Jeremy Bamber programmes

[John]

I'm a woman!  I don't do logical 

Ok if we assume NB made the call to JB.  NB then for whatever reason cuts the call short and phones EP, as per second log, hence JB is unable to get through when he attempts to call back. NB then replaces receiver on cradle.  SC then lifts receiver at some later stage and for whatever reason leaves it off cradle?  Alternatively, NB leaves receiver off cradle having cut short his call to JB either to phone EP or in haste in an attempt to manage the situation unfolding at WHF. 

I would appreciate clarification on the following:

1. JB claims NB phoned him.  The call was cut short.  JB attempted to call NB back and was unable to get through.  Is JB claiming the line was engaged?  If not what signal/sound was heard? 

2. I think I'm right in saying JB did not attempt to make contact with WHF again eg after he dressed and was about to leave Goldhanger?  Think I might have done.

3. Who was next to try and make contact with WHF and what time did this occur?  Was this was when EP arranged for an operator to intervene and open up the line when the dog was heard barking?

As far as I can see the fact the receiver was off the cradle in the kitchen doesn't really tell us anything?  8-)(--)

1. From memory he claimed the call was cut off and when he tried to call back it was engaged.

2. He never said if he ever tried to contact the farm after he phoned the police.

3. Yes, Essex police tried after JB phoned them and then asked the operator to open the line.

The handset being off the cradle in itself doesn't tell us much but the circumstances surrounding the call and the lack if any blood on or around it tells much.

[Holly Goodhead]

1. From memory he claimed the call was cut off and when he tried to call back it was engaged.

2. He never said if he ever tried to contact the farm after he phoned the police.

3. Yes, Essex police tried after JB phoned them and then asked the operator to open the line.

The handset being off the cradle in itself doesn't tell us much but the circumstances surrounding the call and the lack if any blood on or around it tells much.

Ok thanks.  I must admit my knowledge on the phones is a bit sketchy so I think I'll read up on this a bit more.

[Holly Goodhead]

Thanks for the point's Holly, very interesting 

You're welcome    I do tend to blather away when I get going   

Shall we contact Marshall Cavendish re the video to see if we can get approval to upload it?

[Myster]

Thank you Myster.

Just looking at 'The New Evidence' (ITV docu circa Apr '12) on YouTube it states Mark Williams-Thomas uploaded this.  And 'Crimes That Shook Britain' was uploaded by the actor who played JB, Johnny Escobar.  I assume they must have had copyright or perhaps it falls into the category below?

As it's so old it might fall under 'public domain'?

http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/en-GB/faq.html

Might be worth contacting Marshall Cavendish to establish what the position is?

http://www.marshallcavendish.co.uk/contentview.aspx?article_id=4

Well the film will still be in copyright, (70 years from the death of the creator) public domain or not, if I'm reading the following correctly...

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm

Odd that Johnny Escobar uploaded the 47 minute-long film he appeared in even though he wasn't the creator, unless he had permission from the production company.

If you want to contact Marshall-Cavendish feel free Holly. For me it means registering for an additional G-mail account, and to be honest I don't want the hassle of yet another e-mail address.

If you feel it's worth it, try it. They can only say yay, nay, or that the copyright belongs to the film makers.

Failing that you can always ask Joanne for a copy if she's willing to do one for you. Might be the easiest route.

[Holly Goodhead]

Well the film will still be in copyright, (70 years from the death of the creator) public domain or not, if I'm reading the following correctly...

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm

Odd that Johnny Escobar uploaded the 47 minute-long film he appeared in even though he wasn't the creator, unless he had permission from the production company.

If you want to contact Marshall-Cavendish feel free Holly. For me it means registering for an additional G-mail account, and to be honest I don't want the hassle of yet another e-mail address.

If you feel it's worth it, try it. They can only say yay, nay, or that the copyright belongs to the film makers.

Failing that you can always ask Joanne for a copy if she's willing to do one for you. Might be the easiest route.

Oh that's ok Myster.  I don't want to put you to any extra administrative work on my account.  I think I can buy a copy for £3 as per your post (think it was your post).  I just thought it might contain some new material for debate. 

Meanwhile I'll just gaze longingly at Johnny Escobar   Love the bit when he goes for the phone and we see a strong shoulder and V-shaped torso 

[Myster]

Oh that's ok Myster.  I don't want to put you to any extra administrative work on my account.  I think I can buy a copy for £3 as per your post (think it was your post).  I just thought it might contain some new material for debate. 

Meanwhile I'll just gaze longingly at Johnny Escobar   Love the bit when he goes for the phone and we see a strong shoulder and V-shaped torso 

I've lost the website page for the download, but I'll find it again and post later.
Don't you become an Escobarette, and BTW that rear view was just me as a stand-in, his body wasn't manly enough. 

[Myster]

I've lost the website page for the download, but I'll find it again and post later.

Here's the link, £3 basic + 60p VAT...

http://www.worldmediarights.com/index.php?hidAction=episode&eid=128&name=The_Bamber_Family_Murders

[Joanne]

If anyone wants, I can try e-mailing it to them or send them a copy on a disc, I don't mind because the disc's are like 20p and it's about 50p to post them, I generally do a lot for people wanting them.

[Holly Goodhead]

I've lost the website page for the download, but I'll find it again and post later.
Don't you become an Escobarette, and BTW that rear view was just me as a stand-in, his body wasn't manly enough. 

Really... ...

[Myster]

Really... ...

Of course it was!.. now would I lie to you ?    ... you've not seen my six-pack yet.

Didn't get paid as much as Johnny Broom though !!! 

[Myster]

Did you download the video Holly ?... and discover anything new, such as that Julie Mugford was telling the truth all along ! 

[Holly Goodhead]

Of course it was!.. now would I lie to you ?    ... you've not seen my six-pack yet.

Didn't get paid as much as Johnny Broom though !!! 

 

[Myster]

For viewing by private appointment only, I'm afraid ! 

[Holly Goodhead]

Did you download the video Holly ?... and discover anything new, such as that Julie Mugford was telling the truth all along ! 

Not yet but it's on my 'to do' list.

If JM's wit stats are anything to go by I think I might struggle to find her anything other than a brazen liar but I shall try to keep an open mind. 

She was no angel:

- Cheque book fraud
- Assisting JB in OCP break-in
- Pot dealing

She also claims the following:

- Step-father used physical violence against her
- An unknown man brutally raped her in France
- Then boyfriend brutally murdered 5 members of his immediate family

As I said before if the above are all true then she was very unlucky as statistically it is unlikely.  If one or more are lies then it shows a propensity towards dishonesty as evidenced by her criminal past. 

[Holly Goodhead]

For viewing by private appointment only, I'm afraid ! 

 Awwww don't be shy.  If you've got it, flaunt it