Author Topic: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty  (Read 272533 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Padgates staff

  • Guest
Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #150 on: November 24, 2012, 08:19:53 AM »
I need to ask a question, please bear with me on this.
Assuming, Jeremy did it. He goes to WHF and calls his house as his dad saying Sheila has gone on a bender with a gun. Well, who answers the phone at Jeremy's end if he lives on his own, thus showing a call was made? He can't be at both ends and it had to be answered to give an alibi.
Another thing I don't understand is, if the phone was answered at Jeremy's end and the receiver not put back on again at the WHF end, if that happens here then I can still hear the other end and cannot dial out until the phone has been put back on again, so how did Jeremy, assuming the call was made, manage to call the local police bearing in mind we didn't have mobiles then-well, he might have but it's a long shot.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #151 on: November 24, 2012, 11:55:58 AM »
I need to ask a question, please bear with me on this.
Assuming, Jeremy did it. He goes to WHF and calls his house as his dad saying Sheila has gone on a bender with a gun. Well, who answers the phone at Jeremy's end if he lives on his own, thus showing a call was made? He can't be at both ends and it had to be answered to give an alibi.
Another thing I don't understand is, if the phone was answered at Jeremy's end and the receiver not put back on again at the WHF end, if that happens here then I can still hear the other end and cannot dial out until the phone has been put back on again, so how did Jeremy, assuming the call was made, manage to call the local police bearing in mind we didn't have mobiles then-well, he might have but it's a long shot.

Easy answers Joanne.  He phoned the unmanned police station first, note it wasn't 999.  Next he places a call to his own house and leaves the receiver dangling before scarpering back to his own house in Goldhanger.  He answers the phone when he gets home and waits a minute before replacing the handset.  He then phones Julie, this was just after 3am, has a chat before phoning the unmanned police station again and then Colchester. He never dialled 999 once.

In addition, after answering his own call he only has to replace the receiver for a minute to clear the line.  In case anyone asks how do I know this, we have discussed this all at length already on both forums and checked it out with BT.

You see Joanne, all very doable and very logical.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline John

Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #152 on: November 24, 2012, 09:57:10 PM »
I need to ask a question, please bear with me on this.
Assuming, Jeremy did it. He goes to WHF and calls his house as his dad saying Sheila has gone on a bender with a gun. Well, who answers the phone at Jeremy's end if he lives on his own, thus showing a call was made? He can't be at both ends and it had to be answered to give an alibi.
Another thing I don't understand is, if the phone was answered at Jeremy's end and the receiver not put back on again at the WHF end, if that happens here then I can still hear the other end and cannot dial out until the phone has been put back on again, so how did Jeremy, assuming the call was made, manage to call the local police bearing in mind we didn't have mobiles then-well, he might have but it's a long shot.

Easy answers Joanne.  He phoned the unmanned police station first, note it wasn't 999.  Next he places a call to his own house and leaves the receiver dangling before scarpering back to his own house in Goldhanger.  He answers the phone when he gets home and waits a minute before replacing the handset.  He then phones Julie, this was just after 3am, has a chat before phoning the unmanned police station again and then Colchester. He never dialled 999 once.

In addition, after answering his own call he only has to replace the receiver for a minute to clear the line.  In case anyone asks how do I know this, we have discussed this all at length already on both forums and checked it out with BT.

You see Joanne, all very doable and very logical.

I think it is also worth pointing out that when you placed a telephone call in 1985 the phone would continue to ring until it was answered or the caller cancelled the call by replacing the handset on the receiver.

Thus when Jeremy was ready to exit the farmhouse he placed the call to his own house in Goldhanger and answered it when he got back some minutes later.  Another reason why the telephone handset was left on the kitchen worktop and not replaced back on the phone.  Simples!   8(0(*
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Matthew Wyse

Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #153 on: November 24, 2012, 10:20:22 PM »
Jeremy thought he had it all worked out as he sat on his tractor every day planning how he would do it.  I would be curious to know what involvement he had in bringing Sheila and the boys over to stay.  He knew he had to have all five members of the family together there in the farmhouse if his dastardly plan was to work properly.
Most people suspect the truth but few are able to admit it.

Offline puglove

Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #154 on: November 24, 2012, 10:41:54 PM »
I need to ask a question, please bear with me on this.
Assuming, Jeremy did it. He goes to WHF and calls his house as his dad saying Sheila has gone on a bender with a gun. Well, who answers the phone at Jeremy's end if he lives on his own, thus showing a call was made? He can't be at both ends and it had to be answered to give an alibi.
Another thing I don't understand is, if the phone was answered at Jeremy's end and the receiver not put back on again at the WHF end, if that happens here then I can still hear the other end and cannot dial out until the phone has been put back on again, so how did Jeremy, assuming the call was made, manage to call the local police bearing in mind we didn't have mobiles then-well, he might have but it's a long shot.

Easy answers Joanne.  He phoned the unmanned police station first, note it wasn't 999.  Next he places a call to his own house and leaves the receiver dangling before scarpering back to his own house in Goldhanger.  He answers the phone when he gets home and waits a minute before replacing the handset.  He then phones Julie, this was just after 3am, has a chat before phoning the unmanned police station again and then Colchester. He never dialled 999 once.

In addition, after answering his own call he only has to replace the receiver for a minute to clear the line.  In case anyone asks how do I know this, we have discussed this all at length already on both forums and checked it out with BT.

You see Joanne, all very doable and very logical.

I think it is also worth pointing out that when you placed a telephone call in 1985 the phone would continue to ring until it was answered or the caller cancelled the call by replacing the handset on the receiver.

Thus when Jeremy was ready to exit the farmhouse he placed the call to his own house in Goldhanger and answered it when he got back some minutes later.  Another reason why the telephone handset was left on the kitchen worktop and not replaced back on the phone.  Simples!   8(0(*

I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Offline John

Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #155 on: November 24, 2012, 10:54:39 PM »

I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.

When he answered his own call at Goldhanger all he would have to do is cancel the call by replacing the handset.   BT's automated system would then have cancelled the call from WHF some minutes later allowing Jeremy to place the call to Julie followed by the call to the police.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 05:29:37 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline puglove

Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #156 on: November 24, 2012, 10:57:13 PM »

I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.

When he answered his own call at Goldhanger all he would have to do is cancel the call by replacing the handset.   BT's automated system would then have cancelled the call from WHF some minutes later allowing Jeremy to place the call to Julie followed by the call to the police.

Phew!! Thanks, John.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 05:29:58 PM by John »
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Offline John

Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #157 on: November 24, 2012, 10:58:20 PM »

I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.

When he answered his own call at Goldhanger all he would have to do is cancel the call by replacing the handset.   BT's automated system would then have cancelled the call from WHF some minutes later allowing Jeremy to place the call to Julie followed by the call to the police.

Phew!! Thanks, John.

Tesko's a bit tetchy tonight poor deluded soul.   @)(++(*
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 05:30:23 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline puglove

Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #158 on: November 24, 2012, 11:01:26 PM »

I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.

When he answered his own call at Goldhanger all he would have to do is cancel the call by replacing the handset.   BT's automated system would then have cancelled the call from WHF some minutes later allowing Jeremy to place the call to Julie followed by the call to the police.

Phew!! Thanks, John.

Tesko's a bit tetchy tonight poor deluded soul.   @)(++(*

He needs to come to terms with the fact that Sheila very obviously did not run upstairs after shooting herself in the kitchen (she never moved after the first shot) rather than inventing convoluted theories.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 05:30:47 PM by John »
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Offline John

Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #159 on: November 24, 2012, 11:02:53 PM »

I think I know where Jo is coming from. If Bamber rang the cottage from WHF, then picked up when he got back, would the line be left open until the WHF phone was replaced? Because he wouldn't be able to dial out from the cottage if it was.

When he answered his own call at Goldhanger all he would have to do is cancel the call by replacing the handset.   BT's automated system would then have cancelled the call from WHF some minutes later allowing Jeremy to place the call to Julie followed by the call to the police.

Phew!! Thanks, John.

You will note that not a single call was placed to the emergency services via the 999 system because this would have drastically reduced Jeremy's window of opportunity (sorry about the pun).   @)(++(*

You are quite right to labour that point Shona, had Sheila in fact moved the blood would have been all down the front of her neck and nightie.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2013, 05:31:10 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline puglove

Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #160 on: November 24, 2012, 11:11:53 PM »
Jeremy thought he had it all worked out as he sat on his tractor every day planning how he would do it.  I would be curious to know what involvement he had in bringing Sheila and the boys over to stay.  He knew he had to have all five members of the family together there in the farmhouse if his dastardly plan was to work properly.

I can't remember the reference for this, I'd have to do a bit of digging (probably Wilkes or Colin Caffell) but Bamber, for the first time ever, asked Sheila a few weeks before when she and the boys would next be staying at the farm.
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Padgates staff

  • Guest
Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #161 on: November 25, 2012, 01:05:18 AM »
Yes, to both Shona and John. That's why I wondered about the phone calls. I didn't know the phone would ring for as long as that, so David was right too.

Padgates staff

  • Guest
Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #162 on: December 02, 2012, 12:11:04 PM »
Did the police and media ever off an apology to Sheila for initally blaming her for the murder/suicide theory?

Offline Myster

Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #163 on: December 02, 2012, 01:08:23 PM »
Did the police and media ever off an apology to Sheila for initally blaming her for the murder/suicide theory?

Don't know the answer to that, Jo.... but I doubt it!

It's one of them cases, in'it... one of them f*ckin' cases.

Offline ActualMat

Re: Multiple reasons why Sheila Caffell is innocent and Jeremy Bamber is guilty
« Reply #164 on: December 02, 2012, 02:19:58 PM »
Did the police and media ever off an apology to Sheila for initally blaming her for the murder/suicide theory?

Don't know the answer to that, Jo.... but I doubt it!

I highly doubt it too.
They will have just moved onto Jeremy being guilty. They don't usually print 'sorry!" unless made to by a court.