Did Jeremy have an answerphone?

[anglolawyer]

If he didn't, he's not guilty.   Therefore, he did.   Does anyone know?

[Myster]

If he didn't, he's not guilty.   Therefore, he did.   Does anyone know?

I don't think even Carol Ann Lee knows the answer to that riddle.  &%+((£
Better write and ask him, because if he didn't then he's wasted 30 years on hold and is off-the-hook.

[anglolawyer]

I don't think even Carol Ann Lee knows the answer to that riddle.  &%+((£
Better write and ask him, because if he didn't then he's wasted 30 years on hold and is off-the-hook.

He had a phone with an automatic call back function so it was funky to at least that extent.   The thing is, he said in interview that the police should be able to verify from telephone records that the call was made.   That means it must have been picked up at Bourtree Cottage.   If there was no answerphone then there was no way of pulling off the crime so as to leave a trace of this call.   He believed a trace had been left.   Therefore:

(I)   no answerphone = not guilty
(II)  answerphone = guilty or not guilty, and
(III) if guilty, he had an answerphone

Now there is a second problem.   If Bamber called from WHF at 3.00 a.m. how did he place a call from
Bourtree to Julie a minute or two later?   That seems impossible but, if he believed, right or not,  the call times could be retrieved then he had to solve it.

[APRIL]

If he didn't, he's not guilty.   Therefore, he did.   Does anyone know?

Much has been made of the possibility of an answerphone on another forum and I'm inclined to go with it. The suggestion has been that by the time Jeremy got out of bed and downstairs when the alleged call happened, the answerphone would have kicked in. Then it was suggested that he turned it off at night. I THINK I recall that the police took it away.....................but I can't promise that I've given a definitive answer.

[Holly Goodhead]

If he didn't, he's not guilty.   Therefore, he did.   Does anyone know?

You've lost me...how can anything be determined by whether or not he had an answering machine?

AE's WS states she continuously dialled his number circa 8am on 7th Aug and got no reply.  No mention of an answering machine but he may have had one and it was turned off.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2175

I think I might have read something about one of the Greaves sisters leaving a message on an answering machine but that may have been at Maida Vale.  Or maybe JB bought one post tragedy. 

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't think even Carol Ann Lee knows the answer to that riddle.  &%+((£
Better write and ask him, because if he didn't then he's wasted 30 years on hold and is off-the-hook.

CAL's book talks about meter pulses on 8 min cycles and the tel eng at trial talked about 2 mins?

[anglolawyer]

You've lost me...how can anything be determined by whether or not he had an answering machine?

AE's WS states she continuously dialled his number circa 8am on 7th Aug and got no reply.  No mention of an answering machine but he may have had one and it was turned off.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1053.0;attach=2175

I think I might have read something about one of the Greaves sisters leaving a message on an answering machine but that may have been at Maida Vale.  Or maybe JB bought one post tragedy.

Do try and keep up, HG.

Let's assume he is guilty for a minute.    And he wants there to be a trace of a call from WHF to Bourtree at 3.00 a.m.  Only a call which connects will leave such a trace.   Therefore, he needs an answerphone to pick up the call.   So, if he hasn't got one he can't have expected the police to be able to zero in on the time of the call from BT's records.

Of course, if he was really smart, he would have bought an answerphone for use on this single occasion and then chucked it away, so finding he never had one will not solve the crime, sadly.

[anglolawyer]

Much has been made of the possibility of an answerphone on another forum and I'm inclined to go with it. The suggestion has been that by the time Jeremy got out of bed and downstairs when the alleged call happened, the answerphone would have kicked in. Then it was suggested that he turned it off at night. I THINK I recall that the police took it away.....................but I can't promise that I've given a definitive answer.

Thanks April.   That is interesting.

I am going with this theory at the moment:

1 he kills everybody
2 he calls Bourtree from WHF at 3.00 a.m. - a pre-arranged time, hanging up after a few seconds once the answer phone has kicked in
3 he calls Julie's number right after, using the WHF phone
4 he rings off before she picks up
5 she 'answers' the fake call
6 she goes into Sue Battersby to discuss the call, thereby getting SB involved as an unknowing, independent witness to the time (Sue was precise - the call was at 3.12 on her clock which was set 10 minutes fast, so therefore at 3.02)

What do you think?

[Holly Goodhead]

Do try and keep up, HG.

Let's assume he is guilty for a minute.    And he wants there to be a trace of a call from WHF to Bourtree at 3.00 a.m.  Only a call which connects will leave such a trace.   Therefore, he needs an answerphone to pick up the call.   So, if he hasn't got one he can't have expected the police to be able to zero in on the time of the call from BT's records.

Of course, if he was really smart, he would have bought an answerphone for use on this single occasion and then chucked it away, so finding he never had one will not solve the crime, sadly.

I'm sorry you've still lost me    Please spell it out in very simple terms. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Thanks April.   That is interesting.

I am going with this theory at the moment:

1 he kills everybody
2 he calls Bourtree from WHF at 3.00 a.m. - a pre-arranged time, hanging up after a few seconds once the answer phone has kicked in
3 he calls Julie's number right after, using the WHF phone
4 he rings off before she picks up
5 she 'answers' the fake call
6 she goes into Sue Battersby to discuss the call, thereby getting SB involved as an unknowing, independent witness to the time (Sue was precise - the call was at 3.12 on her clock which was set 10 minutes fast, so therefore at 3.02)

What do you think?

The only problem with 4 and 5 is that JM didn't pick up, Douglas Dale did.

You're aving a laf

[Holly Goodhead]

According to CAL P259 Virginia Greaves left a message on an answering machine at Bourtree Cottage. 

[Caroline]

If he didn't, he's not guilty.   Therefore, he did.   Does anyone know?

Yes, he did but said it wasn't on.

[Caroline]

Do try and keep up, HG.

Let's assume he is guilty for a minute.    And he wants there to be a trace of a call from WHF to Bourtree at 3.00 a.m.  Only a call which connects will leave such a trace.   Therefore, he needs an answerphone to pick up the call.   So, if he hasn't got one he can't have expected the police to be able to zero in on the time of the call from BT's records.

Of course, if he was really smart, he would have bought an answerphone for use on this single occasion and then chucked it away, so finding he never had one will not solve the crime, sadly.

Where are you suggesting that such a call would leave a trace? There was no such trace left at those old exchanges whether the call was picked up or not.

[anglolawyer]

Where are you suggesting that such a call would leave a trace? There was no such trace left at those old exchanges whether the call was picked up or not.

That's not the point.   It's what he believed that matters and he believed the time of the call from WHF would be recorded somewhere.

[anglolawyer]

The only problem with 4 and 5 is that JM didn't pick up, Douglas Dale did.

You're aving a laf

That's very boring.   Source?