Author Topic: Jeremy Bamber - The alleged telephone calls to police  (Read 2074 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online John

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11844
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Jeremy Bamber - The alleged telephone calls to police
« on: December 04, 2012, 07:56:02 PM »
I have lifted this excellent post by someone called ralph over on the blue forum.  I know we have explained this several times in the past but I believe this concise version is excellent.

Quote from: ralph
It should be clear to all that much of Jeremy Bamber’s defence is based on the phone call from “Neville Bamber” to the police. If “Neville Bamber” did make such a call then it is clear that Jeremy Bamber is innocent.

However……

Unlike modern day telephone exchanges which automatically record the number from which a 999 call is dialled from, the BT exchanges in 1985 did not have that level of sophistication. There was a simple meter attached to your phone line @ your local exchange. All it recorded was the number of minutes your phone had used. at a given tariff.

Therefore it would have been perfectly possible for Jeremy Bamber to dial 999 from his own house phone, claim to be his father Neville and to say “my daughter has gone berserk with a gun”. Leaving the phone off the hook in the farm after committing the murders would have helped reinforce the idea that Neville had indeed made the calls.

What is rather damning for Jeremy’s case is that, by his own admission, rather than dial 999 for his own call to the police (which any normal person would have done). he looked up his local police station in the phone book and called them. Why?

Well, if you believe that he is guilty, then the reason is quite straight-forward. A 999 call would have been put through to the Divisonal HQ by the BT Operator (which is what happened with the “Neville” call).

If Jeremy Bamber had made that call then he risked being caught out if, minutes later, he then made a similar 999 call, this time posing as the worried son. The chances are that he would have gone via the same BT Operator and been connected to the same duty officer at the Divisional HQ. Either one of them might have suspected that the same caller was making both calls..

They only way to avoid this was to phone his local police station directly.

In this way he was guaranteed to speak to a different duty officer (which is what happened). Like the Divisional HQ officer that duty officer also dispatched a patrol car, hence the reason for 2 cars being dispatched. CA7 was dispatched by the Divisional HQ officer (and arrived first), whislt CA5 was dispatched by the local station.

Think about it – if your sister was going crazy with a gun, would you waste time looking up the number of your local police station in the phone book or would you simply dial 999 ?

There were 3 telephone calls in question:

1. Neville Bamber’s 999 call to the police
A phone call was made by a person claiming to be “Neville Bamber”. However, the prosecution dispute that Neville actually made the call since he was shot in the Larynx which would have made speech very difficult, if not impossible. However, the defence could have argued that he may have been shot in the larynx after making the calls.

2. Neville Bamber to Jeremy Bamber
The prosecution have always maintained that no call was ever made by Neville to Jeremy, since the latter was the killer. The defence has always argued that the call was made and that Jeremy is innocent. Sadly there is no way that we can ever know which version is correct.

3. Jeremy Bamber to the police station
The call from Jeremy was made to his local police station. The prosecution would have asked why, when his sister was going crazy with a gun did he waste time looking up his local police station’s phone number in the phone book? Why did he also phone his girlfriend before calling the police, despite the seriousness of the situation?

It is possible that Jeremy, being unfamiliar with the workings of a BT exchange, may have incorrectly thought that he needed to make another call to prevent the 999 call being traced back to his phone. Maybe he thought that the exchange held the last number he dialled (a bit like the modern 1471 feature), hence his reason for phoning his girlfriend. Perhaps he needed to catch his breathe or collect his thought before making his next call to the police. Maybe he thought that his original 999 call under the guise of being his father went to his local police station and was scared that he would be put through to the same duty officer again, and so wanted to wait a few minutes just in case.

Whatever the reason, he briefly phoned his girlfriend, then looked up his local police station’s number before finally calling them.

I don’t know whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or innocent, but the above is a feasible method by which he could have faked the calls. Impossible to do these days with the modern exchanges since the 999 caller id is automatically recorded, but was possible in 1985 when the murders were committed.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2012, 09:16:55 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline goatboy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 377
Re: Jeremy Bamber - The alleged telephone calls to police
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2012, 09:24:18 PM »
Thanks for sharing John, that's quite a convincing argument (from someone who claims to be undecided!). That would be a pretty good explanation for the two differing phone logs.

Offline ActualMat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 679
  • Newbie
Re: Jeremy Bamber - The alleged telephone calls to police
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2012, 09:38:59 PM »
You can bet his post is going to be pretty much ignored.

Offline mrswah

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 293
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Jeremy Bamber - The alleged telephone calls to police
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2017, 08:55:35 AM »
You can bet his post is going to be pretty much ignored.


Well, yes, it looks as if it has been, since my response is 5 years later!!!

I am learning about the case , and I must say, I found the post very helpful.

Offline Caroline

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 531
Re: Jeremy Bamber - The alleged telephone calls to police
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2017, 12:43:20 PM »

Well, yes, it looks as if it has been, since my response is 5 years later!!!

I am learning about the case , and I must say, I found the post very helpful.

Except there weren't any 999 calls from anyone claiming to be 'Nevil Bamber'. There was a definite call from Jeremy to police and one alleged call from Nevil to Jeremy. It is Jeremy and the CT who later claimed that Nevill called the police, they have taken the log written by Bonnett from the details he received from West as a result of informative received from Jeremy and are trying to say it is the result of a call from Nevil.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1448
Re: Jeremy Bamber - The alleged telephone calls to police
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2017, 02:57:22 PM »
This person goes into great detail about a motive for calling the local station which doesn't actually exist.  He is under the erroneous impression someone called 999 claiming to be Nevill.

"I don’t know whether Jeremy Bamber is guilty or innocent, but the above is a feasible method by which he could have faked the calls. Impossible to do these days with the modern exchanges since the 999 caller id is automatically recorded, but was possible in 1985 when the murders were committed."

Not only was there no call to 999 claiming to be Nevill, he is unaware that 999 calls were recorded back in 1985.  That is a reason not to call 999 pretending to be Nevill.   
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli