen by way of a suicide! How exactly had she managed to commit suicide and be shot in the kitchen, unarmed?
-
Because you are trying to make it look like Bill is a liar
No! God, you're brilliant at twisting people's words, aren't you? What I gave was my opinion that seeing someone once doesn't constitute 'knowing' them. It was you who used the word "liar".
-
The 999 open line which linked the kitchen phone at the farmhouse to the police back in the control room simply had to be closed down after the shooting incident in the kitchen which had the potential to become a huge scandal, the shooting of an unarmed young woman who was acting under what can only best be described as 'a flag of truce' (by placing the anshuzt rifle she had run amok with at the first floor box room window before coming downstairs presumably to give herself up)! Maybe Sheila had it in her mind to walk out of the farmhouse, maybe when the cops started hammering the farmhouse door in, it panicked her, and then when the muzzle of the cops rifle came around the opening edge of the internal door it was the least she could do in all the circumstances, but to make a grab for the barrel which was pointing away from her!
-
The 999 open line which linked the kitchen phone at the farmhouse to the police back in the control room simply had to be closed down after the shooting incident in the kitchen which had the potential to become a huge scandal, the shooting of an unarmed young woman who was acting under what can only best be described as 'a flag of truce' (by placing the anshuzt rifle she had run amok with at the first floor box room window before coming downstairs presumably to give herself up)! Maybe Sheila had it in her mind to walk out of the farmhouse, maybe when the cops started hammering the farmhouse door in, it panicked her, and then when the muzzle of the cops rifle came around the opening edge of the internal door it was the least she could do in all the circumstances, but to make a grab for the barrel which was pointing away from her!
And once the officer came around the opening edge of that door, maybe she dragged the muzzle of his rifle in toward her own throat, maybe she tugged, maybe he tugged, tooing and froing, in a battle to get control of the weapon, he with his finger close to the trigger, she hellbent on clinging to the muzzle of the rifles barrel..
-
And once the officer came around the opening edge of that door, maybe she dragged the muzzle of his rifle in toward her own throat, maybe she tugged, maybe he tugged, tooing and froing, in a battle to get control of the weapon, he with his finger close to the trigger, she hellbent on clinging to the muzzle of the rifles barrel..
In his officers report on this shooting incident (1612) he would say that Sheila appeared to deliberately pull the muzzle of his rifle into her own throat as if she wanted to be shot by him! She wanted to die!
-
In his officers report on this shooting incident (1612) he would say that Sheila appeared to deliberately pull the muzzle of his rifle into her own throat as if she wanted to be shot by him! She wanted to die!
Thus, a suicide was born there and then in the kitchen by 7.45am, and two minutes later in the aftermath of this tragedy the 999 open line from the phone in the kitchen to police back in the control room got closed down (7.47am), a death had been witnessed in the kitchen, an unarmed young woman shot dead, had been shot dead, by a police officer, albeit in the course of his duty! There would of course have to be an internal police enquiry into this death! Best to close the 999 open line down immediately in the wake of this live shooting incident (1612)! Worse still, best to try and deny that there had ever been a 999 open line connection between the phone in the kitchen at the farmhouse, and the police back in the control room!
-
Harris, Gibbons and Montgomery did not venture into the farmhouse until after the other three bodies of the five victims had been found upstairs in the bedrooms, five dead in total by 8.10am - step forward them all, they entered the kitchen by the same route taken by the raid team expecting to find two bodies there! Gibbons himself was responsible for passing a message via CA07 to the control room that two bodies had been found upon entry to the kitchen, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female (7.35am), yet soon after 8.10am when he and the others tentatively entered the kitchen scene, they were greeted with only the body of Neville Bamber, there was no sign of Sheila's body, the second body was gone! The suicide from the kitchen had vanished as if into thin air!
-
Standard exchange force release conditions in Maldon and Goldhanger exchanges mid 1980's:-
-
During Jeremy's trial the prosecution dishonestly tried to make out that if he had received a call from Neville Bamber, that because the phone was off the hook back in the kitchen, that Jeremy would not have been able to dial his father's number back and get an engaged tone because they argued the phone at the farm was left off the hook and if Jeremy had tried to ring Neville back the line would still be open, and he Jeremy would not be able to make another call out from his cottage until several minutes elapsed, yet if Neville deliberately depressed the receiver to get a. Dialling tone, then he Jeremy would have been able to get a dialling tone on his own phone much more quickly! When all along cops and their CpS counterparts have known that somebody who was still alive inside the farmhouse at 5.47am caused the phone to become mysteriously engaged, and at 6.08am the operator switched this engaged line from the farmhouse to let's say xyz, to the police!
Xyz being as I understand it was a 999 call for ambulances to be brought immediately to the scene for the wounded, and dying victims who had been shot by that stage (6.08am)!
-
During Jeremy's trial the prosecution dishonestly tried to make out that if he had received a call from Neville Bamber, that because the phone was off the hook back in the kitchen, that Jeremy would not have been able to dial his father's number back and get an engaged tone because they argued the phone at the farm was left off the hook and if Jeremy had tried to ring Neville back the line would still be open, and he Jeremy would not be able to make another call out from his cottage until several minutes elapsed, yet if Neville deliberately depressed the receiver to get a. Dialling tone, then he Jeremy would have been able to get a dialling tone on his own phone much more quickly! When all along cops and their CpS counterparts have known that somebody who was still alive inside the farmhouse at 5.47am caused the phone to become mysteriously engaged, and at 6.08am the operator switched this engaged line from the farmhouse to let's say xyz, to the police!
Xyz being as I understand it was a 999 call for ambulances to be brought immediately to the scene for the wounded, and dying victims who had been shot by that stage (6.08am)!
Phone condition / State
Off the hook = OTH
Engaged = E
Exchange line call = ELC
Normal Line call = NLC
999 call = XYZ
999 system = XYZS
Operator = O
Caller = C
Third party Caller = TPC
With the phone being said to be OTH by the O, it could mean that the handset was simply off its cradle, and sounding a dialing tone, or if a number had been dialled the line might be still open with the number dialled. The caller C responsible for such a phone having its handset off the cradle, might have called a number and be getting a ringing tone! Or C might have been placed on hold by the person they called, or C might simply not have dialled any number and the phone is just chiming out a dialling tone! On the other hand, any TPC trying to contact C would be greeted with an engaged tone! The point being that the O would be able to tell which state the phone of C was in at the time O made a check, whereas TPC would not! There would be no reason for an O to mix up jargon and confuse everybody by declaring that the phone was OTH one minute, and E on the next minute, and suggest that both of these expressions amount to the same thing because as we have seen, they may not relate to the same condition or state, it depends who's using the phone, who the C is, whether an O takes a particular interest in a call for whatever reason, and any involvement from TPC trying to contact C - different participants in such an arrangement might see or hear or interpret things differently!
-
The main gist of what I have been stating is that there was a 999 open line call from the phone at the farmhouse, and the police at the control room in Chelmsford, which goes a long way to establishing that Jeremy Bamber is not a killer, he was wrongly convicted of the killings, because cops and their CPS counterparts know with 100% certainty that there was clearly someone still alive inside the farmhouse after 5.47am when the farm phone mysteriously became engaged at around the same time that according to one message in one of the logs police were engaged in a conversation with a person from inside the farm, engaged being the keyword! By 6.08am the line which had become engaged from its previous state of being off the hook was switched to the police in the control room!
-
That's not true
Again!!!
yes it is!
-
Seeing is believing and Bill couldn't even decide if he knew Taff Jones or not. Alarm bells!
Cobblers. Not what I said at all.
It was 40 years ago. I knew Taff, I met him at least once for a chat, I may have met him more often than that, I can't remember. Not that it is really relevant or of any importance anyway.
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
Over and out.
-
Cobblers. Not what I said at all.
It was 40 years ago. I knew Taff, I met him at least once for a chat, I may have met him more often than that, I can't remember. Not that it is really relevant or of any importance anyway.
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
Over and out.
A view held by both sides of the divide!
-
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
So it would appear. :-\
-
Cobblers. Not what I said at all.
It was 40 years ago. I knew Taff, I met him at least once for a chat, I may have met him more often than that, I can't remember. Not that it is really relevant or of any importance anyway.
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
Over and out.
Hello Bill
I met people forty years ago on a casual basis and it would be difficult to say whether I met them once or maybe twice so I understand where you are coming from and heck what is all the fuss about just trying to catch you out methinks :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Cobblers. Not what I said at all.
It was 40 years ago. I knew Taff, I met him at least once for a chat, I may have met him more often than that, I can't remember. Not that it is really relevant or of any importance anyway.
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
Over and out.
No one is trying to catch you out Bill as been suggested by posters, but it's nice to see you have edited your foyer post from,
Apologies, I didn't know I was meant to log in here first.
I have studied the first 2 hours of the case for the past 3 years; just the first 2 hours!
Finding out everything possible about what happened, particularly in relation to the police and trying to figure out which of my ex-colleagues have been economical with the truth, or supremely inventive.
I got interested because casting a professional eye over the case it was obvious where the lies were. Proving that they are lies takes a bit more effort.
Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
To this?
Apologies, I didn't know I was meant to log in here first.
I started life as a Media Distribution Officer for Don Smith's newsagents. Then I worked for many years in a local café as a Gastronomical Hygiene Technician before leaving to join the local council as a Highway Environmental Hygienist Technician. I still enjoy pushing my broom around the streets picking up litter, gives me lots of time for thinking about Jeremy's case. Never had any dealings with the police, never worked for them, don't know anything about police procedures.
So please just judge anything I write on the merits of the information posted. My background has no bearing on the accuracy or quality of the information..
I do believe that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.
-
Cobblers. Not what I said at all.
It was 40 years ago. I knew Taff, I met him at least once for a chat, I may have met him more often than that, I can't remember. Not that it is really relevant or of any importance anyway.
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
Over and out.
I think you will find Bill that most of the mud slinging and offensive language mainly comes from people who think Bamber innocent, this would be proved by past posts and posters, myself and people who think Bamber guilty just want the truth Bill.
-
I think you will find Bill that most of the mud slinging and offensive language mainly comes from people who think Bamber innocent, this would be proved by past posts and posters, myself and people who think Bamber guilty just want the truth Bill.
This is because the guilters are always winding people up. My own language leaves a lot to be desired but somehow I've managed to hold back.
BTW,I have seen language used by a guilter/s in the past,but it was deleted. It was the ****off one !!
-
This is because the guilters are always winding people up. My own language leaves a lot to be desired but somehow I've managed to hold back.
BTW,I have seen language used by a guilter/s in the past,but it was deleted. It was the ****off one !!
Sorry Lookout, I did say mainly, meaning not all x
-
This is because the guilters are always winding people up. My own language leaves a lot to be desired but somehow I've managed to hold back.
BTW,I have seen language used by a guilter/s in the past,but it was deleted. It was the ****off one !!
Morning lookout
Just read the post from Bill and he did not indicate whether he was referring to Jeremy guilty or Jeremy innocent supporters he probably meant the lot of us hehehehe Next time you are in London and you see a man on a broomstick shout Hi to Bill :))
-
Morning lookout
Just read the post from Bill and he did not indicate whether he was referring to Jeremy guilty or Jeremy innocent supporters he probably meant the lot of us hehehehe Next time you are in London and you see a man on a broomstick shout Hi to Bill :))
You mean you have just re read the post from Bill, you first read it and responded at 9.28am?
-
Morning lookout
Just read the post from Bill and he did not indicate whether he was referring to Jeremy guilty or Jeremy innocent supporters he probably meant the lot of us hehehehe Next time you are in London and you see a man on a broomstick shout Hi to Bill :))
Hi Susan,just read it myself. Bill is in the innocent camp and always has been. He just wasn't used to how some would react--------but he knows now ;D ;D ;D ;D That's what you get when you're a supporter,which goes to show that the guilters are more paranoid about the case and more deeply supportive of their cause. I don't think it matters,myself,to be that carried away to be honest as there are more pressing issues in this world. Such as 3,000 potential killers in our midst that are KNOWN of.
-
Cobblers. Not what I said at all.
It was 40 years ago. I knew Taff, I met him at least once for a chat, I may have met him more often than that, I can't remember. Not that it is really relevant or of any importance anyway.
This forum is just a mud-slinging waste of time, somewhere for big-mouthed childish xxxxx to sound off.
Over and out.
I agree and claim to have evidence of Jeremy innocence - but never come out and post it.
Actually, this is what you said "Grahame, I like your ability to step back from the fray; a cool head. In relation to Taff Jones, I knew him and it is distinctly possible he would have testified in Jeremy's favour. In fact, I would have bet that he would have done." You would have to know someone pretty well to claim they would do that. Taff Jones NEVER mentioned to anyone that he had PROOF of Jeremy's innocence and was the first officer to interrogate him once arrested. You later said you met him once. 50, 50, 60 years - you would remember if you KNEW someone well enough to make the above claim.
-
Hi Susan,just read it myself. Bill is in the innocent camp and always has been. He just wasn't used to how some would react--------but he knows now ;D ;D ;D ;D That's what you get when you're a supporter,which goes to show that the guilters are more paranoid about the case and more deeply supportive of their cause. I don't think it matters,myself,to be that carried away to be honest as there are more pressing issues in this world. Such as 3,000 potential killers in our midst that are KNOWN of.
Hi lookout as some are being rather childish this morning I meant I have re read Bill's post just to make sure I had my facts right. It is so petty when such horrendous issues are in the news just now. So much so off for my walk catcha later
-
Hi lookout as some are being rather childish this morning I meant I have re read Bill's post just to make sure I had my facts right. It is so petty when such horrendous issues are in the news just now. So much so off for my walk catcha later
Hi Susan,there are some things in this world which must take priority. This isn't one of them.
-
Hi Susan,there are some things in this world which must take priority. This isn't one of them.
OR there's no longer any interest in the case. We're REPEATEDLY told about the MASSES of hidden members who, although, convinced of his innocence, are afraid to post because of the vehemence of those of us who believe him to be guilty -naturally, this has yet to be proved. I'm left with this thought, IF these people exist but are too afraid to pitch themselves against nameless, faceless people behind screens, of what POSSIBLE use are they to Jeremy's cause. I'm throwing down the gauntlet to them, here, to come and give their support to the man they believe has been wrongly imprisoned for 30+ years!!! I'm MORE inclined to think that, because of the small number of threads in use, compared with the number which are largely ignored, my first assessment was correct. There are only those few die-hards, from both sides of the divide, who are bothered.
-
OR there's no longer any interest in the case. We're REPEATEDLY told about the MASSES of hidden members who, although, convinced of his innocence, are afraid to post because of the vehemence of those of us who believe him to be guilty -naturally, this has yet to be proved. I'm left with this thought, IF these people exist but are too afraid to pitch themselves against nameless, faceless people behind screens, of what POSSIBLE use are they to Jeremy's cause. I'm throwing down the gauntlet to them, here, to come and give their support to the man they believe has been wrongly imprisoned for 30+ years!!! I'm MORE inclined to think that, because of the small number of threads in use, compared with the number which are largely ignored, my first assessment was correct. There are only those few die-hards, from both sides of the divide, who are bothered.
Good challenge Jane - I second it!
-
OR there's no longer any interest in the case. We're REPEATEDLY told about the MASSES of hidden members who, although, convinced of his innocence, are afraid to post because of the vehemence of those of us who believe him to be guilty -naturally, this has yet to be proved. I'm left with this thought, IF these people exist but are too afraid to pitch themselves against nameless, faceless people behind screens, of what POSSIBLE use are they to Jeremy's cause. I'm throwing down the gauntlet to them, here, to come and give their support to the man they believe has been wrongly imprisoned for 30+ years!!! I'm MORE inclined to think that, because of the small number of threads in use, compared with the number which are largely ignored, my first assessment was correct. There are only those few die-hards, from both sides of the divide, who are bothered.
It's got nothing to do with you or the bloody forum. Dozens of people have been left dead through the dilatory actions of the politicians in this country.Two of my family members were caught up in the carnage in Manchester which left them numb at the sight when they came out of the foyer of the place. Then to cap it all another murder scene in London where the killer was known to the police,etc.
If the politicians and law-makers can dismiss all this,then my faith in anything to do with crime and punishment,is well and truly shattered. God help anyone who happens to be innocent !!
The Law is an Ass !
-
Carry on,I'm not stopping those from doing something closer to their hearts than anything else !
-
It's got nothing to do with you or the bloody forum. Dozens of people have been left dead through the dilatory actions of the politicians in this country.Two of my family members were caught up in the carnage in Manchester which left them numb at the sight when they came out of the foyer of the place. Then to cap it all another murder scene in London where the killer was known to the police,etc.
If the politicians and law-makers can dismiss all this,then my faith in anything to do with crime and punishment,is well and truly shattered. God help anyone who happens to be innocent !!
The Law is an Ass !
Why are you suggesting that I'm saying anything OTHER than what you're saying? What has happened is TERRIBLE, but what happens OFF forum has nothing to do with what happens ON forum. Were that NOT so, you wouldn't be posting. You'd be out there with all the other Jeremy supporters who aren't here lending their support to him.
-
Why are you suggesting that I'm saying anything OTHER than what you're saying? What has happened is TERRIBLE, but what happens OFF forum has nothing to do with what happens ON forum. Were that NOT so, you wouldn't be posting. You'd be out there with all the other Jeremy supporters who aren't here lending their support to him.
In MY OWN WAY,I support Jeremy,but MY family come first.
-
In MY OWN WAY,I support Jeremy,but MY family come first.
Glad to hear that Lookout, you had me a bit worried (only joking).
-
In MY OWN WAY,I support Jeremy,but MY family come first.
Nonetheless, YOU, unlike the hidden Jeremy supporters, are here, posting. I DON'T have a problem with it.
-
Nonetheless, YOU, unlike the hidden Jeremy supporters, are here, posting. I DON'T have a problem with it.
I don't expect you have a problem with anything.
-
Hi Susan,there are some things in this world which must take priority. This isn't one of them.
Hi lookout it appears many posters have become bored with the forum or should I say the JB case I think if new evidence came to light and it was posted on here posters would come flooding back and it would be like old times.
-
Hi lookout it appears many posters have become bored with the forum or should I say the JB case I think if new evidence came to light and it was posted on here posters would come flooding back and it would be like old times.
Yes Susan, the " old times ",some good posters-------but,you never know, when the concrete proof of JB's innocence shows itself,they'll either return or everyone will vanish,hahahaha.
-
I have it on good authority that Essex police and their counterparts at the CPS have successfully concealed evidence pertaining to a 999 phone call that was made from inside the farmhouse at around 5.47am, when the phone line at the farm changed status from previously being off the hook (3.42am, and 3.56am), to becoming mysteriously 'engaged' by 5.47am. There was a request from a person inside the farmhouse for ambulances to be brought immediately to the house! Because the 999 call requested ambulances, the operator had to switch the call to the police back in the control room at Chelmsford police station using the 999 open line system which enabled the police to eavesdrop what was happening in as it turns out was the kitchen of the farmhouse! In one police log, in an entry timed at 5.35am, it states that police are engaged in a conversation with a person from inside the farm, that person was one of the victims, since by that stage Jeremy Bamber had left the scene in company of a police officer to go to a local village telephone box to make a telephone call to Julie Mugford...
-
I have it on good authority that Essex police and their counterparts at the CPS have successfully concealed evidence pertaining to a 999 phone call that was made from inside the farmhouse at around 5.47am, when the phone line at the farm changed status from previously being off the hook (3.42am, and 3.56am), to becoming mysteriously 'engaged' by 5.47am. There was a request from a person inside the farmhouse for ambulances to be brought immediately to the house! Because the 999 call requested ambulances, the operator had to switch the call to the police back in the control room at Chelmsford police station using the 999 open line system which enabled the police to eavesdrop what was happening in as it turns out was the kitchen of the farmhouse! In one police log, in an entry timed at 5.35am, it states that police are engaged in a conversation with a person from inside the farm, that person was one of the victims, since by that stage Jeremy Bamber had left the scene in company of a police officer to go to a local village telephone box to make a telephone call to Julie Mugford...
Essex police and their counterparts of the CPS framed Jeremy Bamber for the murders of five members of three generations of his own family, knowing that he could not have been responsible!
-
I remember being in a similar sort of a position at the beginning of 1995, when the prison authorities and the Home Office were dragging their feet claiming that information I was seeking from them as part of my claim for false imprisonment was deliberately being withheld under the guise of pii...
Solicitors who were representing me commenced legal action in the High Court, applying for 'A Voluntary Bill of Indictment' to force them to produce the material they were dishonestly withholding from me/us. No sooner was this legal action started than the Home Office made an offer to settle the matter and I was awarded £42,000 damages for being falsely Imprisoned! My advice to Jeremy and his current legal team is to pursue the demand for the withheld documents through the High Court by way of 'A Voluntary Bill of Indictment' (give us the body), but when you take this course of action you have got to know precisely what your asking for, and give grounds for why it should be disclosed in the interests of justice, and in the public interest, and so on, and so forth! It usually only takes about 28 days from making the application to it being dealt with in the High Court, and the other party once they realise you know what your talking about, they invariably seek a settlement before the court date! In my case I later found out that my case of false imprisonment was worth over £100,000, but I accepted the first offer of £42,000 - I had been released from custody by the time I accepted that settlement! In Jeremys case its different in so much as he's still very much in custody! But the principle is exactly the same, providing he and his legal team know what documents they are seeking, and they know what disclosure of them, or it will show! I have been assured that there was a 999 call made by someone still alive inside the farmhouse certainly after 5.47am when the phone in the kitchen became 'engaged', the nature of the call amounted to a request for ambulances to be brought quickly to the house, because by that stage people had been shot, were wounded, were dying, or were dead! The really sad thing about it was that Cops thought it was a ploy to get ambulance crews to the house so that Sheila could either shoot them dead, or take them hostage as well! It wasn't until 21 minutes afterwards that the engaged phone line inside the house got transferred and switched to the police at 6.08am! Cops and the CPS, hid this vital information from Bamber, his legal team, and the jury which tried the matter! If the truth had been acknowledged by the authorities during Bambers October 1986 Chelmsford Crown Court trial, then Jeremy Bamber would never have been convicted in the first instance. So, it goes without saying, that on Bambers behalf, take Essex police and the CPS to court to respond to 'A Writ of Habeas Corpus', requesting that they disclose all the information they have got, and had since the morning of the tragedy, which confirms that somebody made a 999 call from inside the farmhouse requesting an ambulance for the wounded, the dying and the dead! It's guaranteed to work, providing they present the facts accurately! What I will guarantee happens is that Jeremy Bamber will sensationally released on Court of appeal bail, whilst the CPS find a solution in so far as an explanation why such an extraordinary course of action has been necessary!
Trust me, these corrupted organisations, don't like a taste of their own medicine...
Yes, there was such a 999 call made by one of the five victims in this tragedy, from inside the farmhouse at a time when Jeremy had left the scene in the company of a uniformed police officer, they went to a local village so that Jeremy could make a call to Julie Mugford, whilst back at the farmhouse, a request was being made for ambulances from a person inside the farm!!
It's a 100% nailed on certainty that this is what did happen...
-
I am 100% telling the truth about the 999 call made by one of the victims from inside the farmhouse by 5.47am when the authorities described the incident of the phone, as simply being 'engaged'...
12 minutes earlier at 5.35am, another police log records, firearms officers are 'engaged in conversation' with a person from inside the farm...
By 6.08am, the call was switched by the operator, from inside the farmhouse to the police in the control room at Chelmsford police station - by 7am two ambulances were arriving at the scene, one for immediate need at the farmhouse, the other on standby in nearby Pages Lane!
-
I am 100% telling the truth about the 999 call made by one of the victims from inside the farmhouse by 5.47am when the authorities described the incident of the phone, as simply being 'engaged'...
12 minutes earlier at 5.35am, another police log records, firearms officers are 'engaged in conversation' with a person from inside the farm...
By 6.08am, the call was switched by the operator, from inside the farmhouse to the police in the control room at Chelmsford police station - by 7am two ambulances were arriving at the scene, one for immediate need at the farmhouse, the other on standby in nearby Pages Lane!
The awful thing is though, that despite two ambulances arriving at the scene by 7am, neither ambulance went directly to the farmhouse!!
-
No sooner did the two ambulances arrive at the scene, than cops who were still communicating with a person inside the farm, reluctantly allowed the said ambulance and its crew to approach the farmhouse because of genuine fears for their safety! My informant told me that both ambulances arrived at the scene both on standby, until a negotiation took place for the person inside to show the weapon they had been using at a window, as a gesture of goodwill, because only then would the ambulance and its crew be sent to the farmhouse..
-
No sooner did the two ambulances arrive at the scene, than cops who were still communicating with a person inside the farm, reluctantly allowed the said ambulance and its crew to approach the farmhouse because of genuine fears for their safety! My informant told me that both ambulances arrived at the scene both on standby, until a negotiation took place for the person inside to show the weapon they had been using at a window, as a gesture of goodwill, because only then would the ambulance and its crew be sent to the farmhouse..
At around 7.15am, the anshuzt rifle was presented at the first floor box room window!
Nobody saw who deposited it there, although everyone present outside who were surrounding the farmhouse assumed whether rightly or wrongly, that the person who had placed 'it' there, was none other than Sheila Caffell..
I myself am one such person who actually believes that/this to be true, and accurate...
-
Cops prevented the ambulances and their crews from going directly to the farmhouse - these ambulances arrived by 7am, but were kept back and in fact were never introduced to the farmhouse, to verify that anybody was wounded, or dying, or had died!
-
Cops prevented the ambulances and their crews from going directly to the farmhouse - these ambulances arrived by 7am, but were kept back and in fact were never introduced to the farmhouse, to verify that anybody was wounded, or dying, or had died!
Please read the firearm officers witness statements, please read the contents of all the police logs, these ambulances and their crews did not tend to the wounded, the dead, or the dying!
-
This cannot be acceptable, or true, unless something truly dramatic and potentially life changing happened once the firearm officers entered the farmhouse, in place of the ambulance crews by 7.30am...
-
This cannot be acceptable, or true, unless something truly dramatic and potentially life changing happened once the firearm officers entered the farmhouse, in place of the ambulance crews by 7.30am...
Please, all of you, read the witness statements and the contents of all the police message logs - where does it make mention of any member of either ambulance crew entering the farmhouse and pronouncing any victim dead prior to the police surgeon, Dr Craig performed this duty at 8.44am, despite it being known or suggested that by 8.10am the last three of the five bodies had reportedly been found?
Nothing!!
-
I don't expect you have a problem with anything.
Oh, I think -on my own, I've experienced enough to last a life time, Lookout..................and that's without the ones that belong to others.
-
Please, all of you, read the witness statements and the contents of all the police message logs - where does it make mention of any member of either ambulance crew entering the farmhouse and pronouncing any victim dead prior to the police surgeon, Dr Craig performed this duty at 8.44am, despite it being known or suggested that by 8.10am the last three of the five bodies had reportedly been found?
Nothing!!
Ambulance crews had all been present at the scene by 7am, why was there a need not to utilise what these healthcare professionals were trained to do, at the expense of having to wait until 8.44am for the police surgeon (Craig) to perform such duties?
-
Something went dramatically wrong inside that farmhouse, once armed police forced their way in at around 7.30am!
-
Something went dramatically wrong inside that farmhouse, once armed police forced their way in at around 7.30am!
Lets put it this way - two dead bodies, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found upon entry to kitchen! A murder, and a suicide, all done and dusted by 7.45am, at the latest, and then 'wo be tide me', the 999 open line from the kitchen where the two bodies of a male, and a female, a murder, and a suicide had been reported, closed down at 7.47am (with the other three victims still not yet accounted for)?
Read it all, and weep...
-
Lets put it this way - two dead bodies, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female found upon entry to kitchen! A murder, and a suicide, all done and dusted by 7.45am, at the latest, and then 'wo be tide me', the 999 open line from the kitchen where the two bodies of a male, and a female, a murder, and a suicide had been reported, closed down at 7.47am (with the other three victims still not yet accounted for)?
Read it all, and weep...
No ambulance crews to the farmhouse, whereas in one of the logs one of them was required immediately at the house, the other on standby!
No more bodies downstairs by 7.45am, so why couldn't at least one of the ambulances and its crew enter the farmhouse behind the raid team to perform the duty they had been summoned to do? No, said the police, both bodies in the kitchen were dead, one body of a male, a murder, the other body a female, a suicide - the clock ticked on, it was 7.45am, the two ambulances and their crew had been present at the incident already for over three quarters of an hour!
-
No ambulance crews to the farmhouse, whereas in one of the logs one of them was required immediately at the house, the other on standby!
No more bodies downstairs by 7.45am, so why couldn't at least one of the ambulances and its crew enter the farmhouse behind the raid team to perform the duty they had been summoned to do? No, said the police, both bodies in the kitchen were dead, one body of a male, a murder, the other body a female, a suicide - the clock ticked on, it was 7.45am, the two ambulances and their crew had been present at the incident already for over three quarters of an hour!
The problem here, was that one of the two bodies described as both being dead in the kitchen at various stages (7.30am, 7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am, and 7.45am) was not in fact, dead at all...
-
At least one of the supposedly two dead bodies, as asserted as being dead by 7.45am at the very latest, was in fact, undead, still alive, still capable of moving around, and presumably still capable of making a nuisance of herself, capable of upsetting the apple cart of the police mindset, it would seem...
-
At least one of the supposedly two dead bodies, as asserted as being dead by 7.45am at the very latest, was in fact, undead, still alive, still capable of moving around, and presumably still capable of making a nuisance of herself, capable of upsetting the apple cart of the police mindset, it would seem...
What we know, because the devil is in the detail of these message logs, as opposed to the fraudulent contents of police officers witness statements, was that Sheila was not in fact dead, she had not been killed as a result of the shooting incident in the kitchen (please, subject of an officers report 1612), Sheila was still alive long after 7.45am, she was alive long after a further three bodies (making five dead in total) had been found by 8.10am upstairs! She was still alive at 8.44am when the police surgeon, Craig, pronounced her as being dead with what appeared to be a wound on her neck! She was still live after PS Adams viewed her body at around 9am with no rifle in sight of her body by that stage, Sheila Caffell was still alive when after 9am, senior officers set about performing 'informatives' upstairs in that bedroom..
Still, no ambulance crews had viewed or attended the bodies of any of the five victims, and these two ambulances and their crews had already been present at the scene for two hours, 50 minutes after police had originally called all five dead by 8.10am, two bodies downstairs, three bodies upstairs...
-
The shot across Sheila Caffells neck is problematic to the prosecutions case at trial!
-
The shot across Sheila Caffells neck is problematic to the prosecutions case at trial!
Somebody swapped the original badly fragmented PV/20 bullet removed by the pathologist from Sheila's neck during autopsy performed on 7 August 1985, and replaced it with 'A WHOLE BULLET' so that when the prosecutions ballistic expert, Malcom Fletcher received it on the 20th September 1985, and he performed a comparison test of it against a test round fired via the anshuzt rifle, he was able to 'strongly suggest' that it had been loaded and fired via the same rifle at the time Sheila was shot in the neck!
Of course, anyone with a degree of common sense knows that pieces of a badly fragmented bullet cannot and doesn't grow back into, and become a whole bullet once more just because for it to have done so, favours any conclusion a prosecution ballistic expert might want to, and in fact does present to the court trying the matter!
This bullet (PV/20) has clearly been interfered with by somebody intent upon trying to make this into a one gun crime, when clearly at least two different weapons were used, and had been used!
-
Somebody swapped the original badly fragmented PV/20 bullet removed by the pathologist from Sheila's neck during autopsy performed on 7 August 1985, and replaced it with 'A WHOLE BULLET' so that when the prosecutions ballistic expert, Malcom Fletcher received it on the 20th September 1985, and he performed a comparison test of it against a test round fired via the anshuzt rifle, he was able to 'strongly suggest' that it had been loaded and fired via the same rifle at the time Sheila was shot in the neck!
Of course, anyone with a degree of common sense knows that pieces of a badly fragmented bullet cannot and doesn't grow back into, and become a whole bullet once more just because for it to have done so, favours any conclusion a prosecution ballistic expert might want to, and in fact does present to the court trying the matter!
This bullet (PV/20) has clearly been interfered with by somebody intent upon trying to make this into a one gun crime, when clearly at least two different weapons were used, and had been used!
Sheila was the subject of the shooting incident downstairs in the kitchen in accordance with the officers report (1612), and is capable of supporting the fact that somebody was still very much alive inside the farmhouse after 5.47am when the kitchen phone mysteriously became engaged, after previously (3.42am, and 3.56am)being described by an operator to 'be off the hook'!In an entry of a police log, it states that firearm officers are 'engaged in a conversation' with a person from inside the farm! Everything points to somebody still being very much alive inside the farmhouse, whilst Jeremy was outside with police, or even not present at the scene at all..
-
Sheila was the subject of the shooting incident downstairs in the kitchen in accordance with the officers report (1612), and is capable of supporting the fact that somebody was still very much alive inside the farmhouse after 5.47am when the kitchen phone mysteriously became engaged, after previously (3.42am, and 3.56am)being described by an operator to 'be off the hook'!In an entry of a police log, it states that firearm officers are 'engaged in a conversation' with a person from inside the farm! Everything points to somebody still being very much alive inside the farmhouse, whilst Jeremy was outside with police, or even not present at the scene at all..
Then there is the business of lights being switched off, and then on again, inside the farmhouse, downstairs and upstairs - and Crispy the dog heard so clearly via the kitchen phone, ending up under the bed in the main bedroom! It just doesn't make sense, or add up!
-
What was SOCO's Oakey and Henderson doing at the scene on the first morning of the police investigation?
Why has the role these two played in the matter been suppressed?
-
What was SOCO's Oakey and Henderson doing at the scene on the first morning of the police investigation?
Why has the role these two played in the matter been suppressed?
During the trial I believe PC Bird stated whilst testifying that he did not take photograph 25 which shows the barrel of the anshuzt rifle resting against the left side of Sheila Caffell!
All the other disclosed photographs that were taken of Sheila's body in possession of the anshuzt rifle were taken by PC Bird himself, but in all these different photo's that he took, the muzzle of the rifles barrel was in a different position in relation to her neck!
-
DC Oakey (SOCO) was therefore in the main bedroom and he took photograph number 25 prior to 10am at which stage PC Bird (SOCO) entered the farmhouse and proceeded to take the rest of the photographs! DC Henderson (SOCO) was also present inside the farmhouse, and he took the video footage of the entire crime scene! The authorities have attempted to keep Oakey and Henderson out of the mix by shoving PC Bird forward as the crime scene photographer, but he only became the crime scene photographer after 10am when the gist of the 'informatives' carried out by senior officers was either completed, or near to completion! Oakey and Henderson were the two SOCO present inside the main bedroom during the 'informatives'! The pictures and video footage that they took, included Sheila's body on the bed sporting a wound, not two wounds, no triangular bloodstain on the front of her nightdress - that was created later after senior officers organised the removal of Sheila's body onto the floor and the rifle was brought from the box room window to her body and that's when the second shot was inflicted! Immediately Sheila's body was rolled over onto her right into the recovery position! One officer attempted to stem the blood gushing out of the second wound but they could not save her! This occurred at 9.13am according to the content of an officers report (1612)! Thus they rolled her back onto her back, and plonked the rifle on her body and DC Oakey (SOCO) took photograph number 25 (above), and I understand that DC Henderson (SOCO) took video footage! These duties were performed before 'Ron' Cook (SOCO), and his team, Hammersley, Davidson, and Bird (all SOCO's) took charge of the scene from 10 O'clock, onward! From thereon in, the only people allowed to enter the farmhouse, were PS Woodcock, PI Montgomery, and DS 'Stan' Jones (who had returned back to the scene from Jeremy's cottage to collect the silencer, SBJ/1)!
-
DC Oakey (SOCO) was therefore in the main bedroom and he took photograph number 25 prior to 10am at which stage PC Bird (SOCO) entered the farmhouse and proceeded to take the rest of the photographs! DC Henderson (SOCO) was also present inside the farmhouse, and he took the video footage of the entire crime scene! The authorities have attempted to keep Oakey and Henderson out of the mix by shoving PC Bird forward as the crime scene photographer, but he only became the crime scene photographer after 10am when the gist of the 'informatives' carried out by senior officers was either completed, or near to completion! Oakey and Henderson were the two SOCO present inside the main bedroom during the 'informatives'! The pictures and video footage that they took, included Sheila's body on the bed sporting a wound, not two wounds, no triangular bloodstain on the front of her nightdress - that was created later after senior officers organised the removal of Sheila's body onto the floor and the rifle was brought from the box room window to her body and that's when the second shot was inflicted! Immediately Sheila's body was rolled over onto her right into the recovery position! One officer attempted to stem the blood gushing out of the second wound but they could not save her! This occurred at 9.13am according to the content of an officers report (1612)! Thus they rolled her back onto her back, and plonked the rifle on her body and DC Oakey (SOCO) took photograph number 25 (above), and I understand that DC Henderson (SOCO) took video footage! These duties were performed before 'Ron' Cook (SOCO), and his team, Hammersley, Davidson, and Bird (all SOCO's) took charge of the scene from 10 O'clock, onward! From thereon in, the only people allowed to enter the farmhouse, were PS Woodcock, PI Montgomery, and DS 'Stan' Jones (who had returned back to the scene from Jeremy's cottage to collect the silencer, SBJ/1)!
PC 'David' Bird (SOCO) would much later tell the COLP investigators in 1991, something of vital importance which serves to confirm in the light of the aforementioned that the police staged Sheila Caffells death scene on the bedroom floor, not Jeremy as alluded to during his October 1986 Chelmsford Crown Court trial! PB Bird told COLP in 1991 that as 'Ron' Cook was walking him toward the farmhouse for the first time, Cook said to him, 'make sure you get the position of the gun right on the body', or words to that effect...
As with so many cases of dishonesty and deception, the devil is always in the detail...
Maybe, PC Bird did not know at that time that DC Oakey had taken photographs of Sheila's body on the bed sporting a wound minus any weapin, and again after her body had been moved from the bed to the floor with the rifle which had been brought from the box room which was now upon her body with its barrel against the left side of her neck (photo' 25)?
-
Or to put it in the simplest way possible, what the officer wrote was correct
That would add the assumption that it was correct, as distinct from thought to be correct by the officer who wrote the log entry.
She did not make her own witness statement about this, it was prepared for her by a police officer who had a mindset to try and conceal the truth
That's mere supposition, but even if correct, it's highly unlikely that the assertion that the operator was not allowed to tie up the 999 system was untrue, as any BT operator would know whether or not such a rule existed. The rule is entirely believable, as the operator had the straightforward alternative of using a normal line unrelated to the 999 system.
. . . changing from being off the hook, into it becoming engaged
There was no report of the status "becoming" engaged. The wording logged was different, that's all.
No, she was asked to check the phone and she reported back that the phone was off the hook
You don't know the exact words that Pc West used. Pc West had dialled the WHF number and heard an engaged tone, which would be the case if the handset was off-hook, even if there was a dial tone on the WHF line. The engaged tone indicates that the line wasn't available when dialled, and only BT can determine the reason why the line isn't available. When Pc West telephoned the operator, it would be natural for him to mention to her that he'd heard the engaged tone (as distinct from an unobtainable tone) when asking the operator to investigate.
Because it was off the hook it wasn't engaged.
That's incorrect. It's always been the case that dialling a BT number results in the engaged tone if there is no fault, but a handset for the number is connected to the line and off-hook. This needn't be true nowadays if you dial a non-BT number, such as a Sky number, but it was true in 1985 for the WHF BT number. The BT operator in 1985 would also get the engaged tone, but could determine the reason for it. I think that the dial tone generated in 1985 would last for several minutes (if no dialling occurred), but not indefinitely.
. . . she would have told PC West that the phone was engaged, and the operator would have been able to obtain the telephone number of the phone it was engaged with, or to.
Had Pc West already mentioned the engaged tone to the operator, the natural response (if the operator had completed her check quickly) would have been to give just the explanation that the handset was off-hook (if no call was in progress). There would have been no dial tone to report unless the handset had only very recently (within a few minutes) been taken off-hook. From Pc West's position, writing "off-hook" was simply the alternative to writing "in use" or "in use" and the type of use, such as "connected to another number".
When the phone is off the hook it is not engaged to an operator, it is simply off the hook with its own dialling tone!
That's incorrect. The operator, unless specifically asked not to dial the number, would start by dialling it, and would receive the engaged tone if it was off-hook, in which case she could then determine the reason for the engaged tone.
If anyone elsewhere tries to phone the phone which has its handset off the hook, of course the caller will receive an engaged tone!
That's true, but the operator would get the engaged tone on dialling the number in the normal way.
She did not hear the dog barking because the phone was not engaged with another line, it was just off the hook with its own dialling tone! . . . the dialling tone would have automatically kicked in after a few minutes, leaving the phone at the farm off its cradle, or off the hook, with a dialling tone sounding in the handset!
That's not what happens. The dial tone commences only when the handset has just been lifted. If a call was in progress and the called party hangs up, the caller never receives a new dial tone by just waiting. If a dial tone ceases for any reason, a new dial tone never just "kicks in". The caller would have to hang up and then lift the handset to get a new dial tone. There's no evidence that it had a dial tone when checked at 3:42am. Even in 1985, the dial tone was discontinued after a short while (possibly a few minutes) unless dialling occurred.
-
There wouldn't have been a dialing tone if the phone had been off the hook.Years ago ( 1985 ) if the handset hadn't been on the cradle after a call,you'd hear the operators voice repeating " to replace the handset ". This was so on my phone back then. So in effect,the operator knew if the handset hadn't been replaced,and would possibly have heard background noise.
-
There wouldn't have been a dialing tone if the phone had been off the hook.Years ago ( 1985 ) if the handset hadn't been on the cradle after a call,you'd hear the operators voice repeating " to replace the handset ". This was so on my phone back then. So in effect,the operator knew if the handset hadn't been replaced,and would possibly have heard background noise.
That's not how it works lookout. For the operator to know the phone was off the hook, he/she would have to be alerted. This is what happened at WHF - it wasn't until the operator was notified that the phone was engaged, that it was checked and found to be off the hook.
-
I think you have misinterpreted what is put in that particular statement! She is saying that she could not patch through the line she was eavesdropping on, through to the police because the line she was eavesdropping on was a 999 call, and she could not patch an extension of that line through to the police directly without the connection she had control over becoming disabled
I think you're the one who is misinterpreting it. Can you explain how you derive your interpretation? Below are the exact words used in the relevant portion of the typed version of her statement dated 8th August 1985 and signed at 9.00 a.m.
"I can't be exactly sure of the time but at about 4.00 a.m. on Wednesday the 7th August 1985 I was at the switchboard when I received a call from the Police Headquarters in Chelmsford. I was asked to check the line of a Maldon Telephone Numbered 860209 to see if there was anybody speaking or if the phone was off the hook.
I then checked this line. I could tell that the receiver was off the hook and the line was therefore open. There wasn't any speech but I could hear a dog barking, the noise was loud so it appeared that the dog was near the receiver. I couldn't hear any other noise at all.
I then disconnected myself from the line and informed the caller that the receiver was off.
At about 5.40 a.m. the same caller phoned in again from the Police Headquarters and asked me to check that number again. This I did. The line was still open, the only thing I could hear was a very slight moving sound. I again informed the caller of this and he hung up. At about 5.50 a.m. the same day the same caller came on the phone again and asked if it was possible to put this number through to the Police Headquarters to enable them to monitor it. I am not allowed to engage the Direct Emergency Police line, so I again checked into this Maldon number and then phoned the Police Headquarters and connected the two thus enabling the Police to listen to the line. I didn't listen to the line at all this time as I was engaged in making alarm calls and other British Telecom Services.
I went off duty at 8.00 a.m. on the 7th August 1985 and at that stage the Police were still monitoring the line. I had had no further involvement since I had connected the two. I had no idea what had happened."
The above makes sense in relation to my description, and doesn't seem to justify your suggestions. In particular, the operator wasn't eavesdropping the WHF line when asked by the police to connect it to the Police HQ to let the police monitor it continuously, so there's nothing to suggest the WHF line was already connected to the emergency line.
-
That's not how it works lookout. For the operator to know the phone was off the hook, he/she would have to be alerted. This is what happened at WHF - it wasn't until the operator was notified that the phone was engaged, that it was checked and found to be off the hook.
I've said this before,that an engaged tone is a different from a tone where the handset is off the cradle. If it was off the hook mid-call,then an engaged tone would be heard by the caller trying to ring.
Therefore,an engaged tone would have proved that someone from within WHF had been trying to ring.
-
I've said this before,that an engaged tone is a different from a tone where the handset is off the cradle. If it was off the hook mid-call,then an engaged tone would be heard by the caller trying to ring.
Therefore,an engaged tone would have proved that someone from within WHF had been trying to ring.
Why is it different? A call can't be made without lifting a handset from a cradle. I've left a handset off the cradle or haven't replaced it properly. A voice would tell me -for a specified time- to replace the handset, but it didn't go on indefinitely.
-
Why is it different? A call can't be made without lifting a handset from a cradle. I've left a handset off the cradle or haven't replaced it properly. A voice would tell me -for a specified time- to replace the handset, but it didn't go on indefinitely.
When the handset was left off it wouldn't emit a dialing tone if it had just been used,it would be a wailing tone until the operator spoke. It wouldn't have given off an engaged tone. An engaged tone is what you get when trying to ring someone who's already engaged in conversation.
-
When the handset was left off it wouldn't emit a dialing tone if it had just been used,it would be a wailing tone until the operator spoke. It wouldn't have given off an engaged tone. An engaged tone is what you get when trying to ring someone who's already engaged in conversation.
We have been through this before - this didn't happen on the old exchanges. http://www.seg.co.uk/telecomm/automat1.htm
-
We have been through this before - this didn't happen on the old exchanges. http://www.seg.co.uk/telecomm/automat1.htm
I know we've been through it before,umpteen times. I've actually quoted the old exchanges ( Strowger/Plessey/Marconi ) It's bugging me because I remember the old system back in the 80's.
-
A caller would have heard an engaged tone when trying to get through to a number where the handset was simply off-hook. Any tone audible on the off-hook handset isn't heard by the caller, as the caller hasn't been connected.
-
Receiver off-hook tone is a series of beeps,NOT an engaged tone. This is displayed on a short Youtube film of an old dial-up phone.
-
The off-hook handset may beep for a while, but the caller who dials to it receives the usual engaged tone and doesn't know the precise reason for the tone.
-
I would imagine that each company is different when it comes to the tone or length of time it goes on for,usually between 3 to 5 minutes.
The older operators would distinguish between an engaged line and one which is off the hook. Of course no calls can be made to another phone which remains off the hook.
I still maintain that you don't get an engaged tone with a phone which is off the hook.
An engaged call simply means that whoever you were trying to call was already engaged in conversation. The only person who would have known,was the operator. The analogue system would have picked up an off-hook line and reported it as a fault if it had gone on long enough,but obviously in this case there'd been no fault as the operator tested the line and heard a dog barking.
-
Other phones in the farmhouse would also have been de-activated if one was off the hook.This may have been purposely done so that no phones could be used.
-
Receiver off-hook tone is a series of beeps,NOT an engaged tone. This is displayed on a short Youtube film of an old dial-up phone.
No, off the hook was just the engaged tone!
-
I would imagine that each company is different when it comes to the tone or length of time it goes on for,usually between 3 to 5 minutes.
The older operators would distinguish between an engaged line and one which is off the hook. Of course no calls can be made to another phone which remains off the hook.
I still maintain that you don't get an engaged tone with a phone which is off the hook.
An engaged call simply means that whoever you were trying to call was already engaged in conversation. The only person who would have known,was the operator. The analogue system would have picked up an off-hook line and reported it as a fault if it had gone on long enough,but obviously in this case there'd been no fault as the operator tested the line and heard a dog barking.
The was no distinction in tone or West would have been able to tell if the phone was off the hook or a call was under way. The operator had to break into the line to tell if it was off the hook or not! What you have written above is completely wrong.The exchange was unmanned so why would have reported a fault? No sure what you mean about 'each company being different'? There were no other companies providing phone service back then.
-
No, off the hook was just the engaged tone!
Wouldn't you have thought this subject had been done to death? You even spoke with the guy who was in charge of the system at the time and posted what he'd said yet STILL there seems to be an ongoing dispute. Hey Ho! Thus is ever the way of forums, I guess.
-
The tone was distinguishable in LATER systems.
http://www.seg.co.uk/telecomm/automat1.htm
Progress Tones
With manual switching systems, there had always been an operator to advise the caller of the current status. Having removed the need for an operator, a system was required to indicate call progress to the caller. A series of distinctive tones was developed which were produced by a machine called a Ring Generator. The ring generator was entirely electromechanical; different cadences and tones were produced by rotating cams connected to a generator. As well as generating the tones, the Ring Generator machine also provided timed pulses which were used by various processes throughout the exchange. The progress tones produced were as follows :
Dial Tone (DT). This is a 33 c/s continuous note and is applied to the line after the subscriber has lifted his handset and the switching equipment has allocated him an available outlet for this call to proceed. There would have been a physical limit on the number of calls an exchange could handle so if all equipment was already in use, the subscriber would not get dial tone. The actual pitch of the dial Tone varied from exchange to exchange depending on the adjustment of the ring generator.
Busy Tone (BT). A higher pitched note of 400 c/s interrupted to give a cadence of 0.75 seconds on, 0.75 seconds off. Busy tone indicated either that the called subscriber is already off-hook (busy) or that the route to the called subscriber is congested. In later systems, a slightly different cadence was introduced in order to distinguish between these two scenarios.
Number Unobtainable Tone (NUT). Identical pitch to the busy tone but continuous. This tone is used to indicate that a number is out of service, faulty or that a spare line has been dialled.
Ring Tone (RT). A tone of 133c/s which interrupted in the same cadence as the ring current which rings the telephone's bell at the called party's end : 0.4 seconds on, 0.2 seconds off.
-
Wouldn't you have thought this subject had been done to death? You even spoke with the guy who was in charge of the system at the time and posted what he'd said yet STILL there seems to be an ongoing dispute. Hey Ho! Thus is ever the way of forums, I guess.
There is enough information out there to find out how the Stowger exchanges worked. Malden was one of the last to be updated .
-
I don't care that this has been" done to death ". In the 80's/90's,I lived in a ( 3 storey ) house where 4 phones worked from the same line,this is how I know what's what regarding tones etc and uses.
I can only add that the systems must have differed from an area which was 200+ miles away.
-
While Neville was using the kitchen phone,all Sheila had to do was pick up the office phone and she would have heard her father's conversation. The tinkling sound of the kitchen phone being activated would have been heard via any other phone in use at the time and would have alerted Sheila.
-
I don't care that this has been" done to death ". In the 80's/90's,I lived in a ( 3 storey ) house where 4 phones worked from the same line,this is how I know what's what regarding tones etc and uses.
I can only add that the systems must have differed from an area which was 200+ miles away.
Like I said, Malden was one of the last to be updated. Your experience is in a different area so you cannot compare like for like. The FACT that West had to get the operator to check the line is proof that the tone was the same for off-hook and busy or he would have known the difference himself.
-
While Neville was using the kitchen phone,all Sheila had to do was pick up the office phone and she would have heard her father's conversation. The tinkling sound of the kitchen phone being activated would have been heard via any other phone in use at the time and would have alerted Sheila.
What was Sheila doing in the office Lookout?
-
What was Sheila doing in the office Lookout?
Upstairs ? Probably sounding off, which is why Neville had told JB that " your sister's going mad ".
-
Upstairs ? Probably sounding off, which is why Neville had told JB that " your sister's going mad ".
Well, I suppose pigs do fly but why would she have been in an unoccupied office? She had a bedroom. She COULD have ranted at June in her parents' bedroom.
-
Well, I suppose pigs do fly but why would she have been in an unoccupied office? She had a bedroom. She COULD have ranted at June in her parents' bedroom.
What a xxxxxx question ::) How would anyone know why Sheila would have been in a " unoccupied " office ? She needn't have even been in the office if she'd had a good set of ears to hear the downstairs phone being used.
-
What a xxxxxx question ::) How would anyone know why Sheila would have been in a " unoccupied " office ? She needn't have even been in the office if she'd had a good set of ears to hear the downstairs phone being used.
In a house that size she'd have needed Dumbo flaps! Have just been speaking with a friend who's late husband was a policeman. He worked shifts. When he came in at 2am and signed of using the downstairs phone, the upstairs phone would click or ping, but it couldn't be heard OTHER than by whoever was in bed with the phone beside them.
-
In a house that size she'd have needed Dumbo flaps! Have just been speaking with a friend who's late husband was a policeman. He worked shifts. When he came in at 2am and signed of using the downstairs phone, the upstairs phone would click or ping, but it couldn't be heard OTHER than by whoever was in bed with the phone beside them.
Those who were already awake------as in the Bamber household,would have had no trouble hearing the ping of another phone in use.
-
Upstairs ? Probably sounding off, which is why Neville had told JB that " your sister's going mad ".
We have entered the realms of complete fantasy.
-
Those who were already awake------as in the Bamber household,would have had no trouble hearing the ping of another phone in use.
Theirs, then, must have been the only house of that sort of construction in which such was possible. ONE tiny ping being heard all over the house? Well, I never! ::)
-
Theirs, then, must have been the only house of that sort of construction in which such was possible. ONE tiny ping being heard all over the house? Well, I never! ::)
Pity about xxxx xxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxx. Early hours, as Sheila stopped for breath from her ranting, sound carries at night and only a couple of flights of stairs to carry it,you'd hear a pin drop.
Sheila wasn't outside ::)
-
Pity about xxxx xxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxx. Early hours, as Sheila stopped for breath from her ranting, sound carries at night and only a couple of flights of stairs to carry it,you'd hear a pin drop.
Sheila wasn't outside ::)
Yeah, 'COURSE you would, Lookout ;D ;D ;D Like I said. Pigs MIGHT fly 8) 8) 8)
-
Why is it different? A call can't be made without lifting a handset from a cradle. I've left a handset off the cradle or haven't replaced it properly. A voice would tell me -for a specified time- to replace the handset, but it didn't go on indefinitely.
I've never had one of those , if my phone is left off by mistake it just makes a piercing noise.
Is this a recent addition
-
I've never had one of those , if my phone is left off by mistake it just makes a piercing noise.
Is this a recent addition
Yes. Yours is a more modern version. The one I have currently, doesn't do anything. I guess if I leave it off the cradle for long enough, the battery will wear down!!!!
-
From actual police log-----Neville's call @ 03.36 ( never disclosed ) Call had been recorded. P.C.Hall.
-
From actual police log-----Neville's call @ 03.36 ( never disclosed ) Call had been recorded. P.C.Hall.
Oh really? Where is it?
-
I guess you're talking about the doc below? Jeremy has written on the document that the entry refers to his call to police at 03:36. It doesn't refer to Nevill at all nor does it show that Jeremy called the police at 03:36. However, it does prove that after arguing he called the police around 03:26 - he has changed his story! So what was he doing for 26 mins between Nevill's call and his 'eventual' call to the police? AND Why did he accuse West of altering the logs from 03:26 to 03:36?
-
Oh really? Where is it?
CT put it out this morning---Bambertweets.
-
I guess you're talking about the doc below? Jeremy has written on the document that the entry refers to his call to police at 03:36. It doesn't refer to Nevill at all nor does it show that Jeremy called the police at 03:36. However, it does prove that after arguing he called the police around 03:26 - he has changed his story! So what was he doing for 26 mins between Nevill's call and his 'eventual' call to the police? AND Why did he accuse West of altering the logs from 03:26 to 03:36?
JB's mistakes pale into insignificance when you read others.
-
JB's mistakes pale into insignificance when you read others.
Mistakes? ;D
-
How many times has Neville's alleged call been brought up? - Thousands!
How many of those times produced a convincing argument? - None!
The arguments always go - If we assume A,B and C then speculate X,Y and Z then Nevil rang the police.
In the end it proves nothing.
-
I guess you're talking about the doc below? Jeremy has written on the document that the entry refers to his call to police at 03:36. Because that is the only time (3.36am) that he could have called PC West! Everything PC West said he did, and did, and the involvement of the operator at 3.42am, fits perfectly into the time scale! There is no way Jeremys call to police could have ended by 3.26am, then PC West do what he said he did, and did, and then after talking again to Jeremy for a very brief period, how he immediately requested the operator to check the line by 3.42am. There's no doubt whatsoever that Neville himself called the police by 3.26am... It doesn't refer to Nevill at all But the contents of the 3.26am C6 Bonnet log make it clear that the content of the message passed and recorded at that time (3.26am) came from Nevillenor does it show that Jeremy called the police at 03:36 But the contents of PC Wests C1 message log clearly does refer to that message being passed by the son (Jeremy) and more importantly, it is timed at commencing from 3.36am!. However, it does prove that after arguing he called the police around 03:26 No, it doesn't show that at all, since the contents of Bonnetts C6 3.26am message log, refers to Sheila as 'MY DAUGHTER', and Sheila was not Jeremys daughter! - he has changed his story! Jeremy has not changed his story, he has always maintained that when he spoke to police he spoke about a call he received from Neville who told him that 'Sheila has the gun, she has gone crazy', and this is what is recorded in PC Wests C1 3.36am (start) message log! He never said to PC West, 'My daughter has gone berserk', or that 'My daughter has got hold of one of my guns'... So what was he doing for 26 mins between Nevill's call and his 'eventual' call to the police? That amount of delay was never even part of the prosecutions case! He didn't dally for for 26 minutes, as you put it! What, and then on top of this astonishing period you have plucked out of the air, his alleged 3.26am call, lasted almost to or just before 3.42am, when the operator checked the phone at the farmhouse and reported that the phone there was 'off the hook' which potentially meant that Jeremys call to police on that mistaken footing lasted around 15 minutes! Pc West does not say that, so you must be wrong in your interpretationAND Why did he accuse West of altering the logs from 03:26 to 03:36? It depends what you mean by suggesting that Jeremy accused PC West of altering the logs from 3.26am, to 3.36am? It doesn't make sense, why would Jeremy accuse PC West of doing that? Are you reffering to altering the time of the call? The duration of the call? or the contents of the call?
The Licufarians in this matter (cops, CPS, Magistrates, judicial system)don't give a damn about the suffering of innocent victims, all these monsters are bothered about is trying to make themselves look good, and hoodwinking the public into mistakenly believing that these morons have got everything and it under control...
-
How many times has Neville's alleged call been brought up? - Thousands!
How many of those times produced a convincing argument? - None!
The arguments always go - If we assume A,B and C then speculate X,Y and Z then Nevil rang the police.
In the end it proves nothing.
Exactly David, it's just people who have nothing better to do
-
Exactly David, it's just people who have nothing better to do
Jackie I agree with you and David re: the phone call the discussion is going nowhere as the two sides will never agree and neither side has any proof.
-
At the end of the day, the phone call issue that is being mentioned in this thread, was never part of the prosecutions case during the 1986 trial, or the 2002 appeal, the timings and the contents of both logs have never been argued or considered in court! For Example, the entire contents of Bonnetts 3.26am log, and the entire contents of PC Wests 3.36am log, have never been argued or explained by anybody in a court setting! What this suggests to me, is that here in this particular case, we have the potential for another 'DEREK Bentley' case, where one side is now (over three decades later) claiming both log contents bearing different times, relate to a solitary phone call that was made by Jeremy, and the other side saying, 'no this is fresh evidence which was not made available by police and its CPS counterpart during Bambers trial, otherwise the defence would have sought to rely upon this as the foundation for the jury to believe that Neville Bamber had indeed called the police (3.26am) before Jeremy himself had done, and did do (3.36am), this was not done because the police and its CPS counterpart dishonestly sought to keep the the truth from the court, from the defendants legal team, from the jury, and from the public at large! Derek Bentley paid with his life at the expense of the hangmans noose for a misinterpretation of words spoken! Jeremy has so far paid with a loss of his liberty for over 31 years, because police and its counterpart the CPS did not want a jury having to decide Bambers innocence or guilt on two sets of words, recorded in Bonnetts C6 (3,26am)log, as opposed to PC Wests C1 (3.36am) log!
A jury should have decided the contents of Bonnetts C6 (3.26am) log contents 'daughter has gone berserk, my daughter has got hold of one of my guns', versus PC Wests C1 (3.36am) log contents, 'Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy'! The arguments would have been never ending on both sides, reference to the duration of each call, linked to duties performed by PC West, involving the operator, and so on and so forth! Cops and CPS secreted the 'devil in the detail' (dishonestly, because they are Lucifarians) because they realised that it had the potential to cause reasonable doubt!
It would have almost certainly have resulted in Jeremy Bambers acquittal, on the back of the 'Derek Bentley' case, which was settled at the time of his trial on the basis of the mortal words, 'LET HIM HAVE IT', and later in a pardon, too late to save the life of that victim! Bambers case, could have been settled on the contents of both phone record logs, Bonnets 3.26am C6 log, versus PC Wests 3.36am, C1 log!
Reasonable doubt favours Bamber in that comparison, by a reliance on the duration of the initial call made by Jeremy to PC West, the delay in West contacting Bonnett, the continued call to Jeremy, and the involvement of the operator by 3.42am!
'Daughter gone berserk, daughter has got hold of one of my guns' versus, 'Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy'..
But cops an its corrupted counterpart deceived the court, they deceived Bambers defence, they deceived the Jury, and they continue to deceive the public! Lucifarians the lot of them, Criminals in uniform Criminals in suits, ties, skirts, blouses, wigs and gowns...
-
The system is corrupt, run by corrupted officials whose duty it is , 'to fool the public into believing and accepting that these 'LUCIFARIANS' have everything under control' - the vast majority of the public are brainwashed by those in power, uniforms, suits and ties, skirts and blouses, gowns and wigs, when they are no better that the vast majority of us, the public has to get wise, everybody is being conned...
-
The system is corrupt, run by corrupted officials whose duty it is , 'to fool the public into believing and accepting that these 'LUCIFARIANS' have everything under control' - the vast majority of the public are brainwashed by those in power, uniforms, suits and ties, skirts and blouses, gowns and wigs, when they are no better that the vast majority of us, the public has to get wise, everybody is being conned...
And, as if this was not bad enough, these monsters command vast salaries from public funding, to support their opulent and vigorous superior life styles!!
I'd rather be poor, with a pure heart, but the situation is so bad, these Lucifarians are the lowest of the low, that I often refer to using abusive language in absolute abhorrent disgust in the various systems, these 'LUCIFARIANS' operate, and con the general public at large! Burn the lot of them at the stake, bring back the stocks, put these mother fukkers in the stocks and lets throw cow dung and puke at the lot of them!
-
And, as if this was not bad enough, these monsters command vast salaries from public funding, to support their opulent and vigorous superior life styles!!
I'd rather be poor, with a pure heart, but the situation is so bad, these Lucifarians are the lowest of the low, that I often refer to using abusive language in absolute abhorrent disgust in the various systems, these 'LUCIFARIANS' operate, and con the general public at large! Burn the lot of them at the stake, bring back the stocks, put these mother fukkers in the stocks and lets throw cow dung and puke at the lot of them!
For the rest of their lives (if the public take pity on them, and spare them from being burnt alive at the stake)!
-
Jackie I agree with you and David re: the phone call the discussion is going nowhere as the two sides will never agree and neither side has any proof.
Exactly Susan, Ewen Smith, Simon McKay and a long line of legal experts would not have taken an interest if the phone calls were an issue
-
Yeah, lets bring the stocks back, for these 'LUCIFARIANS', lets give them what they crave for, 'fire and brimstone'..
They want 'fire and brimstone', ok lets burn the lot of 'em alive at the stake, lets terrorise them like they take great enjoyment in terrorising the general public, oh yeah, they are our saviours, they know best, they have everything under control, but do you know what, these 'LUCIFARIANS' create and generate the terror in the public, they are the true, real monsters, always aiming and seeking to make 'themselves' look 'oh so good'...
Liars, Criminals in suits and ties, skirts and blouses, wigs and gowns - the real people in society have to now stand against these monsters, politicians, and basically dishonest greedy selfish bastards...
-
Yeah, lets bring the stocks back, for these 'LUCIFARIANS', lets give them what they crave for, 'fire and brimstone'..
They want 'fire and brimstone', ok lets burn the lot of 'em alive at the stake, lets terrorise them like they take great enjoyment in terrorising the general public, oh yeah, they are our saviours, they know best, they have everything under control, but do you know what, these 'LUCIFARIANS' create and generate the terror in the public, they are the true, real monsters, always aiming and seeking to make 'themselves' look 'oh so good'...
Liars, Criminals in suits and ties, skirts and blouses, wigs and gowns - the real people in society have to now stand against these monsters, politicians, and basically dishonest greedy selfish bastards...
Well lets just hope that some of these "'Lucifarians'" are around when some fanatic tries to burn you, run you over, stab you, or remove your head from your body. Despite your disdain for them, they's still put their own lives on the line to save yours.
-
Exactly David, it's just people who have nothing better to do
Err, you're agreeing with those that DON'T believe Neville called the police! ;D ;D
-
Exactly Susan, Ewen Smith, Simon McKay and a long line of legal experts would not have taken an interest if the phone calls were an issue
Hi Jackie just to clarify IMO Jeremy did receive a phone call from his Father I have no evidence to back this up but nether have I any to say it did not happen the forum has been discussing and disagreeing on this issue since I joined.
-
Err, you're agreeing with those that DON'T believe Neville called the police! ;D ;D
You know full well this is an issue that can never be proved either way
-
I guess you're talking about the doc below? Jeremy has written on the document that the entry refers to his call to police at 03:36. It doesn't refer to Nevill at all nor does it show that Jeremy called the police at 03:36. However, it does prove that after arguing he called the police around 03:26 - he has changed his story! So what was he doing for 26 mins between Nevill's call and his 'eventual' call to the police? AND Why did he accuse West of altering the logs from 03:26 to 03:36?
Well it does mention Neville and also the tapes of UBS call so where r they Caroline. Why were they never played in court. They were there and would have firmed up exactly how the call went.
-
Well it does mention Neville and also the tapes of UBS call so where r they Caroline. Why were they never played in court. They were there and would have firmed up exactly how the call went.
You could find that "Neville" is this case is a surname. All other males seem to be referred to by initials. It isn't customary to refer to witnesses/victims by their fore names.
-
Well it does mention Neville and also the tapes of UBS call so where r they Caroline. Why were they never played in court. They were there and would have firmed up exactly how the call went.
Jeremy has never disputed what he said to West, he has changed his mind over the timings though just to fit in a call from Nevill.
Yes it does mention Nevill but not any call.
-
You could find that "Neville" is this case is a surname. All other males seem to be referred to by initials. It isn't customary to refer to witnesses/victims by their fore names.
Yes, it could - we don't know what it means or even where it came from. There are no official stamps or anything to authenticate it.
-
Yes, it could - we don't know what it means or even where it came from. There are no official stamps or anything to authenticate it.
Hardly authentic, surely, if Jeremy was free to add his own information?
-
JB's written note is unclear and possibly based on a misunderstanding. We don't yet know when JB wrote it.
The action contains "JB calls", apparently a reference to all recent known calls by JB, not his one call to the police (Pc West). We don't know what "Neville?" refers to. JB's dad was Nevill, not Neville, and is unlikely to have been referred to by just a forename, given that JB wasn't. No HQ recordings (in the sense of tape recordings) were ever disclosed, but JB hadn't called the police HQ, so his call (which was to Pc West) wasn't necessarily taped anyway. However, the HQ tapes would have been around for the police to use to check call times, and mike tesko maintains that the police did make copies of some of these, and never disclosed those copies to the defence.
-
Hi Jackie just to clarify IMO Jeremy did receive a phone call from his Father I have no evidence to back this up but nether have I any to say it did not happen the forum has been discussing and disagreeing on this issue since I joined.
Susan there are 40 reasons why Nevill would not phone Bamber. And over 50 pieces of forensic evidence showing Sheila did not commit the massacre. Both have been posted on the forum. One of them yesterday.
Not sure what more you need.
-
You know full well this is an issue that can never be proved either way
No, you just need common sense.
-
Susan there are 40 reasons why Nevill would not phone Bamber. And over 50 pieces of forensic evidence showing Sheila did not commit the massacre. Both have been posted on the forum. One of them yesterday.
Not sure what more you need.
Hello Adam what I need to do is read the 40 reasons I know Sheila committed the murders so you will never change my mind on that one :)
-
Well lets just hope that some of these "'Lucifarians'" are around when some fanatic tries to burn you, run you over, stab you, or remove your head from your body. Despite your disdain for them, they's still put their own lives on the line to save yours.
God has looked after me, I survived - are you a potential Lucifarian?
-
Marters, and Saints, have all suffered untold tragedy, and injustices, it's what sets them a part from ordinary folk!
-
There was clearly two telephone calls to police at around 3.26am, and 3.36am! One from Neville Bamber, the latter from Jeremy Bamber! This is true no matter how desperate lucifarian supporters might want it not to be true! If it was not true, the cops, and their lucifarian counterparts would have disclosed the contents of both phone message logs during the trial, and they (not any lucifarian supporter) would have said these two message logs, one timed 3.26am, the other timed 3.36am, one which states, ' daughter gone berserk, my daughter has got hold of one of my guns' , the other which stated, ' Sheila has got the gun she has gone crazy', and the lucifarian authorities in all the evilness, would have dishonestly tried to suggest that both logs (Bonnetts C6 log, and Wests C1 log) related to the same call! But, alas because the devil is in the detail, not even the 'unscrupulous prosecution' dare even attempt this, because these lucifarians knew, and know that Neville (Christian name) Bamber not only phoned police but he had beforehand phoned Jeremy, to tell him that 'Sheila had got the gun, and that she had gone crazy'! Neville Bamber had phoned police himself, to tell the lucifarian authorities that, ' daughter has gone berserk, my daughter has got hold of one of my guns'..
Nothing could be any clearer, and the lucifarian cops and their counter part, the local Chelmsford CPS, know this to be true, that's why they hid the contents of both logs and dishonestly focussed on the timings of both calls, trying to deceive everybody and succeeding in it being just a question of a mix up with the time of the calls - these lucifarian crooks have no scruples, they don't care what they do or what they have to do to get a result in their favour! Wicked vile people who don't know what it's like to struggle through life, having to do without little luxuries in life, or deal with often daily crisis! These prosecutors can't even be prosecuted for lying, can you imagine that? They have a license to lie, to fabricate and invent, just like their uniformed copcounter parts, which lucifarian supporters idolise!!
Vile, abnoxious people, these unscrupulous cops and the CPS, as they have license to lie, to fabricate, invent, tamper with the evidence, so please prey tell in the eyes of God, who are the real criminals?
Not the convicted in all cases..
-
The bottom line is that the contents of both of these phone logs was not aired during the 1986 Chelmsford trial, or the 2002 appeal! At least at Derek Bentley's trial the words spoken were mentioned during his trial, and his appeal to the then then lucifarian Home Secretary! But this is not the case at Bambers trial, or any appeal! And the reason for this was because the lucifarian cops and the lucifarian Prosecution all knew that members of the jury, and ordinary members of the public could not be fooled by their deception and gross trickery! So these lucifarian, in keeping with what they know best for their own good, played a game of, somebody got the timing of the call wrong! Oh yeah, it was that simple was it?
How about these lucifarians informing the court, the defence, the jury, the public about the gross contradictions in what was said during these two differently timed message logs?
No, thefrom in uniform and gowns and wigs weren't prepared to take that risk, they daren't let it be k own that the contents of both logs were entirely consistent with Neville Bamber calling police at 3.26am, and Jeremy calling PC West by 3.36am, onward!
-
The age old adage, that 'a person is to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, simply does not hold water in the vast majority of cases'! It's a closed shop, almost! You will not get acquitted unless you expose part of the prosecutions case as having been fabricated! Even if you manage to achieve this, the corrupted system might still convict you on other evidence, oh and the wicked monsters who were found out fabricating the evidence, might even get promoted!
-
It's not easy to get any sort of justice, everybody involved in the system is geared toward looking after and maintaining the false credibility of the system! It's a complete joke! Defendants are being forced to plead guilty on the advice of their own solicitors, or barristers..
-
Marters, and Saints, have all suffered untold tragedy, and injustices, it's what sets them a part from ordinary folk!
Are you, potentially, either martyr or saint, Mike?
-
Are you, potentially, either martyr or saint, Mike?
Neither, but suffering in one form or another, is part of the make up of them!
-
You've been using "Lucifarian" as though it means "corrupt" or "ill-intentioned" (or an individual having such character, when used as a noun). The correct spelling is "Luciferian" and it doesn't (at least in modern times) have that meaning. Lucifer . . . is seen as one of many morning stars, a symbol of enlightenment, independence and human progression, etc., and Luciferian(ism) doesn't relate to wrongdoing or Satanism.
-
You've been using "Lucifarian" as though it means "corrupt" or "ill-intentioned" (or an individual having such character, when used as a noun). The correct spelling is "Luciferian" and it doesn't (at least in modern times) have that meaning. Lucifer . . . is seen as one of many morning stars, a symbol of enlightenment, independence and human progression, etc., and Luciferian(ism) doesn't relate to wrongdoing or Satanism.
I prefer my interpretation, and spelling!
(1) - http://www.allaboutgod.com/story-of-lucifer.htm
Story of Lucifer – His Origin
To find the origin of Lucifer, we turn to the Old Testament. In the Hebrew, the name Lucifer is translated from the Hebrew word "helel," which means brightness. This designation, referring to Lucifer, is the rendering of the "morning star" or "star of the morning" or "bright star" which is presented in Isaiah. "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High’" (Isaiah 14:12-14).
The context of this passage is a referral to the king of Babylon as presented in his pride, splendor and fall. However, it is to the power behind the evil Babylonian king that this is actually addressed. No mortal king would claim that his throne was above that of God or that he was like the Most High. The power behind the evil Babylonian king is Lucifer, Son of the Morning.
Story of Lucifer – His History
Lucifer is just another name for Satan, who as head of the evil world-system is the real, though invisible, power behind the successive rulers of Tyre, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and all of those evil rulers that we have seen come and go in the history of the world. This passage goes beyond human history and marks the beginning of sin in the universe and the very fall of Satan in the pristine, sinless spheres before the creation of man.
We also see this same motif in Ezekiel: "Moreover the word of the LORD came to me: Mortal, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD: You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was your covering, carnelian, chrysolite, and moonstone, beryl, onyx, and jasper, sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; and worked in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. With an anointed cherub as guardian I placed you; you were on the holy mountain of God; you walked among the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day that you were created, until iniquity was found in you. In the abundance of your trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned; so I cast you as a profane thing from the mountain of God, and the guardian cherub drove you out from among the stones of fire. Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor. I cast you to the ground; I exposed you before kings, to feast their eyes on you. By the multitude of your iniquities, in the unrighteousness of your trade, you profaned your sanctuaries. So I brought out fire from within you; it consumed you, and I turned you to ashes on the earth in the sight of all who saw you. All who know you among the peoples are appalled at you; you have come to a dreadful end and shall be no more forever" (Ezekiel 28:11-19).
This passage seems to be addressed to the "king of Tyre." In reality, it goes beyond the king to the one who is behind the evil king of Tyre. This passage also has near and far prophecy about Lucifer/Satan because although his final end is already sure, it has not happened yet and it occurs after the final judgment (Revelation 20:7-10). In both the Isaiah passage and the Ezekiel passage, the representation is not of Lucifer/Satan as confined to his own person but his working in and the consummating of his plans through earthly kings and rulers who take to themselves divine honors and who, whether they actually know this or not, rule in the spirit and under the aims of Satan. "For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12). Satan is the principality behind the powers of this corrupt world system.
Notice the statement that is given in the passage in Ezekiel, "the anointed cherub." These statements could never apply to a human king but, they do apply to Lucifer/Satan who is behind the human king. This angel is the highest creature the LORD ever created. The LORD says of him, "You were the seal of perfection, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Satan was the wisest creature God ever created. No other angel, no other being was created with the intelligence that God gave to this creature. God says that this creation is "perfect in beauty." Apart from the Holy Trinity; Father, Son and Holy Spirit, this creature is today the highest being.
In verse Ezekiel 28:14 it says, "You were the anointed Cherub." This tells us we are not talking about a human king. The word cherub is singular for cherubim. The cherubim are symbolic of God's Holy presence and His unapproachable majesty. These cherubim occupy a unique position. The "anointed cherub who covers" is the picture given to us in the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve had been sent out and God had placed cherubim to guard the way of the tree of life. Also, when Moses made the mercy seat and placed it into the tabernacle's Holy of Holies, God's glory came and dwelt between the cherubim. They "covered" the mercy seat with their wings. So we now see that Satan was a cherub and his position was to guard the very throne of God. His position was that of protecting the holiness of God. Satan had the highest of all positions, a position which he despised and lost. We have here in Ezekiel a picture of the highest of God's creatures, perfect in wisdom, beautiful beyond description, a musician and on top of all that, he was given this high, exalted position. But, this creation, with all of these wonderful attributes also had a free will. One day, God says to this marvelous creature, "Iniquity was found in you."
Story of Lucifer – His Status
What kind of iniquity was found of him? In the book of Ezekiel, God has let us stand with Him at the very beginning, to see the origin and the creation of Satan. But, why does God say this? What is this iniquity? We must look back to Isaiah 14:12, which tells us of Lucifer/Satan's choice. "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit on the mount of assembly on the heights of Zaphon; I will ascend to the tops of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High." Did you notice in this passage all of the "I wills. " He said he would exalt his throne above the stars of God. The word "stars" here does not refer to what we see in the night sky. It refers to the angels of God. In other words, "I will take over heaven, I will be God." That is Lucifer/Satan's sin and that is the iniquity that was found in him. He does not want to be God's servant. He does not want to do what he was created to do. He wants to be served and there are millions who have chosen to do just that; serve him. They have listened to his lies and chosen to follow him. Eve believed the lie that she would be like God. The reason Lucifer/Satan tempted her with that was because it is the very thing that he wants -- to be God.
-
The lucifarians I speak of thrive on lies, mistruths, falsehoods, and e everything and anything providing it makes them or the system they operate in look good, or 'godly', or 'god like'..
-
All I know is that the lucifarian prosecutor and police during Jeremy's trial deceived the court, the defence, the jury and the public into thinking and believing that there was a simple matter of PC West getting mixed up about the time he received Jeremy's distress call, whereas, it was much more than him getting a timing wrong! It was about the conflicting accounts in each of the two message logs, 'daughter has gone berserk, my daughter has got one of my guns' recorded in one (3.26am), 'Sheila has got the gun, she has gone crazy', in the other (3.36am)! The truth of the matter is that PC West could not have misread the clock and mistook the time that he received Jeremy's call of 3.26am, as 3.36am, because according to the now known evidence PC West would have had to speak to Jeremy and place him on hold before West contacted Malcolm Bonnetts at 3.26am! With this in mind, how could PC West have misread the time 3.36am for 3.26am, or vice versa? The lucifarian Prosecution sought to deal with this matter in isolation by just referring to the times of both calls without presenting the body in each recorded message - in other words a deception!!
-
Inventing a spelling doesn't really justify taking a concept that happens to have an ancient origin and expecting that origin to be relevant today. In this case, it suggests you are hinting at some connection with the word "Rastafarian". The website that you quoted makes reference to Lucifer, but doesn't use the word "Luciferian" or "Luciferianism". It does assert that the sin of pride transformed Lucifer, an anointed cherub of God, the very "seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty", into Satan, but refers to pride as "the sin of sins" without giving any justification for that. The transformation of the "seal of perfection" into Satan never made much sense, and pride is generally expected nowadays (for example, "have pride in your work") and rarely carries the connotation of overweening self-esteem in modern usage.
-
Inventing a spelling doesn't really justify taking a concept that happens to have an ancient origin and expecting that origin to be relevant today. In this case, it suggests you are hinting at some connection with the word "Rastafarian". The website that you quoted makes reference to Lucifer, but doesn't use the word "Luciferian" or "Luciferianism". It does assert that the sin of pride transformed Lucifer, an anointed cherub of God, the very "seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty", into Satan, but refers to pride as "the sin of sins" without giving any justification for that. The transformation of the "seal of perfection" into Satan never made much sense, and pride is generally expected nowadays (for example, "have pride in your work") and rarely carries the connotation of overweening self-esteem in modern usage.
The authorities think they are better than god, their lies become transformed into truth, and they are not interested in any version of the truth which contradicts their own! Even when exposed as liars, and dishonest conspirators, these lucifarian jokers never get reprimanded, prosecuted, for any wrongdoing! These lucifarian people, know best, they are perfect in everything they do, avoiding being exposed as criminals by their own judgements, some even get promoted when it can be proved they lied, concocted, or fabricated evidence! Their misconduct overseen by judges from the same clan, guaranteeing that it becomes accepted as a truth, when a lie is told! It's a closed shop, corruption by the lucifarian artists, supported by their supporters, who do not live in the real world! I don't have to justify what I mean in anything about this despicable group of people amongst us, these people thrive on other people's misery! They love being top dog, with God resigned into second position!
-
You are calling the authorities liars, despicable, corrupt, etc., but that doesn't justify the adjective Lucifarian (or Luciferian) because Lucifer wasn't originally any of those things, and isn't in most modern usage. Taken literally, Lucifer is the morning star (Venus), so anyone who simply believes that Venus exists is a Luciferian.
-
You are calling the authorities liars, despicable, corrupt, etc., but that doesn't justify the adjective Lucifarian (or Luciferian) because Lucifer wasn't originally any of those things, and isn't in most modern usage. Taken literally, Lucifer is the morning star (Venus), so anyone who simply believes that Venus exists is a Luciferian.
Think that's the majority of the population then! ;D
-
You are calling the authorities liars, despicable, corrupt, etc., but that doesn't justify the adjective Lucifarian (or Luciferian) because Lucifer wasn't originally any of those things, and isn't in most modern usage. Taken literally, Lucifer is the morning star (Venus), so anyone who simply believes that Venus exists is a Luciferian.
If one looks at what Mike is writing in the correct context. I think its clear what definition he is using.
-
Someone at WHF was alive when JB was attempting to ring back after his father had called him. JB was witnessing an engaged tone at the time. Isn't that proof enough that he was at his own home and not committing murder?
-
Someone at WHF was alive when JB was attempting to ring back after his father had called him. JB was witnessing an engaged tone at the time. Isn't that proof enough that he was at his own home and not committing murder?
That's what you say. The telephone engineer, responsible for the area at the time, says otherwise. I don't believe it's ever been disputed that Jeremy was in his own home when he allegedly received a call from Nevill . He made a point of saying he was in his own home when he asked the police for a lift FROM HIS OWN HOME.
-
That's what you say. The telephone engineer, responsible for the area at the time, says otherwise. I don't believe it's ever been disputed that Jeremy was in his own home when he allegedly received a call from Nevill . He made a point of saying he was in his own home when he asked the police for a lift FROM HIS OWN HOME.
I suspect he called his house from WHF, which was answered by the answering machine, thinking that the existence of this call could be checked by the police and add further weight to his story.
The delay in calling the police could well be because he had to make the journey back to Goldhanger before he could make the call.
-
That's what you say. The telephone engineer, responsible for the area at the time, says otherwise. I don't believe it's ever been disputed that Jeremy was in his own home when he allegedly received a call from Nevill . He made a point of saying he was in his own home when he asked the police for a lift FROM HIS OWN HOME.
How can you account for the engaged tone when JB tried to call his father back ? Regardless of what the engineer said.
-
How can you account for the engaged tone when JB tried to call his father back ? Regardless of what the engineer said.
Ooops! Silly me. I should have remembered that you know more than the experts.
-
How can you account for the engaged tone when JB tried to call his father back ? Regardless of what the engineer said.
It was off the hook, not engaged.
It was off the hook because Jeremy had lifted the kitchen handset off the cradle, quite possibly before the murders to disable the other phones in the house.
-
I suspect he called his house from WHF, which was answered by the answering machine, thinking that the existence of this call could be checked by the police and add further weight to his story.
The delay in calling the police could well be because he had to make the journey back to Goldhanger before he could make the call.
Yeah. I'd forgotten about the answering machine.
-
Ooops! Silly me. I should have remembered that you know more than the experts.
I can't believe your naivety.You've never lived,obviously.
Remember------it was so-called experts who put up highly inflammable material on high-rise flats !! Shame on them.
However,I asked you how you accounted for the engaged tone when JB tried to phone back ??
-
I can't believe your naivety.You've never lived,obviously.
Remember------it was so-called experts who put up highly inflammable material on high-rise flats !! Shame on them.
However,I asked you how you accounted for the engaged tone when JB tried to phone back ??
This isn't about high rise flats, tragic beyond belief though that was. Why do you try to link every current mistake, on the part of the authorities, to the Jeremy Bamber case. It's as if you're saying "Look! I TOLD you so. There's another one". There will ALWAYS be "another one" but it doesn't mean EVERY one.
-
Someone at WHF was alive when JB was attempting to ring back after his father had called him. JB was witnessing an engaged tone at the time. Isn't that proof enough that he was at his own home and not committing murder?
-
How? The phone being engaged meant the phone was off the hook NOT that someone was speaking on it.
-
How can you account for the engaged tone when JB tried to call his father back ? Regardless of what the engineer said.
Because the engaged tone and the off the hook tone were the same. I posted proof of this before but you just close your eyes and ears to it.
-
I can't believe your naivety.You've never lived,obviously.
Remember------it was so-called experts who put up highly inflammable material on high-rise flats !! Shame on them.
However,I asked you how you accounted for the engaged tone when JB tried to phone back ??
You have been told many times that the tone was the SAME - any naivety resides with you.
-
This isn't about high rise flats, tragic beyond belief though that was. Why do you try to link every current mistake, on the part of the authorities, to the Jeremy Bamber case. It's as if you're saying "Look! I TOLD you so. There's another one". There will ALWAYS be "another one" but it doesn't mean EVERY one.
There is one big difference, no one put cladding on a building with the intention of seeing many people die - Jeremy had intention. The analogy is completely spurious.
-
I suspect he called his house from WHF, which was answered by the answering machine, thinking that the existence of this call could be checked by the police and add further weight to his story.
The delay in calling the police could well be because he had to make the journey back to Goldhanger before he could make the call.
Oooooh,I don't think so.
-
This isn't about high rise flats, tragic beyond belief though that was. Why do you try to link every current mistake, on the part of the authorities, to the Jeremy Bamber case. It's as if you're saying "Look! I TOLD you so. There's another one". There will ALWAYS be "another one" but it doesn't mean EVERY one.
Just because I pick-up on something doesn't mean that you prefer to continue in that vain of conversation in order to avoid what I've asked originally.
-
You have been told many times that the tone was the SAME - any naivety resides with you.
I can't help it if I DON'T believe all I'm told,or all that's written. I'm not easily fooled.
-
Because the engaged tone and the off the hook tone were the same. I posted proof of this before but you just close your eyes and ears to it.
An engaged tone and a tone off the hook are two DIFFERENT tones !!
-
Were any of you aware in the 80's of rotary dialling telephones and their different tones ?
-
Just because I pick-up on something doesn't mean that you prefer to continue in that vain of conversation in order to avoid what I've asked originally.
Picked up on what? The tone for engaged because someone is speaking on the phone or it being off the hook was the same. You have been told this before but you just keep repeating that there was a difference anyway. Maldon was one of the LAST exchanges to be updated - it's a FACT!
-
An engaged tone and a tone off the hook are two DIFFERENT tones !!
No they weren't and I have posted the proof MANY times. I won't post it again while certain quarters are living in denial.
-
We know there were recordings of the call/calls so why weren't they played in court, if they had nothing to hide this would have sealed it.
-
We know there were recordings of the call/calls so why weren't they played in court, if they had nothing to hide this would have sealed it.
Do we?
-
We know there were recordings of the call/calls . . .
Bonnett asserted later that "all radio and telephone messages are recorded on audio tape", which presumably referred to such messages handled in the HQ information room where he worked. That doesn't imply there was a similar practice at Chelmsford police station.
-
Bonnett asserted later that "all radio and telephone messages are recorded on audio tape", which presumably referred to such messages handled in the HQ information room where he worked. That doesn't imply there was a similar practice at Chelmsford police station.
A logical consequence based on a presumption cannot be taken to imply that there was or wasn't.
-
Is this of any relevance?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1211.0;attach=20087;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3356.0;attach=23348;image)
-
Thanks Roch.
-
Did Burrell request two checks without even dialling the number? That seems unlikely. How would he know what happened at 06:09?