UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: ISpyWithMyEye on May 26, 2020, 04:53:38 PM
-
We know Nevill took a call from his secretary at approximately 9:45pm on the night before he was murdered.
We also know that Pamela rang June around 10pm and briefly spoke to Sheila. When June came on the phone to Pamela, during the conversation she told her Sheila had gone up to bed.
We know the kitchen telephone was in perfect working order; there was no reason for it to be unplugged and hidden between a pile of magazines at the end of the worktop. So as it was working there was no reason for it to have been unplugged, and certainly not hidden from view. So why was it hidden?
We know June got undressed in the master bedroom, and it seems she put her clothes on the chair opposite the bed. By that time Sheila was already in bed, probably asleep as she was incredibly tired that day. Nevill then came up to bed after locking up downstairs.
Nevill clearly liked to be nearby his phones. He had:
The kitchen telephone
The office telephone
The bedroom telephone
And the walkabout phone he used to take with him on the farm. As we know, that phone was in for repairs.
So as he liked to be near a phone, possibly for emergencies if something happened on the farm, I’d guess he’d have noticed the ivory phone was missing — it seems strange he didn’t. But let’s suppose he didn’t...
That means, according to Jeremy Bamber’s supporters who insist Sheila killed everyone, that she could not have suddenly gone “berserk” and had a psychotic attack. Had she gone mad, she wouldn’t have been thinking rationally, so how could she have quietly tip-toed into her parents bedroom, without waking June, tip-toed round the bed, pull out the bedside cabinet right next to Nevill’s head, unplugged the phone, quietly sneaked out, went downstairs (for no obvious reason) then by amazing coincidence saw that great long rifle — all loaded and ready — waiting for her.
Had she done that, she wasn’t psychotic. She was plotting. And for some strange reason after sneaking the ivory phone downstairs, she unplugged the kitchen phone, hid it between magazines, then plugged in the ivory phone. She then took it off the hook for no reason...then took the gun upstairs to shoot everyone dead. Why would she have done that?
So, my question is: At what time (approximately) did Sheila remove that bedroom phone? And how did she do it without waking June and Nevill, and without going berserk? And why then sneak downstairs, and plug it into the kitchen?
I actually don’t believe Jeremy removed that phone before he left WHF.
I believe he broke in and disabled the telephone line by taking the kitchen phone off the hook.
I believe he thought he’d shoot both June & Nevill dead in their bed.
He didn’t anticipate Nevill would jump up.
I believe when June got up terribly injured she made for the other door to escape as Nevill tried to get Jeremy on the landing, and Jeremy shot her again and beat her, after having already shot Nevill outside the bedroom, and as she tried to then reach Nevill from the main door Jeremy shot her point blank between her eyes. Dead.
I believe after he’d killed everyone and cleaned up, showered, he then took the bedroom phone down into the kitchen, hid the usual one in the pile of magazines, dialled his own number to allow his answering machine to connect, then cut it off and put the receiver by the cradle. I believe he did that because it occurred to him that Nevill would have surely tried to call 999 from his bedroom as Jeremy hadn’t managed to shoot him in there.
-
At what time?
"So, my question is: At what time (approximately) did Sheila remove that bedroom phone? And how did she do it without waking June and Nevill, and without going berserk? And why then sneak downstairs, and plug it into the kitchen?"
How did you know it was Sheila? If in your theory it wasn't Sheila why bother asking the question?
-
At what time?
"So, my question is: At what time (approximately) did Sheila remove that bedroom phone? And how did she do it without waking June and Nevill, and without going berserk? And why then sneak downstairs, and plug it into the kitchen?"
How did you know it was Sheila? If in your theory it wasn't Sheila why bother asking the question?
The question is addressed to those who believe Sheila perpetrated the murders presumably.
-
The question is addressed to those who believe Sheila perpetrated the murders presumably.
Who determined the phone had been moved? It would have to be one of the survivors presumably. Jeremy or one of the Boutflour crew. Did I get that right?
-
I can see no reason to assume that it wasn't June who moved the dial phone to the kitchen. It was known to be the receiver she preferred.
-
I can see no reason to assume that it wasn't June who moved the dial phone to the kitchen. It was known to be the receiver she preferred.
I thought you didn’t do assumptions?
-
Who determined the phone had been moved? It would have to be one of the survivors presumably. Jeremy or one of the Boutflour crew. Did I get that right?
Or the housekeeper, or the secretary. I'm not sure.
-
How do we know the kitchen phone was used when Nevill and June spoke to Barbara Wilson and Pam Boutflour?
-
How do we know the kitchen phone was used when Nevill and June spoke to Barbara Wilson and Pam Boutflour?
Because there was no other phone cept in the office. There was one other, hidden inside a magazine rack.
-
I thought you didn’t do assumptions?
When I do I make it clear that's what I'm doing. No-one knows when or by whom the 'bedroom' phone was brought downstairs.
-
When I do I make it clear that's what I'm doing. No-one knows when or by whom the 'bedroom' phone was brought downstairs.
Why are you happy to assume it was June then?
-
I can see no reason to assume that it wasn't June who moved the dial phone to the kitchen. It was known to be the receiver she preferred.
No it wasn't, she preferred the fawn statesman (the phone in the magazine rack and which was usually in the kitchen) to the hands free that was removed by Mr Pike due to a fault. The old style dial type, found in the kitchen on the day after the murders, belonged upstairs.
-
Who determined the phone had been moved? It would have to be one of the survivors presumably. Jeremy or one of the Boutflour crew. Did I get that right?
Well, if you’re saying it was Jeremy — and no-one else was inside the house that night, including the Boutflours — that has to leave Jeremy, no?
-
I can see no reason to assume that it wasn't June who moved the dial phone to the kitchen. It was known to be the receiver she preferred.
Gunit, June used the kitchen telephone downstairs.
They always kept the ivory phone in the bedroom.
-
Or the housekeeper, or the secretary. I'm not sure.
Why would the housekeeper put the ivory phone into the kitchen — leaving the bedroom with no phone – and hide the kitchen phone amongst a pile of magazines at the end of the worktop?
-
How do we know the kitchen phone was used when Nevill and June spoke to Barbara Wilson and Pam Boutflour?
Because when Barbara the secretary phoned Nevill, he was in the kitchen.
Then when Pamela rang June and spoke to Sheila, when June came on the phone she told Pamela “Sheila has gone UP to bed”.
Nevill’s office was, I believe, upstairs...
-
When I do I make it clear that's what I'm doing. No-one knows when or by whom the 'bedroom' phone was brought downstairs.
But Gunit, WHY would anyone in the household remove the ivory telephone from the bedroom and plug it into the kitchen, when the kitchen phone was working perfectly?
-
Because when Barbara the secretary phoned Nevill, he was in the kitchen.
Then when Pamela rang June and spoke to Sheila, when June came on the phone she told Pamela “Sheila has gone UP to bed”.
Nevill’s office was, I believe, upstairs...
Thanks !
-
Well, if you’re saying it was Jeremy — and no-one else was inside the house that night, including the Boutflours — that has to leave Jeremy, no?
We don't know if there was no one else in the house that night do we.
-
Why would the housekeeper put the ivory phone into the kitchen — leaving the bedroom with no phone – and hide the kitchen phone amongst a pile of magazines at the end of the worktop?
The kitchen phone may have developed a fault so they had to borrow the other from the bedroom.
-
Because when Barbara the secretary phoned Nevill, he was in the kitchen.
Then when Pamela rang June and spoke to Sheila, when June came on the phone she told Pamela “Sheila has gone UP to bed”.
Nevill’s office was, I believe, upstairs...
Oh dear. Pam doesn't use the words UP to bed, I'm afraid;
-
Why didn't June or Nevill notice the phone missing in the bedroom?
(In the White House Farm series this was shown by a big, fck off outline where the phone used to be!)
And why would June go for the phone if she had surely noticed it wasn't there when she went to bed? Did Bamber take it at the time - maybe he saw June trying to get to it? I don't know......
-
Oh dear. Pam doesn't use the words UP to bed, I'm afraid;
Your point being, what? They'd set up a truckle bed in a corner for her? A divan in the drawing room, perhaps? Or maybe cleared a space in the cellar?..................or possibly it's just because you love pointing out others' errors when they're opposors?
-
Your point being, what? They'd set up a truckle bed in a corner for her? A divan in the drawing room, perhaps? Or maybe cleared a space in the cellar?..................or possibly it's just because you love pointing out others' errors when they're opposors?
It would have been a good point if it had been true, but as it wasn't the point becomes the poster's willingness to post misinformation.
-
It would have been a good point if it had been true, but as it wasn't the point becomes the poster's willingness to post misinformation.
If she hadn’t gone UP to bed, where do you think June meant?
-
Oh dear. Pam doesn't use the words UP to bed, I'm afraid;
The definition of nit picking! Given that she was sleeping upstairs, she must have gone UP.
-
Why didn't June or Nevill notice the phone missing in the bedroom?
(In the White House Farm series this was shown by a big, fck off outline where the phone used to be!)
And why would June go for the phone if she had surely noticed it wasn't there when she went to bed? Did Bamber take it at the time - maybe he saw June trying to get to it? I don't know......
Depends when it was moved, doesn't it!
-
Depends when it was moved, doesn't it!
Does. Which is what I said - did Bamber move it during the attack? But that doesn't jive with the pre-emptive element. Why didn't Bamber prepare the ground by simply unplugging the thing from the wall, or by fouling the connection? That way Nevill may have gone for the phone when if he heard him enter through the window (although more likely investigate actually), but wouldn't be able to use it.
-
Does. Which is what I said - did Bamber move it during the attack? But that doesn't jive with the pre-emptive element. Why didn't Bamber prepare the ground by simply unplugging the thing from the wall, or by fouling the connection? That way Nevill may have gone for the phone when if he heard him enter through the window (although more likely investigate actually), but wouldn't be able to use it.
Out of interest why do you NEVER challenge JB’s supporters? Just curious to know .
-
Does. Which is what I said - did Bamber move it during the attack? But that doesn't jive with the pre-emptive element. Why didn't Bamber prepare the ground by simply unplugging the thing from the wall, or by fouling the connection? That way Nevill may have gone for the phone when if he heard him enter through the window (although more likely investigate actually), but wouldn't be able to use it.
Perhaps he did unplug it from the wall and moved the phones after everyone was dead.
-
Out of interest why do you NEVER challenge JB’s supporters? Just curious to know *sits back and waits for smartarse non-answer*
Just asked the same thing.
-
Out of interest why do you NEVER challenge JB’s supporters? Just curious to know *sits back and waits for smartarse non-answer*
I'm not challenging anyone. I'm trying to establish the phone movements. If I asked Holly she'd say 'what phone'?
This isn't a pissing contest, I'm trying to understand the mechanics of this most integral facet of the case - it doesn't cast aspersions on anything.
If the phone was moved by Bamber pre-killing spree, surely June or Nevill would have noticed it missing.
If it was faulty, or Bamber told them it was, then June wouldn't have been found supposedly trying to reach it, although I admit that it's a possibility on blind panic that she went for it out of pure muscle memory / terror.
Smart arsed enough?
Oh, I didn't answer the question; what would you like me to challenge someone about?
I'll say it again - there's no mystery here, just details that I'd like ironing out. If that occurred 8 years ago by some prophetic member on here, just link me up and I'll go back to the 8 piece jisaw I've been wrestling with since the lockdown started.
-
Perhaps he did unplug it from the wall and moved the phones after everyone was dead.
There ya go.
Is that the accepted explanation? You know waaaaaaay more that I. I'm being serious.
-
Why didn't June or Nevill notice the phone missing in the bedroom?
(In the White House Farm series this was shown by a big, fck off outline where the phone used to be!)
And why would June go for the phone if she had surely noticed it wasn't there when she went to bed? Did Bamber take it at the time - maybe he saw June trying to get to it? I don't know......
I find it fascinating that so often, when we're asked to recall something like items on a shelf, or in a display, we recall how we've regularly known it to be and fail to note that something about it is different.
-
I'm not challenging anyone. I'm trying to establish the phone movements. If I asked Holly she'd say 'what phone'?
This isn't a pissing contest, I'm trying to understand the mechanics of this most integral facet of the case - it doesn't cast aspersions on anything.
If the phone was moved by Bamber pre-killing spree, surely June or Nevill would have noticed it missing.
If it was faulty, or Bamber told them it was, then June wouldn't have been found supposedly trying to reach it, although I admit that it's a possibility on blind panic that she went for it out of pure muscle memory / terror.
Smart arsed enough?
Oh, I didn't answer the question; what would you like me to challenge someone about?
I'll say it again - there's no mystery here, just details that I'd like ironing out. If that occurred 8 years ago by some prophetic member on here, just link me up and I'll go back to the 8 piece jisaw I've been wrestling with since the lockdown started.
What would I like you to challenge someone about? Anything at all, but direct the challenge to G-Unit or Holly, there's plenty they post which can be challenged. Just for a change. I dare you.
-
There ya go.
Is that the accepted explanation? You know waaaaaaay more that I. I'm being serious.
That is MY explanation hence the 'perhaps'. No one actually knows but we have to apply a certain amount of common sense and speculation - it's inevitable. June walked around the bed - she either went for the phone OR she was still alive after Sheila was shot and went over to see her or further, she was trying to get to the other door. All of which negate the phone anyway.
-
What would I like you to challenge someone about? Anything at all, but direct the challenge to G-Unit or Holly, there's plenty they post which can be challenged. Just for a change. I dare you.
I will accept your challenge. I'm gonna give them a piece of my mind, although not too much, etc, ahahaha....[shakes fist at laptop]
-
Perhaps he did unplug it from the wall and moved the phones after everyone was dead.
That's what I've always thought. Before starting his killing spree, to prevent anyone upstairs or down phoning for help, Bamber removed the plugs of both phones (Statesman and Type 746) from a double adaptor which was inserted in a Master socket in the kitchen. The extension socket in the main bedroom upstairs most likely plugged into this double adaptor. The Statesman kitchen phone which was normally plugged into the double adaptor too was later removed by Bamber and hidden under a pile of newspapers nearby when everyone was dead, and then replaced by the Type 746.
The latest BT socket and plug came out in 1981... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_telephone_socket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_telephone_socket)
Double adaptor... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BT-Plug-to-Double-Telephone-Socket-Adaptor-/391611519372 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BT-Plug-to-Double-Telephone-Socket-Adaptor-/391611519372)
BT Statesman phone... http://www.phone-pages.org.uk/stat.htm (http://www.phone-pages.org.uk/stat.htm)
GPO Type 746 phone... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones#/media/File:746_telephone_in_ivory.JPG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones#/media/File:746_telephone_in_ivory.JPG)
The General's well-observed dust stain on the bedside cabinet below...
-
I will accept your challenge. I'm gonna give them a piece of my mind, although not too much, etc, ahahaha....[shakes fist at laptop]
Good.
-
That's what I've always thought. Before starting his killing spree, to prevent anyone upstairs or down phoning for help, Bamber removed the plugs of both phones (Statesman and Type 746) from a double adaptor which was inserted in a Master socket in the kitchen. The extension socket in the main bedroom upstairs most likely plugged into this double adaptor. The Statesman kitchen phone which was normally plugged into the double adaptor too was later removed by Bamber and hidden under a pile of newspapers nearby when everyone was dead, and then replaced by the Type 746.
The latest BT socket and plug came out in 1981... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_telephone_socket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_telephone_socket)
Double adaptor... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BT-Plug-to-Double-Telephone-Socket-Adaptor-/391611519372 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BT-Plug-to-Double-Telephone-Socket-Adaptor-/391611519372)
BT Statesman phone... http://www.phone-pages.org.uk/stat.htm (http://www.phone-pages.org.uk/stat.htm)
GPO Type 746 phone... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones#/media/File:746_telephone_in_ivory.JPG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones#/media/File:746_telephone_in_ivory.JPG)
The General's well-observed dust stain on the bedside cabinet below...
On 5th August 1985 Mr Pike went to WHF and took away the cordless phone and the double adaptor from the kitchen. [w/s 19/9/85]
-
That's what I've always thought. Before starting his killing spree, to prevent anyone upstairs or down phoning for help, Bamber removed the plugs of both phones (Statesman and Type 746) from a double adaptor which was inserted in a Master socket in the kitchen. The extension socket in the main bedroom upstairs most likely plugged into this double adaptor. The Statesman kitchen phone which was normally plugged into the double adaptor too was later removed by Bamber and hidden under a pile of newspapers nearby when everyone was dead, and then replaced by the Type 746.
The latest BT socket and plug came out in 1981... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_telephone_socket (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_telephone_socket)
Double adaptor... https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BT-Plug-to-Double-Telephone-Socket-Adaptor-/391611519372 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BT-Plug-to-Double-Telephone-Socket-Adaptor-/391611519372)
BT Statesman phone... http://www.phone-pages.org.uk/stat.htm (http://www.phone-pages.org.uk/stat.htm)
GPO Type 746 phone... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones#/media/File:746_telephone_in_ivory.JPG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones#/media/File:746_telephone_in_ivory.JPG)
The General's well-observed dust stain on the bedside cabinet below...
Completely agree!
Where did you get those pictures? Never seen those before 8((()*/
-
Completely agree!
Where did you get those pictures? Never seen those before 8((()*/
Off the telly.................so they say.
-
On 5th August 1985 Mr Pike went to WHF and took away the cordless phone and the double adaptor from the kitchen. [w/s 19/9/85]
So he unplugged it from the main socket!
-
So he unplugged it from the main socket!
By noon on 5th only one phone could be plugged in in the kitchen because there was no double adaptor. I mentioned this in reply to Myster;
snip/
"Before starting his killing spree, to prevent anyone upstairs or down phoning for help, Bamber removed the plugs of both phones (Statesman and Type 746) from a double adaptor which was inserted in a Master socket in the kitchen"
-
By noon on 5th only one phone could be plugged in in the kitchen because there was no double adaptor. I mentioned this in reply to Myster;
snip/
"Before starting his killing spree, to prevent anyone upstairs or down phoning for help, Bamber removed the plugs of both phones (Statesman and Type 746) from a double adaptor which was inserted in a Master socket in the kitchen"
I imagine they had more than one double adapter. They had a phone upstairs ordinarily so would need it.
-
I imagine they had more than one double adapter. They had a phone upstairs ordinarily so would need it.
I looked at the bedroom photos. Neither of the bedside tables in the main bedroom had a gap where a phone could have been placed.
-
Oh dear. Pam doesn't use the words UP to bed, I'm afraid;
Where was Sheila’s bedroom?
Upstairs!
June said she’d gone to bed.
-
I looked at the bedroom photos. Neither of the bedside tables in the main bedroom had a gap where a phone could have been placed.
How big a GAP do you need for a PHONE? We're not talking about Alexander Graham Bell's prototype occupied a ROOM, this is an 80's style normal phone type phone, FFS!!
IT IS A PHONE.
Are you and / or Holly SUGGESTING there was no phone? Do you know what a PhOnE even is? Can you comprehend phone? If a phone rings in an empty forest, does it make a sound? FFS!
THis is about the senseless slaying of an entire FAMILY by a psychopath. It's not about YOU!
-
How big a GAP do you need for a PHONE? We're not talking about Alexander Graham Bell's prototype that occupied a ROOM, this is an 80's style normal phone type phone, FFS!!
IT IS A PHONE.
Are you and / or Holly SUGGESTING there was no phone? Do you know what a PhOnE even is? Can you comprehend phone? If a phone rings in an empty forest, does it make a sound? FFS!
THis is about the senseless slaying of an entire FAMILY by a psychopath. It's not about YOU!
-
I looked at the bedroom photos. Neither of the bedside tables in the main bedroom had a gap where a phone could have been placed.
Plenty of room for the ivory phone on Nevill's side - either on top of the digital clock radio or on the lower ledge in front...
-
How big a GAP do you need for a PHONE? We're not talking about Alexander Graham Bell's prototype occupied a ROOM, this is an 80's style normal phone type phone, FFS!!
IT IS A PHONE.
Are you and / or Holly SUGGESTING there was no phone? Do you know what a PhOnE even is? Can you comprehend phone? If a phone rings in an empty forest, does it make a sound? FFS!
THis is about the senseless slaying of an entire FAMILY by a psychopath. It's not about YOU!
I saw what you did there.
-
How big a GAP do you need for a PHONE? We're not talking about Alexander Graham Bell's prototype occupied a ROOM, this is an 80's style normal phone type phone, FFS!!
IT IS A PHONE.
Are you and / or Holly SUGGESTING there was no phone? Do you know what a PhOnE even is? Can you comprehend phone? If a phone rings in an empty forest, does it make a sound? FFS!
THis is about the senseless slaying of an entire FAMILY by a psychopath. It's not about YOU!
That’s more like it.
-
How big a GAP do you need for a PHONE? We're not talking about Alexander Graham Bell's prototype occupied a ROOM, this is an 80's style normal phone type phone, FFS!!
IT IS A PHONE.
Are you and / or Holly SUGGESTING there was no phone? Do you know what a PhOnE even is? Can you comprehend phone? If a phone rings in an empty forest, does it make a sound? FFS!
THis is about the senseless slaying of an entire FAMILY by a psychopath. It's not about YOU!
Oooh!! Sexy General!!
-
We don't know if there was no one else in the house that night do we.
There wasn’t
Fact
-
The kitchen phone may have developed a fault so they had to borrow the other from the bedroom.
It was working
They tested it
Move along...
-
Plenty of room for the ivory phone on Nevill's side - either on top of the digital clock radio or on the lower ledge in front...
It's opinion, obviously, but I wouldn't use the word 'plenty'. According to the cleaner the phone was on the left hand side of the bed, and the other bedside table was even more occupied.
-
Does. Which is what I said - did Bamber move it during the attack? But that doesn't jive with the pre-emptive element. Why didn't Bamber prepare the ground by simply unplugging the thing from the wall, or by fouling the connection? That way Nevill may have gone for the phone when if he heard him enter through the window (although more likely investigate actually), but wouldn't be able to use it.
I thought you were au fait with the case?
Look, Jeremy wouldn’t have touched the phone while he was busy shooting his parents dead!
Of course he planned it! He removed the kitchen telephone’s receiver disabling the whole phone line of the house. It’s hardly rocket science.
-
Perhaps he did unplug it from the wall and moved the phones after everyone was dead.
Exactly, Caroline
-
I'm not challenging anyone. I'm trying to establish the phone movements. If I asked Holly she'd say 'what phone'?
This isn't a pissing contest, I'm trying to understand the mechanics of this most integral facet of the case - it doesn't cast aspersions on anything.
If the phone was moved by Bamber pre-killing spree, surely June or Nevill would have noticed it missing.
If it was faulty, or Bamber told them it was, then June wouldn't have been found supposedly trying to reach it, although I admit that it's a possibility on blind panic that she went for it out of pure muscle memory / terror.
Smart arsed enough?
Oh, I didn't answer the question; what would you like me to challenge someone about?
I'll say it again - there's no mystery here, just details that I'd like ironing out. If that occurred 8 years ago by some prophetic member on here, just link me up and I'll go back to the 8 piece jisaw I've been wrestling with since the lockdown started.
You don’t get it, do you?
I’ve already said I don’t believe Jeremy moved the bedroom telephone until after he’d killed them all. There was no point as he disabled the phone line by taking the kitchen phone’s receiver off the hook. We all know he sneaked in through the bathroom window — and crept into the kitchen and the cupboard where he’d put the gun back after secretly loading it for the killings
You’d think either June or Nevill would’ve noticed the bedroom phone missing, which is another reason Jeremy wouldn’t have moved it prior to leaving WHF earlier: there was a chance Nevill would have noticed it missing and gone and brought the kitchen phone up.
No-ne knows for sure if June tried to get to the bedroom phone; I somehow doubt it. Why stand still making a call when someone’s shooting at you? I suspect she was running for the door that led to the next room, then ran in the opposite direction when Jeremy beat her to it. The way June is laying by the door looks to me like she was shot by Jeremy as he stood inside the bedroom.
He was panicking too as he had only injured Nevill, who was trying to make it downstairs and he couldn’t let him near the phone.
-
I looked at the bedroom photos. Neither of the bedside tables in the main bedroom had a gap where a phone could have been placed.
Rubbish.
-
You don’t get it, do you?
I’ve already said I don’t believe Jeremy moved the bedroom telephone until after he’d killed them all. There was no point as he disabled the phone line by taking the kitchen phone’s receiver off the hook. We all know he sneaked in through the bathroom window — and crept into the kitchen and the cupboard where he’d put the gun back.
You’d think either June or Nevill would’ve noticed the bedroom phone missing, which is another reason Jeremy wouldn’t have moved it prior to leaving WHF earlier: there was a chance Nevill would have noticed it missing and gone and brought the kitchen phone up.
No-ne knows for sure if June tried to get to the bedroom phone; I somehow doubt it. Why stand still making a call when someone’s shooting at you? I suspect she was running for the door that led to the next room, then ran in the opposite direction when Jeremy beat her to it. The way June is laying by the door looks to me like she was shot by Jeremy as he stood inside the bedroom.
He was panicking too as he had only injured Nevill, who was trying to make it downstairs and he couldn’t let him near the phone.
You see, you start the post with a little jab - a rangefinder - a reminder, but then go on to post rationally.
Thank you.
-
I looked at the bedroom photos. Neither of the bedside tables in the main bedroom had a gap where a phone could have been placed.
That's a particularly inane comment. Unless one has OCD -and by the look of the place generally, such wasn't the case- phones can stand on top of books, boxes of tissues, or anything else considered important enough to have a place on one's bedside table................and the Bambers had the choice of two shelves!!!
-
There wasn’t
Fact
How can we be certain of that? If Jeremy was capable of entering and leaving, why not someone else?
-
The cream rotary dial phone was usually kept in NB/June's bedroom.
On 5th Aug a Mr Pike called at WHF to collect the cordless phone for repair. Whilst there he observed the above phone in the kitchen:
-
The cream rotary dial phone was usually kept in NB/June's bedroom.
On 5th Aug a Mr Pike called at WHF to collect the cordless phone for repair. Whilst there he observed the above phone in the kitchen:
And here IS the cream coloured GPO telephone they kept in the kitchen
Why do you add/twist/embellish/ignore things?
The engineer never said the kitchen phone was a ROTARY one, which he definitely would have done as he’s so, so thorough
The engineer said there was a “cream coloured type phone issued by the GPO”
Where does he say it was a rotary dial type?
Why are you misleading people, Holly? Or did you make an error?
Which was it?
Because from where I’m sitting, that looks rather sly to me....
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
End of story IMO.
-
End of story IMO.
End??
I’d say more like the start...
All these cites Holly loves posting, which many don’t usually CHECK, could all be wrong!
She got this one wrong,
She categorically said the phone in question was the ROTARY one the engineer was referring to
But he never said that. He never said it was a rotary style, when he definitely would have being so specific
He said “a cream coloured one issued by the GPO”
He was EXTREMELY specific.
So why did Holly make out that was the bedroom phone (the ivory rotary one) when it wasn’t?
-
And here IS the cream coloured GPO telephone they kept in the kitchen
Why do you add/twist/embellish/ignore things?
The engineer never said the kitchen phone was a ROTARY one, which he definitely would have done as he’s so, so thorough
The engineer said there was a “cream coloured type phone issued by the GPO”
Where does he say it was a rotary dial type?
Why are you misleading people, Holly? Or did you make an error?
Which was it?
Because from where I’m sitting, that looks rather sly to me....
I haven't previously seen that image?
The phone usually kept in the kitchen was described as fawn by housekeeper Jean Boutell.
-
I haven't previously seen that image?
The phone usually kept in the kitchen was described as fawn by housekeeper Jean Boutell.
I seem to recall a very lengthy -tedious?- debate on blue, re the colour of the phone. Names like beige, biscuit, and fawn being bandied about. It definitely wasn't cream -both mine, at the time, were cream. A replacement cream was sent which turned out to be fawn. There was a distinct difference.
-
I seem to recall a very lengthy -tedious?- debate on blue, re the colour of the phone. Names like beige, biscuit, and fawn being bandied about. It definitely wasn't cream -both mine, at the time, were cream. A replacement cream was sent which turned out to be fawn. There was a distinct difference.
Jean Boutell differentiates. She refers to the phone usually kept in the Bamber's bedroom as cream and the phone usually kept in the kitchen as fawn.
Mr Pike refers to the phone he observed in the kitchen on 5th Aug as cream.
-
I'm just thinking back to my time at my parents in 1985 and before with phones. It was a world away from today as the GPO had a monopoly and not only was the line rented but the phone too.
I might be wrong on this but I think I recall when the market opened up and customers were able to purchase their own phones I think there was some issue with adapters/plugging them in?
Mr Pike collected the cordless phone and the two way adapter. Did this mean the fawn phone couldn't be plugged in to the kitchen/drink cupboard socket hence the cream colored GPO issued phone was brought down from the bedroom to use in the kitchen?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_telephone_socket
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_telephone_socket
So it seems to me a possible explanation for the cream phone brought down to the kitchen from upstairs is that without the 2 way adapter handed over to Mr Pike, the fawn coloured phone was incompatible with the GPO socket.
-
I'm just thinking back to my time at my parents in 1985 and before with phones. It was a world away from today as the GPO had a monopoly and not only was the line rented but the phone too.
I might be wrong on this but I think I recall when the market opened up and customers were able to purchase their own phones I think there was some issue with adapters/plugging them in?
Mr Pike collected the cordless phone and the two way adapter. Did this mean the fawn phone couldn't be plugged in to the kitchen/drink cupboard socket hence the cream colored GPO issued phone was brought down from the bedroom to use in the kitchen?
Mr Pike wasn't a BT engineer, he ran a stationery business. Nevill bought the Envoy Cordless Phone from him in Spetember 1984, along with the two way adaptor, so the two seem to be connected. Assuming the cordless phone was bought to sit in the kitchen this makes sense, as there was already a Statesman phone plugged in there.
-
Mr Pike wasn't a BT engineer, he ran a stationery business. Nevill bought the Envoy Cordless Phone from him in Spetember 1984, along with the two way adaptor, so the two seem to be connected. Assuming the cordless phone was bought to sit in the kitchen this makes sense, as there was already a Statesman phone plugged in there.
No Mr Pike wasn't a tel eng but he did collect the phone for repair. He refers to NB removing the two way adapter from a BT phone socket. Was the fawn phone compatabile with this socket? If not did they have another adapter?
-
I believe Babs Wilson plugged the fawn phone into the upstairs office phone socket to see if it was in working order and it was. This socket was obviously compatible either as a standalone or with an adapter but was the kitchen/drinks cupboard socket compatible and if not did the Bamber's have another adapter?
-
I haven't previously seen that image?
The phone usually kept in the kitchen was described as fawn by housekeeper Jean Boutell.
That’s the CREAM phone that was the KITCHEN phone
The engineer said “CREAM phone”
-
I seem to recall a very lengthy -tedious?- debate on blue, re the colour of the phone. Names like beige, biscuit, and fawn being bandied about. It definitely wasn't cream -both mine, at the time, were cream. A replacement cream was sent which turned out to be fawn. There was a distinct difference.
Fawn and cream are similar, and everyone sees colours slightly differently
The cream ROTARY phone — which the engineer made no mention of it being — was more white than cream. The shade ivory does look white, depending on where it’s situated.
Whatever, the fact is that phone is not a rotary phone, and that engineer was SO specific in his detail. He’d DEFINITELY have said it was a rotary style one.
On top of that, that phone in the kitchen was in perfect working order, and that was proven.
So Jeremy is snookered.
-
Jean Boutell differentiates. She refers to the phone usually kept in the Bamber's bedroom as cream and the phone usually kept in the kitchen as fawn.
Mr Pike refers to the phone he observed in the kitchen on 5th Aug as cream.
Considering Mr Pike worked with telephones and HE described the kitchen phone as CREAM, I’d take his word over people who popped by and saw it at a distance. And why on earth would he have gone into such detail but not mentioned it was a rotary phone when they were becoming dated in the 1980s?
The light can make colours of objects, walls, paint seem lighter/darker or even different.
-
So it seems to me a possible explanation for the cream phone brought down to the kitchen from upstairs is that without the 2 way adapter handed over to Mr Pike, the fawn coloured phone was incompatible with the GPO socket.
And THAT cream phone (which you like to call fawn) was kept in the kitchen as June didn’t get on with the walkabout.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that when Nevill was out on the farm all day, doing deliveries etc, and June was downstairs in the kitchen, sitting room — where we all go during the day — she had to run upstairs into the bedroom every time the phone rang? Really???
When she was making her pineapple upside cakes, flour all over her hands, she would drop everything and dash upstairs to answer the phone?
That’s why they had a double socket! So they could plug in the cream kitchen phone and the walkabout.
When the engineer took the faulty walkabout and double connector, the cream kitchen phone would have been plugged into the socket! It’s so obvious!
What is more, that two plug socket would accommodate the same style phone plugs. Both sockets would have been identical, which means both phones (the cream kitchen one and the walkabout) must have had identical plugs. That’s a fact. A fact you can’t dispute.
And if Nevill needed to ask her something, or she needed to call someone, she had to go upstairs and make phone calls from the bedroom?
Don’t be ridiculous
-
Considering Mr Pike worked with telephones and HE described the kitchen phone as CREAM, I’d take his word over people who popped by and saw it at a distance. And why on earth would he have gone into such detail but not mentioned it was a rotary phone when they were becoming dated in the 1980s?
The light can make colours of objects, walls, paint seem lighter/darker or even different.
The fact that he described it as a GPO phone is more interesting. At the time many people still had the standard GPO phones which were by default the rotary ones; in homes and in telephone boxes.
-
I looked at the bedroom photos. Neither of the bedside tables in the main bedroom had a gap where a phone could have been placed.
Who cares what you looked at? It's WELL documented that the dial phone is from the bedroom. Read Jean Boutell's (so?) WS. Also, Myster posted a clear picture of the top of the bedside table and you can clearly see where the phone was.
-
And THAT cream phone (which you like to call fawn) was kept in the kitchen as June didn’t get on with the walkabout.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that when Nevill was out on the farm all day, doing deliveries etc, and June was downstairs in the kitchen, sitting room — where we all go during the day — she had to run upstairs into the bedroom every time the phone rang? Really???
When she was making her pineapple upside cakes, flour all over her hands, she would drop everything and dash upstairs to answer the phone?
That’s why they had a double socket! So they could plug in the cream kitchen phone and the walkabout.
When the engineer took the faulty walkabout and double connector, the cream kitchen phone would have been plugged into the socket! It’s so obvious!
What is more, that two plug socket would accommodate the same style phone plugs. Both sockets would have been identical, which means both phones (the cream kitchen one and the walkabout) must have had identical plugs. That’s a fact. A fact you can’t dispute.
And if Nevill needed to ask her something, or she needed to call someone, she had to go upstairs and make phone calls from the bedroom?
Don’t be ridiculous
Mr Pike referred to a phone in the kitchen as cream in colour AND of the type issued by the GPO. He was clearly referring to the rotary dial phone not the more modern fawn phone.
WHF had one tel line. Prior to the cordless phone taken away on 5th Aug for repair, the cream rotary phone was usually in the Bamber's bedroom. A blue phone was always kept/used in the upstairs office. The fawn phone was plugged into a two way adapter in the drinks cupboard which was accessible to the kitchen. The cordless phone was used by NB obviously in various locations and the yard with the charging station connected to the same two way socket as the fawn phone.
June usually had access to the fawn phone in the kitchen via the two way socket. Upstairs she had access to the cream rotary dial phone usually in her bedroom.
With the cordless phone and two way adapter taken by Mr Pike on 5th Aug it seems the fawn phone was incompatible with the BT socket so the cream rotary dial phone was connected to the BT socket.
-
Mr Pike referred to a phone in the kitchen as cream in colour AND of the type issued by the GPO. He was clearly referring to the rotary dial phone not the more modern fawn phone.
WHF had one tel line. Prior to the cordless phone taken away on 5th Aug for repair, the cream rotary phone was usually in the Bamber's bedroom. A blue phone was always kept/used in the upstairs office. The fawn phone was plugged into a two way adapter in the drinks cupboard which was accessible to the kitchen. The cordless phone was used by NB obviously in various locations and the yard with the charging station connected to the same two way socket as the fawn phone.
June usually had access to the fawn phone in the kitchen via the two way socket. Upstairs she had access to the cream rotary dial phone usually in her bedroom.
With the cordless phone and two way adapter taken by Mr Pike on 5th Aug it seems the fawn phone was incompatible with the BT socket so the cream rotary dial phone was connected to the BT socket.
Holly can you PLEASE answer my question on the silencer thread or I swear I will cry and it will be all your fault! 8(8-))
-
The fact that he described it as a GPO phone is more interesting. At the time many people still had the standard GPO phones which were by default the rotary ones; in homes and in telephone boxes.
That cream kitchen phone is a GPO phone
The GPO became BT in 1981 and even prior to that — in the 1970s – the GPO brought out various style telephones in all different colours. They brought out slimline trimphones in the 1970s, including the phone in the picture above showing the Bambers’ kitchen phone.
Before then the sockets were round, so people, rather than buying a new phone or if they liked the one they had, they’d either refit a new plug-in adaptor on it or get BT to do it.
Doesn’t matter, anyway, as everyone knows the ivory rotary phone fitted into the kitchen, as BT listened into the line where the phone was on the worktop.
-
Mr Pike referred to a phone in the kitchen as cream in colour AND of the type issued by the GPO. He was clearly referring to the rotary dial phone not the more modern fawn phone.
WHF had one tel line. Prior to the cordless phone taken away on 5th Aug for repair, the cream rotary phone was usually in the Bamber's bedroom. A blue phone was always kept/used in the upstairs office. The fawn phone was plugged into a two way adapter in the drinks cupboard which was accessible to the kitchen. The cordless phone was used by NB obviously in various locations and the yard with the charging station connected to the same two way socket as the fawn phone.
June usually had access to the fawn phone in the kitchen via the two way socket. Upstairs she had access to the cream rotary dial phone usually in her bedroom.
With the cordless phone and two way adapter taken by Mr Pike on 5th Aug it seems the fawn phone was incompatible with the BT socket so the cream rotary dial phone was connected to the BT socket.
Mr Pike clearly WASN’T referring to the ROTARY phone — that’s just you panicking
You can SEE that cream kitchen phone, which you keep calling fawn, fitted the new style plug FGS!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
And what happened to the KITCHEN phone if you’re saying that phone in the picture wasn’t the kitchen one?
Where’s the kitchen phone, Holly?
You can’t answer, can you...
-
Mr Pike clearly WASN’T referring to the ROTARY phone — that’s just you panicking
You can SEE that cream kitchen phone, which you keep calling fawn, fitted the new style plug FGS!
Panicking? My surname isn't Jones!
I'm not familiar with the image you present as being the fawn coloured phone at WHF. Do you have anything that clearly ties it in with WHF?
-
Panicking? My surname isn't Jones!
I'm not familiar with the image you present as being the fawn coloured phone at WHF. Do you have anything that clearly ties it in with WHF?
Don’t answer my question with a question: that’s rude
I asked you, Holly — WHERE was the kitchen telephone?
The engineer didn’t take it, so where was it?
-
Don’t answer my question with a question: that’s rude
I asked you, Holly — WHERE was the kitchen telephone?
The engineer didn’t take it, so where was it?
WHERE? When?
-
That’s the CREAM phone that was the KITCHEN phone
The engineer said “CREAM phone”
Cream and fawn are pretty similar unless placed together.
-
Cream and fawn are pretty similar unless placed together.
This supposed to be 'fawn' but can easily be described as cream.
-
Cream and fawn are pretty similar unless placed together.
About as similar as apples and pears.
Were not just reliant upon the colour as Mr Pike tells us it was the type of phone issued by the GPO which I'm afraid narrows it down to the rotary dial phone.
-
This supposed to be 'fawn' but can easily be described as cream.
Where in WHF was the above image taken?
-
Where in WHF was the above image taken?
It's Mysters picture, I have asked him. By the way, why won't you answer MY question?
-
About as similar as apples and pears.
Were not just reliant upon the colour as Mr Pike tells us it was the type of phone issued by the GPO which I'm afraid narrows it down to the rotary dial phone.
You haven’t answered my question: why?
Is it because you can’t?
I asked you: WHERE was the kitchen telephone?
There were four phones at WHF
The ivory ROTARY phone that was always on the bedside cabinet next to Nevill’s side of the bed
The office phone
The cream kitchen phone, in which the engineer went into great detail and never mentioned it being a ROTARY
And the walkabout phone which was taken for repairs
On the night of the murders that left THREE phones in the house:
The bedroom phone
Office Phone
Kitchen phone
When police raided they only found the ivory rotary phone in the kitchen
And the phone in the office
We know where the walkabout was...in for repairs
So WHERE was the KITCHEN phone?
-
About as similar as apples and pears.
Were not just reliant upon the colour as Mr Pike tells us it was the type of phone issued by the GPO which I'm afraid narrows it down to the rotary dial phone.
I am afraid you are wrong!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones
-
About as similar as apples and pears.
Were not just reliant upon the colour as Mr Pike tells us it was the type of phone issued by the GPO which I'm afraid narrows it down to the rotary dial phone.
While you’re thinking up an answer, I’ll show you this — which you’ve obviously seen
Small excerpt from a reporter who says Jeremy Bamber is guilty as hell:
“To simulate a crazed attack he fired more bullets into the bodies of the twins. He then showered in his wetsuit and put clean clothes back on.
But he did have a major problem. What if investigators asked why Nevill or June hadn’t dialled 999 from the bedroom? And why was Nevill’s body in the kitchen? Bamber had to improvise. So he plugged the ivory bedroom phone into the kitchen socket — hastily hiding the kitchen phone under magazines.
For Bamber’s purposes, this would explain why Nevill was found downstairs. And it would provide an explanation as to what had happened to the phone everyone knew was usually next to Nevill’s bed.
There was still the anomaly of why the kitchen phone was not plugged into its usual socket — but Bamber thought he could argue it was not working.”
-
I am afraid you are wrong!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones
Holly’s more than wrong — she’s deceptive and refuses to answer
She tries to “infer” things, hoping people won’t notice....
This explains why Jeremy had to drag Sheila’s body down
It’s clear the first bullet he pumped into her caused blood to pour down onto the RHS of her nightdress, and the pathologist, Dr Vanezis said she was first shot sitting up. I guarantee she was cowering by the bed against the bedside cabinet when he shot her. He then had to shoot her again as the first bullet hadn’t killed her.
After everyone was dead, he realised that the ivory telephone in the bedroom would look suspicious: the police would wonder why Nevill hadn’t dialled 999, and why he’d gone downstairs instead. So he had to improvise and put that ivory phone into the kitchen as that was where Nevill was already dead and would be found.
It’s also obvious Nevill realised Jeremy had disabled the line downstairs when he tried to dial 999, otherwise he’d have tried to get into his office.
So when you add it all up, it’s now clear why Jeremy pulled Sheila’s body down, and in doing so her head was upwards and to the right. He pulled her downwards so he could pull that bedside cabinet out and get to the plug to take the phone out. It’s so obvious.
And that’s why Sheila’s nightdress was bunched up beneath her.
He then hurriedly placed the radio/clock ON TOP of the bedside cabinet to make it look like there was never any phone there. And it hid the telephone mark too. That radio was usually on the lower shelf of the cabinet.
It’s so, so, so, so blindingly obvious.
-
I am afraid you are wrong!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones
Holly, are you going to reply?😳
-
I am afraid you are wrong!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones
The Statesman came out after the GPO changed it's name, so it wouldn't be known as a GPO phone.
-
The Statesman came out after the GPO changed it's name, so it wouldn't be known as a GPO phone.
There are two photos of 1984 Statesmen on that linked clearly labelled GPO.
-
There are two photos of 1984 Statesmen on that linked clearly labelled GPO.
If we were to venture out into the 'real' world and ask a random selection of people which phone is synonomous with BT issued I think we can safely say rotary dialled!
Which came first: rotary dialled or push buttoned?!
Talking of pushing buttons.....
-
If we were to venture out into the 'real' world and ask a random selection of people which phone is synonomous with BT issued I think we can safely say rotary dialled!
Which came first: rotary dialled or push buttoned?!
Talking of pushing buttons.....
What are you on about? And how about answering my questions?
-
What are you on about? And how about answering my questions?
What am I on about? I'm on about the rotary dialled phone being synonomous with BT issued which isn't the case with the push buttoned phone.
What questions remain unanswered?
-
What am I on about? I'm on about the rotary dialled phone being synonomous with BT issued which isn't the case with the push buttoned phone.
What questions remain unanswered?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=435.420 reply #426
-
There are two photos of 1984 Statesmen on that linked clearly labelled GPO.
The GPO didn't do telephones in 1984.
It isn't the iconic rotary dial phone that was the only telephone available for years. When you ordered a phone line from the GPO they brought one of those to plug in.
-
The GPO didn't do telephones in 1984.
It isn't the iconic rotary dial phone that was the only telephone available for years. When you ordered a phone line from the GPO they brought one of those to plug in.
We can see from soc images that the rotary dial lead is trailing through the hatch from the kitchen to the drinks cupboard where the GPO socket was situated as per Mr Pike.
Was the Statesman phone plug compatible with the BT socket?
-
We can see from soc images that the rotary dial lead is trailing through the hatch from the kitchen to the drinks cupboard where the GPO socket was situated as per Mr Pike.
Was the Statesman phone plug compatible with the BT socket?
Of course, given that it was distributed by the GPO.
-
The GPO didn't do telephones in 1984.
It isn't the iconic rotary dial phone that was the only telephone available for years. When you ordered a phone line from the GPO they brought one of those to plug in.
You can still buy rotary phones now
That kitchen phone WAS a GPO phone — it says it in black and white
Oh, and it WORKED.
So why did Jeremy Bamber HIDE it?
-
We can see from soc images that the rotary dial lead is trailing through the hatch from the kitchen to the drinks cupboard where the GPO socket was situated as per Mr Pike.
Was the Statesman phone plug compatible with the BT socket?
Of course it was
They didn’t have it as an ornament
It’s all recorded, anyway
You’re going against FACTUAL evidence
-
We can see from soc images that the rotary dial lead is trailing through the hatch from the kitchen to the drinks cupboard where the GPO socket was situated as per Mr Pike.
Was the Statesman phone plug compatible with the BT socket?
The GPO became BT in 1981.
The kitchen socket was compatible with the walkabout phone; the cream GPO Statesman phone they always used in the kitchen; and the cream rotary bedroom phone.
You know the rotary phone worked in the kitchen because the the police listened got BT to listen in on the line.
Which still begs the question: why was the cream Statesman GPO phone hidden amongst the magazines when it was in perfect working order? Why remove it? Why HIDE it?
Friendly reminder: Jeremy Bamber murdered his family in August 1985 — four years after the GPO became BT.
-
Give it a rest, Gunit
You can still buy rotary phones now
That kitchen phone WAS a GPO phone — it says it in black and white FGS
Oh, and it WORKED.
So why did Jeremy Bamber HIDE it? Eh?
Don’t make out you can’t understand it....
Mr Pike said the phone in the kitchen on 5th was a GPO phone. The Statesman was a BT phone.
-
The GPO became BT in 1981.
The kitchen socket was compatible with the walkabout phone; the cream GPO Statesman phone they always used in the kitchen; and the cream rotary bedroom phone.
You know the rotary phone worked in the kitchen because the the police listened got BT to listen in on the line.
Which still begs the question: why was the cream Statesman GPO phone hidden amongst the magazines when it was in perfect working order? Why remove it? Why HIDE it?
Friendly reminder: Jeremy Bamber murdered his family in August 1985 — four years after the GPO became BT.
I don't think the kitchen socket was compatible with the cordless phone hence the 2 way adapter.
-
Mr Pike said the phone in the kitchen on 5th was a GPO phone. The Statesman was a BT phone.
I doubt the BT Statesman (connector) was compatible with the GPO socket in the kitchen hence the 2 way adapter which was taken away by Mr Pike with the cordless phone. Hence the GPO issued cream rotary dial phone was brought down from the bedroom.
Maybe June asked NB to put it back when they went to bed and it was overlooked? Why did June walk around the bed and back again if not an attempt to access the phone? June's mother was elderly and bedridden so she would probably want to be near a phone during the night.
-
I doubt the BT Statesman (connector) was compatible with the GPO socket in the kitchen hence the 2 way adapter which was taken away by Mr Pike with the cordless phone. Hence the GPO issued cream rotary dial phone was brought down from the bedroom.
Maybe June asked NB to put it back when they went to bed and it was overlooked? Why did June walk around the bed and back again if not an attempt to access the phone? June's mother was elderly and bedridden so she would probably want to be near a phone during the night.
According to the cleaner the phone was on the left side of the bed, which was where June slept.
-
According to the cleaner the phone was on the left side of the bed, which was where June slept.
I always thought it was kept NB's side. Did Jean B mean left looking at the bed foot end?
-
Mr Pike said the phone in the kitchen on 5th was a GPO phone. The Statesman was a BT phone.
The Statesman was a GPO phone
Check it
-
The Statesman came out after the GPO changed it's name, so it wouldn't be known as a GPO phone.
For the last time...
THIS is the GPO STATESMAN telephone in cream, pushbutton, that the Bambers’ had in their kitchen
It came out in the early 1980s
It’s the phone Mr Pike referred to
It was in perfect working order
Why can’t you accept that?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The Statesman was a BT (British Telecom) phone. Look at the embossed logo...
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BT-British-Telecom-Vintage-Retro-Push-Button-Telephone-Statesman-9005R-c-1980s-/303530781995?_trksid=p2385738.m4383.l4275.c10 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BT-British-Telecom-Vintage-Retro-Push-Button-Telephone-Statesman-9005R-c-1980s-/303530781995?_trksid=p2385738.m4383.l4275.c10)
-
The Statesman was a BT (British Telecom) phone. Look at the embossed logo...
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BT-British-Telecom-Vintage-Retro-Push-Button-Telephone-Statesman-9005R-c-1980s-/303530781995?_trksid=p2385738.m4383.l4275.c10 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BT-British-Telecom-Vintage-Retro-Push-Button-Telephone-Statesman-9005R-c-1980s-/303530781995?_trksid=p2385738.m4383.l4275.c10)
Than you Myster.
Mr Pike referred to a cream coloured GPO issued phone and was clearing referring to the 706 model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones
-
Than you Myster.
Mr Pike referred to a cream coloured GPO issued phone and was clearing referring to the 706 model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones)
On Wiki, both Statesman and Type 746 are referred to as GPO phones, because that was the generic name they were called in the 1980s, I suppose. But I think that Pike was referring to the Statesman rather than the type 746, because it was the usual kitchen phone in position on the worktop when he visited the farm on the 5th, before it later disappeared under a pile of magazines/newspapers on the 7th.
-
On Wiki, both Statesman and Type 746 are referred to as GPO phones, because that was the generic name they were called in the 1980s, I suppose. But I think that Pike was referring to the Statesman rather than the type 746, because it was the usual kitchen phone in position on the worktop when he visited the farm on the 5th, before it later disappeared under a pile of magazines/newspapers on the 7th.
I don't simply because the rotary dialled cream phone was first launced in 1959 and was synonomous with the GPO. It could be found in every home up and down the land because it was pretty much the only model available.
GPO was split in 1980 with the telecoms side becoming BT in 1981. The Statesman was first launched in 1984.
The phones were moved around as a result of Mr Pike taking away the two way adapter with the cordless phone. Why have a two way adapter if it was only for the cordless phone?
The fawn coloured Statesman with push buttons would not have been compatible with the old GPO wiring/socket hence it was usually plugged into the adapter.
-
Also Mr Pike states that the cream coloured GPO issued phone was retained by NB as June didn't get on with the cordless ones.
GPO issued phones were subject to rental payments and effectively the property of GPO. Usually when customers were in a position to purchase phones approved for use with the network they would return any rented phones.
If Mr Pike was referring to the Statesman why would he comment about the Bamber's retaining the phone?
Does anyone know the model number of the Statesman?
-
I don't simply because the rotary dialled cream phone was first launced in 1959 and was synonomous with the GPO. It could be found in every home up and down the land because it was pretty much the only model available.
GPO was split in 1980 with the telecoms side becoming BT in 1981. The Statesman was first launched in 1984.
The phones were moved around as a result of Mr Pike taking away the two way adapter with the cordless phone. Why have a two way adapter if it was only for the cordless phone?
The fawn coloured Statesman with push buttons would not have been compatible with the old GPO wiring/socket hence it was usually plugged into the adapter.
It was plugged into an adapter to allow for TWO phones and as I have already told you, the Statesman didn't come in the colour 'fawn'. Also why haven't you answered my question? Is it because you can't?
-
So how did it work back in the 80's, you guys, if you had two phones plugged in to a two socket extension, if you picked one up then you could hear what was said by picking the other up? Like in the movies?
And what about and extension plugged in to one of those two of the two socket extension?
-
So how did it work back in the 80's, you guys, if you had two phones plugged in to a two socket extension, if you picked one up then you could hear what was said by picking the other up? Like in the movies?
And what about and extension plugged in to one of those two of the two socket extension?
You could listen in provided you were clever enough not to make too much noise.
-
So how did it work back in the 80's, you guys, if you had two phones plugged in to a two socket extension, if you picked one up then you could hear what was said by picking the other up? Like in the movies?
And what about and extension plugged in to one of those two of the two socket extension?
If you picked up an extension to make a call and heard talking you could either listen in or put the receiver back down. I remember fax machines tying up the one line in small offices.
-
If you picked up an extension to make a call and heard talking you could either listen in or put the receiver back down. I remember fax machines tying up the one line in small offices.
So WHF would only have one active line and if the receiver was off, then it would seem engaged from the outside, but you would know if it was off the hook elsewhere in the house from the inside as there would be no dialling tone?
As if Nevill would stop apprehending Sheila to give Bamber a quick ring to tell him what was going down. Jesus Jones everybody.
-
So WHF would only have one active line and if the receiver was off, then it would seem engaged from the outside, but you would know if it was off the hook elsewhere in the house from the inside as there would be no dialling tone?
As if Nevill would stop apprehending Sheila to give Bamber a quick ring to tell him what was going down. Jesus Jones everybody.
That's right. Once any connected receiver was off the hook the line was out of action. I can think of scenarios where Nevill might think he could use another man to help him; especially if he thought he was going to have to take Sheila back to St Andrews. June had had a 'terrible time' in the car with Sheila in March when they took her in, despite her being sedated.
-
That's right. Once any connected receiver was off the hook the line was out of action. I can think of scenarios where Nevill might think he could use another man to help him; especially if he thought he was going to have to take Sheila back to St Andrews. June had had a 'terrible time' in the car with Sheila in March when they took her in, despite her being sedated.
I see it, but realistically, as he was apparently uninjured at this point, he could have easily overpowered her, knowing that a .22 would generally not be mortally wounding - he would surely have coaxed and cajoled her, then sprang on her like a jack rabbit, perhaps taking a round in the process to protect his wife and grandchildren.
-
I see it, but realistically, as he was apparently uninjured at this point, he could have easily overpowered her, knowing that a .22 would generally not be mortally wounding - he would surely have coaxed and cajoled her, then sprang on her like a jack rabbit, perhaps taking a round in the process to protect his wife and grandchildren.
Of course!
-
I see it, but realistically, as he was apparently uninjured at this point, he could have easily overpowered her, knowing that a .22 would generally not be mortally wounding - he would surely have coaxed and cajoled her, then sprang on her like a jack rabbit, perhaps taking a round in the process to protect his wife and grandchildren.
Normally Nevill was able to calm Sheila. When he and June picked her up in March Freddie was amazed to see how she calmed down when her father arrived. He seemed to be the one person who could connect with her. If for some reason she thought her father had turned on her that would have been devastating for her. Coaxing wouldn't have worked then.
-
Normally Nevill was able to calm Sheila. When he and June picked her up in March Freddie was amazed to see how she calmed down when her father arrived. He seemed to be the one person who could connect with her. If for some reason she thought her father had turned on her that would have been devastating for her. Coaxing wouldn't have worked then.
There's a heap of speculation right there! 8((()*/
-
Normally Nevill was able to calm Sheila. When he and June picked her up in March Freddie was amazed to see how she calmed down when her father arrived. He seemed to be the one person who could connect with her. If for some reason she thought her father had turned on her that would have been devastating for her. Coaxing wouldn't have worked then.
Perhaps, but at some point, when hypothetical Sheila is about to run amok with a loaded rifle, when it's fight or flight and literally a fight to the death, then I'm afraid Sheila loses 999 times out of 1000.
-
Mr Pike said the phone in the kitchen on 5th was a GPO phone. The Statesman was a BT phone.
You’re wrong
The Statesman was a GPO phone — it’s there in BLACK & WHITE on the Internet.
It SAYS it’s a GPO phone
Why can’t you understand that?
-
I don't think the kitchen socket was compatible with the cordless phone hence the 2 way adapter.
You think wrong
They had a double adapter to accommodate the cream GPO Statesman phone and the walkabout
June couldn’t get on with the walkabout, and Nevill needed it, anyway, to take out on the farm with him — which is why they had TWO phones connected to the cable
Incidentally, all double telephone cables have the identical fittings: you can’t plug different type plug ends into them.
-
I doubt the BT Statesman (connector) was compatible with the GPO socket in the kitchen hence the 2 way adapter which was taken away by Mr Pike with the cordless phone. Hence the GPO issued cream rotary dial phone was brought down from the bedroom.
Maybe June asked NB to put it back when they went to bed and it was overlooked? Why did June walk around the bed and back again if not an attempt to access the phone? June's mother was elderly and bedridden so she would probably want to be near a phone during the night.
Of course the GPO Statesman was compatible with the socket in the kitchen!
The reason Mr Pike took the socket with him was to test it in his workshop — are you suggesting he didn’t have any in his store where he repaired and sold telephones and equipment? *%87
Yes, I’m sure June wanted to be near a phone in case her elderly mother needed her, and as June spent most time downstairs she’d have a phone down there, wouldn’t she? Which begs the question: why was the GPO Statesman phone hidden amongst a pile of magazines when it was in perfect working order and was the kitchen phone?
I agree both June and Nevill would want a bedside phone for emergencies, which is why Jeremy didn’t remove it prior to murdering his family. He had no need to — he simply disabled the phone line by removing the cradle off the cream Statesman phone in the kitchen.
-
According to the cleaner the phone was on the left side of the bed, which was where June slept.
The cleaner was referring to the left hand side when looking at the bed from the bottom. That’s pretty obvious...
Besides, the telephone left a mark on the cabinet on Nevill’s side.
-
The Statesman was a BT (British Telecom) phone. Look at the embossed logo...
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BT-British-Telecom-Vintage-Retro-Push-Button-Telephone-Statesman-9005R-c-1980s-/303530781995?_trksid=p2385738.m4383.l4275.c10 (https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BT-British-Telecom-Vintage-Retro-Push-Button-Telephone-Statesman-9005R-c-1980s-/303530781995?_trksid=p2385738.m4383.l4275.c10)
If you look on wiki you’ll see there was more than one Statesman model
It was first brought out by the GPO
-
The cleaner was referring to the left hand side when looking at the bed from the bottom. That’s pretty obvious...
Besides, the telephone left a mark on the cabinet on Nevill’s side.
It's not obvious at all. Wasn't the mark on the cabinet an invention of the TV series? There was no space for a phone in the crime scene photos.
-
I don't simply because the rotary dialled cream phone was first launced in 1959 and was synonomous with the GPO. It could be found in every home up and down the land because it was pretty much the only model available.
GPO was split in 1980 with the telecoms side becoming BT in 1981. The Statesman was first launched in 1984.
The phones were moved around as a result of Mr Pike taking away the two way adapter with the cordless phone. Why have a two way adapter if it was only for the cordless phone?
The fawn coloured Statesman with push buttons would not have been compatible with the old GPO wiring/socket hence it was usually plugged into the adapter.
You still don’t get it, do you?
A double adaptor only accommodates IDENTICAL plugs
Furthermore, they didn’t do FAWN Statesman phones; they did cream ones, which Mr Pike referred to.
-
If you look on wiki you’ll see there was more than one Statesman model
It was first brought out by the GPO
In other words the Statesman is both a GPO and a BT phone, so both are right. Pike referred to it as a GPO phone to distinguish it from the damaged cordless one he was taking away, which if I remember wasn't one manufactured under the GPO or BT name.
-
Also Mr Pike states that the cream coloured GPO issued phone was retained by NB as June didn't get on with the cordless ones.
GPO issued phones were subject to rental payments and effectively the property of GPO. Usually when customers were in a position to purchase phones approved for use with the network they would return any rented phones.
If Mr Pike was referring to the Statesman why would he comment about the Bamber's retaining the phone?
Does anyone know the model number of the Statesman?
If the phone had of been the rotary one, what was it doing in the kitchen when it was the bedroom phone and the Statesman phone they always used in the kitchen was working?
Had the rotary bedroom phone been in the kitchen WITH the Statesman, why would that be?
And why would Mr Pike say that NB told him he’d retain the “rotary phone” which you’re trying to suggest it was, when Nevill would have said the rotary phone was working and was the bedroom phone?
You’re trying to distort it.
-
On Wiki, both Statesman and Type 746 are referred to as GPO phones, because that was the generic name they were called in the 1980s, I suppose. But I think that Pike was referring to the Statesman rather than the type 746, because it was the usual kitchen phone in position on the worktop when he visited the farm on the 5th, before it later disappeared under a pile of magazines/newspapers on the 7th.
Absolutely, Myster
-
I don't simply because the rotary dialled cream phone was first launced in 1959 and was synonomous with the GPO. It could be found in every home up and down the land because it was pretty much the only model available.
GPO was split in 1980 with the telecoms side becoming BT in 1981. The Statesman was first launched in 1984.
The phones were moved around as a result of Mr Pike taking away the two way adapter with the cordless phone. Why have a two way adapter if it was only for the cordless phone?
The fawn coloured Statesman with push buttons would not have been compatible with the old GPO wiring/socket hence it was usually plugged into the adapter.
So you’re saying the GPO and BT are writing lies?
About time you took those blinkers off
-
It's not obvious at all. Wasn't the mark on the cabinet an invention of the TV series? There was no space for a phone in the crime scene photos.
It’s in the official exhibits
-
You still don’t get it, do you?
A double adaptor only accommodates IDENTICAL plugs
Furthermore, they didn’t do FAWN Statesman phones; they did cream ones, which Mr Pike referred to.
Agree on that, because the double adapter or doubler as it was later to be called was manufactured from 1981 to enable the consumer to plug in an extra phone or an extension cord without having to call out an engineer to hardwire one in, as was previously the case. So the push-button Statesman, the rotary-dial type 746, and the broken cordless phone which Pike removed would all plug into a doubler like this one...
-
Agree on that, because the double adapter or doubler as it was later to be called was manufactured from 1981 to enable the consumer to plug in an extra phone or an extension cord without having to call out an engineer to hardwire one in, as was previously the case. So the push-button Statesman, the rotary-dial type 746, and the broken cordless phone which Pike removed would all plug into a doubler like this one...
Again, this is a bit before my time, so could all 3 phones be plugged in and working off one line? So a doubler, then another doubler further down the line?
-
It's not obvious at all. Wasn't the mark on the cabinet an invention of the TV series? There was no space for a phone in the crime scene photos.
Of course there was room, on the shelf below the top one! That type 746 was referred to in witness statements as being the one normally kept upstairs in the master bedroom, so even if not on the bedside cabinet it was somewhere in that room.
-
Of course there was room, on the shelf below the top one! That type 746 was referred to in witness statements as being the one normally kept upstairs in the master bedroom, so even if not on the bedside cabinet it was somewhere in that room.
Where was the phone socket? Was it one of these ad hoc extensions?
(Jesus, look at what I've become - I'm wrangling with the finer details of 1980's domestic telecommunications on a Saturday morning, when I could be social distancing outside Aldi for 3 hours)
-
Again, this is a bit before my time, so could all 3 phones be plugged in and working off one line? So a doubler, then another doubler further down the line?
In short, yes. But this is limited by the REN or Ring Equivalence Number of each phone...
https://www.britishtelephones.com/ren.htm (https://www.britishtelephones.com/ren.htm)
-
In short, yes. But this is limited by the REN or Ring Equivalence Number of each phone...
https://www.britishtelephones.com/ren.htm (https://www.britishtelephones.com/ren.htm)
OK, so Bamber had to faff about with the phones in advance, because if he entered through the window at 3 in the morning, there's every chance Nevill could reach for the phone if he heard someone downstairs, or heard the dog barking? (but more likely would have just got up and investigated).
I've got a Rob type question - was the phone call to Bamber's house verified as having been made and connected by the exchange?
-
Where was the phone socket? Was it one of these ad hoc extensions?
(Jesus, look at what I've become - I'm wrangling with the finer details of 1980's domestic telecommunications on a Saturday morning, when I could be social distancing outside Aldi for 3 hours)
No info available on where that was, but my guess is that it was a permanent fixture near the bedhead with its extension lead stapled to the skirting board, from the master kitchen socket and plugged into the doubler.
-
OK, so Bamber had to faff about with the phones in advance, because if he entered through the window at 3 in the morning, there's every chance Nevill could reach for the phone if he heard someone downstairs, or heard the dog barking? (but more likely would have just got up and investigated).
I've got a Rob type question - was the phone call to Bamber's house verified as having been made and connected by the exchange?
Not sure on that one, because there was no itemised billing at the time. Telephone expert Caroline will have more info on this for certain.
-
No info available on where that was, but my guess is that it was a permanent fixture near the bedhead with its extension lead stapled to the skirting board, from the master kitchen socket and plugged into the doubler.
We set up one extension in the 1980's as we lived in a fairly large house. We bought a double adaptor for the main socket and plugged the downstairs phone in one and an extension lead in the other. That was stapled to the skirting board as you said, and it finished on the first floor landing where the other extension was plugged in.
I couldn't see any wires stapled to the skirtings in WHF, but given the layout another route could have been used.
-
We set up one extension in the 1980's as we lived in a fairly large house. We bought a double adaptor for the main socket and plugged the downstairs phone in one and an extension lead in the other. That was stapled to the skirting board as you said, and it finished on the first floor landing where the other extension was plugged in.
I couldn't see any wires stapled to the skirtings in WHF, but given the layout another route could have been used.
It had to be in proximity - maybe half way between the 2 bedside cabinets, so you could choose where to have it?
-
It had to be in proximity - maybe half way between the 2 bedside cabinets, so you could choose where to have it?
Yes, it just ended in another socket to plug the phone into.
-
Yes, it just ended in another socket to plug the phone into.
So was the rotary phone the only one that could be 'off the hook' just by lifting the receiver from the cradle? The other two you had to press a button?
-
We set up one extension in the 1980's as we lived in a fairly large house. We bought a double adaptor for the main socket and plugged the downstairs phone in one and an extension lead in the other. That was stapled to the skirting board as you said, and it finished on the first floor landing where the other extension was plugged in.
I couldn't see any wires stapled to the skirtings in WHF, but given the layout another route could have been used.
Thinking back to my parents and the GPO issued phone I don't think it was possible to unplug it. Afaik a wire came in from a telegraph pole which run though a small box made of the same material as the phone and continued running into the phone itself.
Jean B said several points were added in the last year or so. Maybe the lounge was the original point. The bedroom point she has on the left of the bed but it I doesn't mean the phone was situated there.
If you look at the layout the main bedroom is above the lounge and drinks cupboard so would probably be easy to wire these up. The other point was in the upstairs office. The downstairs office was a recent addition so wonder why a point didn't go in there?
-
Thinking back to my parents and the GPO issued phone I don't think it was possible to unplug it. Afaik a wire came in from a telegraph pole which run though a small box made of the same material as the phone and continued running into the phone itself.
Jean B said several points were added in the last year or so. Maybe the lounge was the original point. The bedroom point she has on the left of the bed but it I doesn't mean the phone was situated there.
If you look at the layout the main bedroom is above the lounge and drinks cupboard so would probably be easy to wire these up. The other point was in the upstairs office. The downstairs office was a recent addition so wonder why a point didn't go in there?
One was portable?
-
You still don’t get it, do you?
A double adaptor only accommodates IDENTICAL plugs
Furthermore, they didn’t do FAWN Statesman phones; they did cream ones, which Mr Pike referred to.
I didn't say the Statesman came in fawn. I described it as fawn based on Jean B's description.
It is obvious Mr Pike was referring to the cream rotary dial phone, model 706, since this was GPO standard issue from 1959 until the business changed during the early 80's.
The cream version of the Statesman, model 9003R, was first manufactured in 1984 long after the GPO ceased to exist. Moreover, contrary to CoA's assertion that the only phone at WHF with a recall facility was the cordless phone the Statesman also featured a recall facility.
Telephones 66. There were normally four telephones at White House Farm (although there was only one telephone line). A cream old-fashioned finger-dial telephone kept in the main bedroom (the bedroom telephone), a blue digital telephone in the first floor office (the office telephone), a cream cordless telephone kept in the kitchen but used around and outside the house (the cordless telephone) and a fawn digital telephone also kept in the kitchen (the kitchen telephone). The only telephone with a memory recall feature was the cordless telephone but this had been faulty and was collected for repair on the morning of 5 August 1985.
http://www.cntr.salford.ac.uk/comms/pushbutton.php.html
-
Agree on that, because the double adapter or doubler as it was later to be called was manufactured from 1981 to enable the consumer to plug in an extra phone or an extension cord without having to call out an engineer to hardwire one in, as was previously the case. So the push-button Statesman, the rotary-dial type 746, and the broken cordless phone which Pike removed would all plug into a doubler like this one...
Thank you, Myster
-
It had to be in proximity - maybe half way between the 2 bedside cabinets, so you could choose where to have it?
Why would anyone — a telephone engineer or NB — fix a phone socket smack bag in the middle of a double bed making it hard to get to if it went wrong, or needed unplugging?🙄
All my sockets are, and always have been, in corners of the room by the skirting boards.
-
So was the rotary phone the only one that could be 'off the hook' just by lifting the receiver from the cradle? The other two you had to press a button?
ALL phones except walkabouts get the dialling tone when lifting the receiver, regardless of them being rotary or button.
How can you not know that?
-
Why would anyone — a telephone engineer or NB — fix a phone socket smack bag in the middle of a double bed making it hard to get to if it went wrong, or needed unplugging?🙄
All my sockets are, and always have been, in corners of the room by the skirting boards.
Thanks for the info. This is all new to me, extensions, sockets, etc, as it's all before my time.
I was thinking if an engineer didn't do it and it's an extension installed by Nevill perhaps, then he'd stick it equidistant between the two bedside cabinets.
But I bow to your superior knowledge and decades of experience with such arcane communication modes.
-
ALL phones except walkabouts get the dialling tone when lifting the receiver, regardless of them being rotary or button.
How can you not know that?
Including the beige digital phone? No button to press for a tone? Are you sure? Again, I've never used these outmoded phones, so I'm relying on the many years of experience you bring to bear on the details.
-
I didn't say the Statesman came in fawn. I described it as fawn based on Jean B's description.
It is obvious Mr Pike was referring to the cream rotary dial phone, model 706, since this was GPO standard issue from 1959 until the business changed during the early 80's.
The cream version of the Statesman, model 9003R, was first manufactured in 1984 long after the GPO ceased to exist. Moreover, contrary to CoA's assertion that the only phone at WHF with a recall facility was the cordless phone the Statesman also featured a recall facility.
Telephones 66. There were normally four telephones at White House Farm (although there was only one telephone line). A cream old-fashioned finger-dial telephone kept in the main bedroom (the bedroom telephone), a blue digital telephone in the first floor office (the office telephone), a cream cordless telephone kept in the kitchen but used around and outside the house (the cordless telephone) and a fawn digital telephone also kept in the kitchen (the kitchen telephone). The only telephone with a memory recall feature was the cordless telephone but this had been faulty and was collected for repair on the morning of 5 August 1985.
http://www.cntr.salford.ac.uk/comms/pushbutton.php.html
You’re twisting it all again 🙄
You did say it was fawn
You don’t know how many years the Bamber’s’ had the Statesman. Considering they also had a walkabout which would've been fairly new, I can’t see why they’d bother to buy a new Statesman too. They ALWAYS had a phone in thta kitchen, and that cream GPO Statesman was the one they used.
The rotary one was, as the housekeeper said, ALWAYS plugged into the master bedroom
-
Including the beige digital phone? No button to press for a tone? Are you sure? Again, I've never used these outmoded phones, so I'm relying on the many years of experience you bring to bear on the details.
Are you slow on the uptake?
I’ve already answered
Go to your optician and get a new monocle — you’re eyesight must be playing up
And her an ear horn while you’re at it — you probably have degenerative hearing loss
-
Including the beige digital phone? No button to press for a tone? Are you sure? Again, I've never used these outmoded phones, so I'm relying on the many years of experience you bring to bear on the details.
I don't recall any phones having a "button to press for a tone". As far back as operator days, when the phone was lifted from it's cradle, the 'button' was released and an operator answered. When phones became automated, the act of lifting the receiver released the mechanism for a tone.............but I could be wrong.
-
Are you slow on the uptake?
I’ve already answered
Go to your optician and get a new monocle — you’re eyesight must be playing up
And her an ear horn while you’re at it — you probably have degenerative hearing loss
So you don't know then - I get it.
The digital phone hidden under the pile of magazines - last chance - did you have to press a button to get a tone.
-
I don't recall any phones having a "button to press for a tone". As far back as operator days, when the phone was lifted from it's cradle, the 'button' was released and an operator answered. When phones became automated, the act of lifting the receiver released the mechanism for a tone.............but I could be wrong.
Any idea which model was under the magazines? I don't, I'm a thick, misogynist, mute, deaf manual worker
-
Any idea which model was under the magazines? I don't, I'm a thick, misogynist, mute, deaf manual worker
I don't, but given the dimensions of a magazine rack, I imagine it to have been a flatter, rather than bulkier model. Sorry I can't offer better.
-
Any idea which model was under the magazines? I don't, I'm a thick, misogynist, mute, deaf manual worker
It seems it was the following:
This cream version of the Statesman is a model 9003 which included a recall button for use on private exchanges. It was manufactured by Plessey at their Beeston factory in Nottinghamshire (EET) in 1984.
http://www.cntr.salford.ac.uk/comms/pushbutton.php.html
-
I don't recall any phones having a "button to press for a tone". As far back as operator days, when the phone was lifted from it's cradle, the 'button' was released and an operator answered. When phones became automated, the act of lifting the receiver released the mechanism for a tone.............but I could be wrong.
You're right... when the receiver is lifted off the cradle it releases a spring-loaded button which switches on the tone, such as the square black button on the Statesman below...
-
I don't, but given the dimensions of a magazine rack, I imagine it to have been a flatter, rather than bulkier model. Sorry I can't offer better.
No probs. I think Myster's info looks most useful.
So if there's at least two phones that can keep the line open for a length of time simply by taking the receiver off the cradle, then why would Bamber need to manipulate the rotary phone at all? Why did he have to go to the lengths of ensuring that it was specifically the rotary phone that was found off the hook? Was there a functionality on the other phone (beige digital) in the kitchen that precluded it being able to be left off the hook?
-
It seems it was the following:
This cream version of the Statesman is a model 9003 which included a recall button for use on private exchanges. It was manufactured by Plessey at their Beeston factory in Nottinghamshire (EET) in 1984.
http://www.cntr.salford.ac.uk/comms/pushbutton.php.html
Interesting, so this one had recall functionality.
-
Interesting, so this one had recall functionality.
Yes it seems so.
I'm trying to recall the difference between recall and redial?
-
No probs. I think Myster's info looks most useful.
So if there's at least two phones that can keep the line open for a length of time simply by taking the receiver off the cradle, then why would Bamber need to manipulate the rotary phone at all? Why did he have to go to the lengths of ensuring that it was specifically the rotary phone that was found off the hook? Was there a functionality on the other phone (beige digital) in the kitchen that precluded it being able to be left off the hook?
I think there's nothing more sinister here than personal preference. Allegedly June had a preference for a particular model. I can't tell you where it was kept, but the kitchen would seem the most likely place for it.
-
Yes it seems so.
I'm trying to recall the difference between recall and redial?
It's interesting that the most basic phone was 'off the hook' and last number redial / recall obviously wasn't possible.
In addition, this usually resided elsewhere. That's an awful lot of trouble to go to to ensure the last number couldn't be re-dialled.
-
The GPO 700 series of telephones was introduced in 1959 with the 706 design. This, together with the later 746 design (1967) became the standard offering for subscribers and remained so through until the 1980s. However, it remained the policy that you rented your telephone from the GPO; they were not available for purchase.
This cream version of the Statesman is a model 9003 which included a recall button for use on private exchanges. It was manufactured by Plessey at their Beeston factory in Nottinghamshire (EET) in 1984.
http://www.cntr.salford.ac.uk/comms/pushbutton.php.html
The General Post Office (GPO)[1] was officially established in England in 1660[2] by Charles II and it eventually grew to combine the functions of state postal system and telecommunications carrier. Similar General Post Offices were established across the British Empire. In 1969 the GPO was abolished and the assets transferred to The Post Office, changing it from a Department of State to a statutory corporation. In 1980, the telecommunications and postal sides were split prior to British Telecommunications' conversion into a totally separate publicly owned corporation the following year as a result of the British Telecommunications Act 1981. For the more recent history of the postal system in the United Kingdom, see the articles Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Post_Office
Why would Mr Pike refer to the Statesman as a GPO issued phone? Especially bearing in mind he sold telephones for a living!
-
It's interesting that the most basic phone was 'off the hook' and last number redial / recall obviously wasn't possible.
In addition, this usually resided elsewhere. That's an awful lot of trouble to go to to ensure the last number couldn't be re-dialled.
I think we need to clarify exactly what the recall facility enabled.
-
I think we need to clarify exactly what the recall facility enabled.
I'd guess it to be the forerunner of what is, now, the 1471 facility.
-
I'd guess it to be the forerunner of what is, now, the 1471 facility.
I don't think it's what the name might suggest. A quick Google seems to refer to transferring the call to another handset/extension.
-
The GPO 700 series of telephones was introduced in 1959 with the 706 design. This, together with the later 746 design (1967) became the standard offering for subscribers and remained so through until the 1980s. However, it remained the policy that you rented your telephone from the GPO; they were not available for purchase.
This cream version of the Statesman is a model 9003 which included a recall button for use on private exchanges. It was manufactured by Plessey at their Beeston factory in Nottinghamshire (EET) in 1984.
http://www.cntr.salford.ac.uk/comms/pushbutton.php.html (http://www.cntr.salford.ac.uk/comms/pushbutton.php.html)
The General Post Office (GPO)[1] was officially established in England in 1660[2] by Charles II and it eventually grew to combine the functions of state postal system and telecommunications carrier. Similar General Post Offices were established across the British Empire. In 1969 the GPO was abolished and the assets transferred to The Post Office, changing it from a Department of State to a statutory corporation. In 1980, the telecommunications and postal sides were split prior to British Telecommunications' conversion into a totally separate publicly owned corporation the following year as a result of the British Telecommunications Act 1981. For the more recent history of the postal system in the United Kingdom, see the articles Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Post_Office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Post_Office)
Why would Mr Pike refer to the Statesman as a GPO issued phone? Especially bearing in mind he sold telephones for a living!
Because the faulty cordless phone he was taking away wasn't issued by the GPO, but one manufactured and distributed by a different company, so he stated such on his w/s to emphasise the difference.
-
I don't think it's what the name might suggest. A quick Google seems to refer to transferring the call to another handset/extension.
I think I may have used something similar when I was acting PA. I could put a caller on hold, whilst I spoke to my boss on the extension. I could either put the caller through, or tell them he was unavailable and could I take a message.
-
The GPO 700 series of telephones was introduced in 1959 with the 706 design. This, together with the later 746 design (1967) became the standard offering for subscribers and remained so through until the 1980s. However, it remained the policy that you rented your telephone from the GPO; they were not available for purchase.
This cream version of the Statesman is a model 9003 which included a recall button for use on private exchanges. It was manufactured by Plessey at their Beeston factory in Nottinghamshire (EET) in 1984.
http://www.cntr.salford.ac.uk/comms/pushbutton.php.html
The General Post Office (GPO)[1] was officially established in England in 1660[2] by Charles II and it eventually grew to combine the functions of state postal system and telecommunications carrier. Similar General Post Offices were established across the British Empire. In 1969 the GPO was abolished and the assets transferred to The Post Office, changing it from a Department of State to a statutory corporation. In 1980, the telecommunications and postal sides were split prior to British Telecommunications' conversion into a totally separate publicly owned corporation the following year as a result of the British Telecommunications Act 1981. For the more recent history of the postal system in the United Kingdom, see the articles Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Post_Office
Why would Mr Pike refer to the Statesman as a GPO issued phone? Especially bearing in mind he sold telephones for a living!
Maybe he was just using the vernacular - like 'the water board'.
-
Because the faulty cordless phone he was taking away wasn't issued by the GPO, but one manufactured and distributed by a different company, so he stated such on his w/s to emphasise the difference.
But unlike the rotary dial phone the Statesman wasn't a GPO issued phone. The Statesman was first manufactured in 1984 long after the GPO ceased issuing phones.
-
Maybe he was just using the vernacular - like 'the water board'.
He sold phones for a living so one would hope he was capable of differentiating between phones issued to GPO 'subscribers', effectively rented, and phones available for purchase on the open market?
-
But unlike the rotary dial phone the Statesman wasn't a GPO issued phone. The Statesman was first manufactured in 1984 long after the GPO ceased issuing phones.
Once again I draw your attention to the wiki page which has a photo of and references GPO Statesman.
-
The GPO 700 series of telephones was introduced in 1959 with the 706 design. This, together with the later 746 design (1967) became the standard offering for subscribers and remained so through until the 1980s. However, it remained the policy that you rented your telephone from the GPO; they were not available for purchase.
This cream version of the Statesman is a model 9003 which included a recall button for use on private exchanges. It was manufactured by Plessey at their Beeston factory in Nottinghamshire (EET) in 1984.
http://www.cntr.salford.ac.uk/comms/pushbutton.php.html
The General Post Office (GPO)[1] was officially established in England in 1660[2] by Charles II and it eventually grew to combine the functions of state postal system and telecommunications carrier. Similar General Post Offices were established across the British Empire. In 1969 the GPO was abolished and the assets transferred to The Post Office, changing it from a Department of State to a statutory corporation. In 1980, the telecommunications and postal sides were split prior to British Telecommunications' conversion into a totally separate publicly owned corporation the following year as a result of the British Telecommunications Act 1981. For the more recent history of the postal system in the United Kingdom, see the articles Royal Mail and Post Office Ltd.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Post_Office
Why would Mr Pike refer to the Statesman as a GPO issued phone? Especially bearing in mind he sold telephones for a living!
Because it was a GPO issued phone - that's why.
-
It's interesting that the most basic phone was 'off the hook' and last number redial / recall obviously wasn't possible.
In addition, this usually resided elsewhere. That's an awful lot of trouble to go to to ensure the last number couldn't be re-dialled.
What is? To move the phone? It's no trouble at all.
-
What is? To move the phone? It's no trouble at all.
In the midst of a killing spree it is. Ball ache. There's a lot of moving parts to consider in the whole scheme.
-
Once again I draw your attention to the wiki page which has a photo of and references GPO Statesman.
I draw your attention to the fact that the cream Statesman 9003r was not manufactured until 1984, by which time the GPO no longer existed so how come it was able to issue such a phone?
-
Because it was a GPO issued phone - that's why.
I draw your attention to the fact that the cream Statesman 9003r was not manufactured until 1984, by which time the GPO no longer existed so how come it was able to issue such a phone?
-
I draw your attention to the fact that the cream Statesman 9003r was not manufactured until 1984, by which time the GPO no longer existed so how come it was able to issue such a phone?
Hah, you got me there, phone expert.
-
I can see no reason to assume that it wasn't June who moved the dial phone to the kitchen. It was known to be the receiver she preferred.
Cite?
-
So you don't know then - I get it.
The digital phone hidden under the pile of magazines - last chance - did you have to press a button to get a tone.
Of course not, and you know that
-
No probs. I think Myster's info looks most useful.
So if there's at least two phones that can keep the line open for a length of time simply by taking the receiver off the cradle, then why would Bamber need to manipulate the rotary phone at all? Why did he have to go to the lengths of ensuring that it was specifically the rotary phone that was found off the hook? Was there a functionality on the other phone (beige digital) in the kitchen that precluded it being able to be left off the hook?
Haven’t you grasped it yet?
-
It's interesting that the most basic phone was 'off the hook' and last number redial / recall obviously wasn't possible.
In addition, this usually resided elsewhere. That's an awful lot of trouble to go to to ensure the last number couldn't be re-dialled.
Well, let me explain it to you in simple terms so you understand.
There would be two reasons why Jeremy Bamber moved the rotary phone from the bedroom into the kitchen; remember, although he wasn’t a bright psychopath, he wasn’t completely stupid.
The first reason is that he expected to shoot Nevill and June dead in their bed as they lay sleeping.
Mistake number one for him: plans go awry
As Nevill was able to reach the kitchen it should have occurred to the police (had Taff not been thick and dismissed officers concerns) that as Nevill must have attempted to call for help, that meant he had no access to a bedside telephone. They knew he wasn’t shot in the bedroom, so Jeremy had to think up a reason why Nevill didn’t use his bedroom phone, and tried to reach the one in the kitchen instead.
So Jeremy simply moved the bedroom phone into the kitchen, where Nevill was found dead. Jeremy wasn’t expecting to kill Nevill in the kitchen, and he could hardly drag his dead body upstairs, could he?
Does that register with you?
The second reason Jeremy hid the kitchen Statesman phone amongst a pile of magazines was that it wouldn’t be found. Think about it, General, why would anyone in that household hide that phone? That phone which was in perfect working order, as was proven — why would anyone wrap the long wire round it and hide it? Do you hide your working phones amongst piles of magazines, Hmm? Keep thinking...
And the other reason Jeremy hid that phone was that he murdered his family earlier than 3am. He probably murdered them any time between 1am and 2am. So when his “perfect murder plan” went all wrong, he had to use the phone that didn’t store the “last number redial” in case engineers examined it and detected the exact time the phone call to Goldhanger was made.
Jeremy did call his home number from WHF; allowed his answer phone to connect to the call; waited about 10 seconds; then clicked the cradle buttons down, allowed them to release, and left the receiver by the cradle.
It’s very, very simple.
-
He sold phones for a living so one would hope he was capable of differentiating between phones issued to GPO 'subscribers', effectively rented, and phones available for purchase on the open market?
The GPO were still in existence until 1981: they hadn’t ceased YEARS prior to 1984, just three years, Holly — and the majority of households still had GPO issued phones in their homes right throughout the 1980s.
You’ve also missed the fact that when Mr Pike made his statement he was 65-years-old. Old school. Old-fashioned. Used terminology he’d always used throughout his working life. He would have called ALL phones, except privately bought ones made by companies in China or wherever they sourced them “GPO phones”. Elderly people remain stuck in their ways...
-
The GPO were still in existence until 1981: they hadn’t ceased YEARS prior to 1984, just three years, Holly — and the majority of households still had GPO issued phones in their homes right throughout the 1980s.
You’ve also missed the fact that when Mr Pike made his statement he was 65-years-old. Old school. Old-fashioned. Used terminology he’d always used throughout his working life. He would have called ALL phones, except privately bought ones made by companies in China or wherever they sourced them “GPO phones”. Elderly people remain stuck in their ways...
A 65 year old is "elderly" ? You sound like some of our politicians!
You do make a good point re Mr Pike and terminology though----very possible. My mum was still talking about shillings and pence in the 1980's!
-
What is? To move the phone? It's no trouble at all.
It would be for Genereal with his creaky knees...
-
I draw your attention to the fact that the cream Statesman 9003r was not manufactured until 1984, by which time the GPO no longer existed so how come it was able to issue such a phone?
It became BT 🙄
Do you think they sent all their brand new phones to a landfill?
-
I draw your attention to the fact that the cream Statesman 9003r was not manufactured until 1984, by which time the GPO no longer existed so how come it was able to issue such a phone?
Why do you speak like this is a courtroom and you’re a QC, Holly?
This is a forum, and you’re not even a court usher,
Objection, your honour!!
-
A 65 year old is "elderly" ? You sound like some of our politicians!
You do make a good point re Mr Pike and terminology though----very possible. My mum was still talking about shillings and pence in the 1980's!
Well, he wasn’t exactly a spring chicken, MrsWah 🕺
All elderly/older/less young/ or however you want to describe an OAP, which 65-year-olds officially become according to parliament and medics, use words and terminology they’ve been brought up with. It’s hard to adapt. When Mr Pike was 62 the GPO became BT. Being old school he would have still called BT the GPO...
He lived in a village where they were even more stuck in their ways, and probably referred to many things as they did when he was a young man in the 1940s.
-
Well, he wasn’t exactly a spring chicken, MrsWah 🕺
All elderly/older/less young/ or however you want to describe an OAP, which 65-year-olds officially become according to parliament and medics, use words and terminology they’ve been brought up with. It’s hard to adapt. When Mr Pike was 62 the GPO became BT. Being old school he would have still called BT the GPO...
He lived in a village where they were even more stuck in their ways, and probably referred to many things as they did when he was a young man in the 1940s.
I find that something of a sweeping assumption about 'elderly' people. Some are stuck in the past and some aren't, in my experience.
-
I find that something of a sweeping assumption about 'elderly' people. Some are stuck in the past and some aren't, in my experience.
If you were in your 60s in the 80s you were very much “elderly” IMO. People age much later these days.
-
If you were in your 60s in the 80s you were very much “elderly” IMO. People age much later these days.
I agree, but someone could be old-fashioned in some areas and not in others. Selling telephone receivers was a recent development so he must have had to learn all about it for work. Particularly as British Telecom had been threatening in 1981 to cut off subscribers who installed unauthorised telephone equipment.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=no1t1O90m7MC&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=when+people+were+allowed+to+buy+telephones+instead+of+renting+uk&source=bl&ots=hFLv-fVKHj&sig=ACfU3U1VJ0DbY-TgZeofcdbudhWq4EHA5g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEw[Name removed]oZ-mq97pAhVSQMAKHUlLDu8Q6AEwDHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=when%20people%20were%20allowed%20to%20buy%20telephones%20instead%20of%20renting%20uk&f=false
-
I agree, but someone could be old-fashioned in some areas and not in others. Selling telephone receivers was a recent development so he must have had to learn all about it for work. Particularly as British Telecom had been threatening in 1981 to cut off subscribers who installed unauthorised telephone equipment.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=no1t1O90m7MC&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=when+people+were+allowed+to+buy+telephones+instead+of+renting+uk&source=bl&ots=hFLv-fVKHj&sig=ACfU3U1VJ0DbY-TgZeofcdbudhWq4EHA5g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEw[Name removed]oZ-mq97pAhVSQMAKHUlLDu8Q6AEwDHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=when%20people%20were%20allowed%20to%20buy%20telephones%20instead%20of%20renting%20uk&f=false
It’s pointless arguing about IMO it as we shall never know one way or the other.
-
It’s pointless arguing about IMO it as we shall never know one way or the other.
True. Those who think they know are offering opinion as fact.
-
I agree, but someone could be old-fashioned in some areas and not in others. Selling telephone receivers was a recent development so he must have had to learn all about it for work. Particularly as British Telecom had been threatening in 1981 to cut off subscribers who installed unauthorised telephone equipment.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=no1t1O90m7MC&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=when+people+were+allowed+to+buy+telephones+instead+of+renting+uk&source=bl&ots=hFLv-fVKHj&sig=ACfU3U1VJ0DbY-TgZeofcdbudhWq4EHA5g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEw[Name removed]oZ-mq97pAhVSQMAKHUlLDu8Q6AEwDHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=when%20people%20were%20allowed%20to%20buy%20telephones%20instead%20of%20renting%20uk&f=false
Mr Pike was born over a century ago, in 1919.
His business was working on GPO lines and telephones, and at the age of 65, when BT had only been in existence for four years, it would have been second nature for him to refer to all phones, regardless of whether they were push button or rotary, as GPO phones. And the GPO did introduce the Statesman.
I dare say he still referred to BT as the GPO in speech, but when making the statement he had to be precise.
Like I said, people get stuck in their ways...
How many of you you now still call British Telecom, BT?
BT hasn’t been in existence for 14 years — it became OpenReach in 2006; I bet hardly any of you call it OpenReach. I bet you still call it BT...
Whatever, Mr Pike was obviously referring to the Statesman phone, it’s obvious, and it doesn’t even matter...
-
Mr Pike was born over a century ago, in 1919.
His business was working on GPO lines and telephones, and at the age of 65, when BT had only been in existence for four years, it would have been second nature for him to refer to all phones, regardless of whether they were push button or rotary, as GPO phones. And the GPO did introduce the Statesman.
I dare say he still referred to BT as the GPO in speech, but when making the statement he had to be precise.
Like I said, people get stuck in their ways...
How many of you you now still call British Telecom, BT?
BT hasn’t been in existence for 14 years — it became OpenReach in 2006; I bet hardly any of you call it OpenReach. I bet you still call it BT...
Whatever, Mr Pike was obviously referring to the Statesman phone, it’s obvious, and it doesn’t even matter...
Mr Pike's job wasn't 'working on GPO lines and telephones', he was a stationery supplier. His interest in telephones was limited to selling them to those who wanted to replace their rented phones.
-
Mr Pike was born over a century ago, in 1919.
His business was working on GPO lines and telephones, and at the age of 65, when BT had only been in existence for four years, it would have been second nature for him to refer to all phones, regardless of whether they were push button or rotary, as GPO phones. And the GPO did introduce the Statesman.
I dare say he still referred to BT as the GPO in speech, but when making the statement he had to be precise.
Like I said, people get stuck in their ways...
How many of you you now still call British Telecom, BT?
BT hasn’t been in existence for 14 years — it became OpenReach in 2006; I bet hardly any of you call it OpenReach. I bet you still call it BT...
Whatever, Mr Pike was obviously referring to the Statesman phone, it’s obvious, and it doesn’t even matter...
Openreach is a wholly owned subsidiary of BT Group.
The cream Statesman wasn't manufactured until 1984 by which time the GPO had ceased to exist for some 3/4 years. Facts Mr Pike would be familiar with since he sold phones which in itself was a new concept.
-
Mr Pike's job wasn't 'working on GPO lines and telephones', he was a stationery supplier. His interest in telephones was limited to selling them to those who wanted to replace their rented phones.
He tested and repaired them too; hence why he took the walkabout and Telephone socket to his workshop to test and repair it.
-
Openreach is a wholly owned subsidiary of BT Group.
The cream Statesman wasn't manufactured until 1984 by which time the GPO had ceased to exist for some 3/4 years. Facts Mr Pike would be familiar with since he sold phones which in itself was a new concept.
You’ve deliberately missed the point again...🙄
-
Openreach is a wholly owned subsidiary of BT Group.
The cream Statesman wasn't manufactured until 1984 by which time the GPO had ceased to exist for some 3/4 years. Facts Mr Pike would be familiar with since he sold phones which in itself was a new concept.
OpenReach...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
OpenReach...
Openreach Limited runs the UK's digital network. We're the people who connect homes, schools, hospitals, libraries, businesses - large and small, broadcasters and governments to the world. It's our mission to build the best possible network with the highest quality of service, and make sure that everyone in the UK can be connected. We're a wholly owned subsidiary of BT Group and our customers are the 650+ communications providers who sell, phone, broadband and Ethernet services to homes and businesses.
https://www.openreach.com/about-us/who-we-are
-
He tested and repaired them too; hence why he took the walkabout and Telephone socket to his workshop to test and repair it.
Mr Pike never claimed to test and repair phones. In the event of problems he ordered replacements, which he had done twice for the cordless phone. The second time was following a complaint by Nevill on 29th July. He didn't deliver it on 5th August because when he tried it at his shop it had the same fault as the one it was meant to replace; something to do with the ring, he said. He simple collected the faulty one and we don't know how the problem was going to be resolved.
It may be that it wasn't the phone which was faulty, but the excess of receivers connected to the WHF line. That could cause ring problems due to something called 'low combined resistance'.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=no1t1O90m7MC&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=when+people+were+allowed+to+buy+telephones+instead+of+renting+uk&source=bl&ots=hFLv-fVKHj&sig=ACfU3U1VJ0DbY-TgZeofcdbudhWq4EHA5g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEw[Name removed]oZ-mq97pAhVSQMAKHUlLDu8Q6AEwDHoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=when%20people%20were%20allowed%20to%20buy%20telephones%20instead%20of%20renting%20uk&f=false
-
Mr P run a stationery shop, office supplies etc. The phone side must have been new since prior to 1982 the GPO had a monopoly on the provision of telephones.
Until 1982 the GPO had a monopoly on the provision of all telephone lines and telephones within the UK, other than in Kingston upon Hull, and so the range was limited.
Customers (known within the GPO as "subs", being short for 'subscribers') did not buy their telephones, they were rented from the GPO, together with the house wiring and the wiring connecting the house to the local network at a connection point known as a DP (distribution point). The majority of DPs were (and still are) at the top of what are still known in the UK as telegraph poles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones
The cream Statesman wasn't manufactured until 1984 so clearly Mr P was referring to the GPO issued rotary dial phone which he observed in the kitchen on 5th Aug.
-
Mr P run a stationery shop, office supplies etc. The phone side must have been new since prior to 1982 the GPO had a monopoly on the provision of telephones.
Until 1982 the GPO had a monopoly on the provision of all telephone lines and telephones within the UK, other than in Kingston upon Hull, and so the range was limited.
Customers (known within the GPO as "subs", being short for 'subscribers') did not buy their telephones, they were rented from the GPO, together with the house wiring and the wiring connecting the house to the local network at a connection point known as a DP (distribution point). The majority of DPs were (and still are) at the top of what are still known in the UK as telegraph poles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPO_telephones
The cream Statesman wasn't manufactured until 1984 so clearly Mr P was referring to the GPO issued rotary dial phone which he observed in the kitchen on 5th Aug.
Clearly the murders happened in 1985 so it isn't clear which phone he was talking about at all.
-
Clearly the murders happened in 1985 so it isn't clear which phone he was talking about at all.
He sold phones as part of his business. Why would he refer to a phone manufactured in 1984 as being GPO issued when the GPO wasn't even in existence in 84?
-
He sold phones as part of his business. Why would he refer to a phone manufactured in 1984 as being GPO issued when the GPO wasn't even in existence in 84?
BT only became the trading name in April of 1984 - old habits die hard.
-
BT only became the trading name in April of 1984 - old habits die hard.
It's like every vacuum cleaner was a hoover, but that was because Hoover were the biggest suppliers and most vacuum cleaners looked the same. All phones looked the same too. The GPO rotary dial phone was THE phone for years. No-one would say that about something that was merely a year old, imo.
-
It's like every vacuum cleaner was a hoover, but that was because Hoover were the biggest suppliers and most vacuum cleaners looked the same. All phones looked the same too. The GPO rotary dial phone was THE phone for years. No-one would say that about something that was merely a year old, imo.
No one? Wow! If ever there was a sweeping statement - I think that needs backing up!
-
It's like every vacuum cleaner was a hoover, but that was because Hoover were the biggest suppliers and most vacuum cleaners looked the same. All phones looked the same too. The GPO rotary dial phone was THE phone for years. No-one would say that about something that was merely a year old, imo.
James Dyson launched his first DC01 Cyclone in 1993, but some people, maybe most, still say in 2020 they're hoovering their carpet, even though Dysons outsell Hoovers many times over.
-
James Dyson launched his first DC01 Cyclone in 1993, but some people, maybe most, still say in 2020 they're hoovering their carpet, even though Dysons outsell Hoovers many times over.
We Eufy our carpets. Well we did until the bloody thing stopped working.
-
We Eufy our carpets. Well we did until the bloody thing stopped working.
Don't even bother with a Gtech. I could suck up more pug hair with a straw.
-
No one? Wow! If ever there was a sweeping statement - I think that needs backing up!
IMO means it is opinion so it doesn't need backing up.
-
We Eufy our carpets. Well we did until the bloody thing stopped working.
If it was diddy one like this, then I'm not surprised...
https://www.eufylife.com/products/variant/homevac-h11/T2521111 (https://www.eufylife.com/products/variant/homevac-h11/T2521111)
But blame the cat if it was a RoboVac... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLt5rBfNucc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLt5rBfNucc)
-
No one? Wow! If ever there was a sweeping statement - I think that needs backing up!
imo = in my opinion. Opinions don't need cites, only facts.
-
If it was diddy one like this, then I'm not surprised...
https://www.eufylife.com/products/variant/homevac-h11/T2521111 (https://www.eufylife.com/products/variant/homevac-h11/T2521111)
But blame the cat if it was a RoboVac... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLt5rBfNucc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLt5rBfNucc)
Oh no, it was a robot one.
-
Oh no, it was a robot one.
If that was my cat, I'd put it down to the fact it likes to keep its feet warm.
-
It's like every vacuum cleaner was a hoover, but that was because Hoover were the biggest suppliers and most vacuum cleaners looked the same. All phones looked the same too. The GPO rotary dial phone was THE phone for years. No-one would say that about something that was merely a year old, imo.
According to you, Gunit, despite knowing Mr Pike you claim he knew sweet FA about telephones. In which case, he may have assumed the Statesman was a GPO one (which, actually, it was!)
Surprised Nevill asked Mr Pike to come round and fix the phone if he was clueless: and surprised Mr Pike took it back to his workshop to see if he could fix it.
-
It's like every vacuum cleaner was a hoover, but that was because Hoover were the biggest suppliers and most vacuum cleaners looked the same. All phones looked the same too. The GPO rotary dial phone was THE phone for years. No-one would say that about something that was merely a year old, imo.
Many people still call vacuum cleaners Hoovers even today
Old habits die hard
-
According to you, Gunit, despite knowing Mr Pike you claim he knew sweet FA about telephones. In which case, he may have assumed the Statesman was a GPO one (which, actually, it was!)
Surprised Nevill asked Mr Pike to come round and fix the phone if he was clueless: and surprised Mr Pike took it back to his workshop to see if he could fix it.
It maybe that some have no idea of how things were/are still done. It's highly likely that June never bought groceries which couldn't be bought locally at the village shop. They'd have created employment and a living for 'locals' on the farm and in the house. Personal recommendation counted for a lot and a big plus was that 'locals', out of deference, probably didn't charge the same prices of them, as did outsiders, nor were they as quick to present their bills. On the whole, though, the Bambers had a better reputation, locally, than did some. A sorry tale from my own village had it that many small, local businesses failed because of the unpaid bills run up with them by a 'grand' family who lived there.
-
According to you, Gunit, despite knowing Mr Pike you claim he knew sweet FA about telephones. In which case, he may have assumed the Statesman was a GPO one (which, actually, it was!)
Surprised Nevill asked Mr Pike to come round and fix the phone if he was clueless: and surprised Mr Pike took it back to his workshop to see if he could fix it.
Please provide evidence to support your bolded claims because afaik they are figments of your imagination, not facts.
-
Can someone explain the point of this debate?
-
Don't even bother with a Gtech. I could suck up more pug hair with a straw.
I've got one, absolutely unless!
-
I've got one, absolutely unless!
My Vax just died, today, after 10 years of excellent service, so I've replaced it with another of the same.
-
My Vax just died, today, after 10 years of excellent service, so I've replaced it with another of the same.
But on a lighter note, according to the popular music correspondent on blue, Coldplay are releasing a single in aid of Bamber!! Blimey, Coldplay!! That's a bit of a coup!!
&%%6
-
But on a lighter note, according to the popular music correspondent on blue, Coldplay are releasing a single in aid of Bamber!! Blimey, Coldplay!! That's a bit of a coup!!
&%%6
Just posted a link to the song in anew thread - BUT it's 'A' Cris Martin not 'THEE' Chris Martib @)(++(* @)(++(*
-
But on a lighter note, according to the popular music correspondent on blue, Coldplay are releasing a single in aid of Bamber!! Blimey, Coldplay!! That's a bit of a coup!!
&%%6
I started a new thread announcing it but it hasn't accepted or hasn't been seen. Vomit buckets at the ready, I think!
-
Is it called “Free Jeremy Bamber” sung to the tune of “Free Nelson Mandela”? with Holly Goodhead on maraccas and G-Unit on backing vocals?
-
Just posted a link to the song in anew thread - BUT it's 'A' Cris Martin not 'THEE' Chris Martib @)(++(* @)(++(*
Ah. Oh well, I'm sure it will still be hip and groovy. Can't wait to see what he rhymes with "murderer."
-
Ah. Oh well, I'm sure it will still be hip and groovy. Can't wait to see what he rhymes with "murderer."
Not exact rhymes but nerdier and turdier come to mind.
-
Ah. Oh well, I'm sure it will still be hip and groovy. Can't wait to see what he rhymes with "murderer."
Free Jeremy Bamber
Free free
Free free free Jeremy Bamber
Free Jeremy Bamber
35 years in captivity
Never diagnosed with psychopathy
Don’t believe what you see on TV
You're so blind that you cannot see
Free Jeremy Bamber
Beloved by the gullible and the barmy
Only man left from White House Farm-y
You're so blind that you cannot see
When he’s released just imagine the glee
Free Jeremy Bamber
35 tears in captivity
You're so blind that you cannot see
You're so deaf that you cannot hear him
You're so dumb that you cannot speak
-
Free Jeremy Bamber
Free free
Free free free Jeremy Bamber
Free Jeremy Bamber
35 years in captivity
Never diagnosed with psychopathy
Don’t believe what you see on TV
You're so blind that you cannot see
Free Jeremy Bamber
Beloved by the gullible and the barmy
Only man left from White House Farm-y
You're so blind that you cannot see
When he’s released just imagine the glee
Free Jeremy Bamber
35 tears in captivity
You're so blind that you cannot see
You're so deaf that you cannot hear him
You're so dumb that you cannot speak
Beautiful words, VS, So moving it bought tears to my eyes. 8@??)(
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwwYggHhHbo
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwwYggHhHbo
Think I'd prefer The Mormon Tabernacle Choir...............or maybe the quick and easy chocolate cake 8)--)) 8)--))
-
Ah. Oh well, I'm sure it will still be hip and groovy. Can't wait to see what he rhymes with "murderer."
"Sheila Caffell, have you heard of 'er?"
-
Think I'd prefer The Mormon Tabernacle Choir...............or maybe the quick and easy chocolate cake 8)--)) 8)--))
Or the The Mormon Tabernacle Choir eating the quick and easy chocolate cake @)(++(*
-
"Sheila Caffell, have you heard of 'er?"
That should certainly be slotted in somewhere.
-
Or the The Mormon Tabernacle Choir eating the quick and easy chocolate cake @)(++(*
*%87 *%87
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwwYggHhHbo
Hmmm. He's a bit like a young George Formby. 8((()*/
-
Hmmm. He's a bit like a young George Formby. 8((()*/
More like Charlie Cairoli... but certain to get Jem released in a week or two, absolutely no doubt about that. Where would we be without these pesky clueless millenials?
-
More like Charlie Cairoli... but certain to get Jem released in a week or two, absolutely no doubt about that. Where would we be without these pesky clueless millenials?
Chris Martin from Coldplay was born in 1977.
-
Chris Martin from Coldplay was born in 1977.
It's Cris, not Chris.
-
Chris Martin from Coldplay was born in 1977.
Wrong Chris Martin @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
He wouldn't have anything to do with this.
-
I am sure he has done this with the best of intentions but he has watched a drama and read a bit. He hasn't got a clue.
-
Please provide evidence to support your bolded claims because afaik they are figments of your imagination, not facts.
What on Earth are you on about?
If anyone suffers figments of imagination it’s YOU!
If you bothered to read CAL’s book, it’s all in there. How do you think Mr Pike knew Nevill’s walkabout wasn’t working? Why d’you think he went round to pick it up?
-
But on a lighter note, according to the popular music correspondent on blue, Coldplay are releasing a single in aid of Bamber!! Blimey, Coldplay!! That's a bit of a coup!!
&%%6
I dare say Gunit is on there, and she believes that ludicrous figment of someone’s vivid imagination *%87
-
Just posted a link to the song in anew thread - BUT it's 'A' Cris Martin not 'THEE' Chris Martib @)(++(* @)(++(*
Embarrassing...
Bet the psychopathic convicted mass murderer Jeremy Bamber would feel furious to see a footnote in the press report on Friday where it said he’d LOST yet again, and then a smaller line said:
WHO IS JEREMY BAMBER
Thing is, most people under 50 have no idea about the case, or him. He’s stuck in the 80s time warp...he’s been forgotten for decades.
-
Is it called “Free Jeremy Bamber” sung to the tune of “Free Nelson Mandela”? with Holly Goodhead on maraccas and G-Unit on backing vocals?
(&^& (&^&
-
What on Earth are you on about?
If anyone suffers figments of imagination it’s YOU!
You only ask for cites because you haven’t read up on the case properly. And I’m not beholden to give cites to you — who do you think you are?!
If you bothered to read CAL’s book, it’s all in there. How do you think Mr Pike knew Nevill’s walkabout wasn’t working? Why d’you think he went round to pick it up?
The problem with you is that you lack any logic.
I am asking for cites because it's against forum rules to post opinion as fact. You said;
"Nevill asked Mr Pike to come round and fix the phone if he was clueless: and surprised Mr Pike took it back to his workshop to see if he could fix it."
You mention CAL's book. but I can't see anything there suggesting that Nevill asked Mr Pike to come round and fix the phone, that Mr Pike had a workshop or that he fixed phones.
Unless you can provide evidence to confirm what you say then members are entitled to conclude you made it up.
-
Embarrassing...
Bet the psychopathic convicted mass murderer Jeremy Bamber would feel furious to see a footnote in the press report on Friday where it said he’d LOST yet again, and then a smaller line said:
WHO IS JEREMY BAMBER
Thing is, most people under 50 have no idea about the case, or him. He’s stuck in the 80s time warp...he’s been forgotten for decades.
I think more people under 50 know about the case now----the TV series did that for us!
-
I am asking for cites because it's against forum rules to post opinion as fact. You said;
"Nevill asked Mr Pike to come round and fix the phone if he was clueless: and surprised Mr Pike took it back to his workshop to see if he could fix it."
You mention CAL's book. but I can't see anything there suggesting that Nevill asked Mr Pike to come round and fix the phone, that Mr Pike had a workshop or that he fixed phones.
Unless you can provide evidence to confirm what you say then members are entitled to conclude you made it up.
So Mr Pike just appeared, miraculously, out of the ether? How did he know that there was a phone which needed fixing, by osmosis?
-
So Mr Pike just appeared, miraculously, out of the ether? How did he know that there was a phone which needed fixing, by osmosis?
I would have expected you to know, being as you've been interested in the case for so long. Did you ever read the evidence or did you have other methods of forming your opinions?
-
I would have expected you to know, being as you've been interested in the case for so long. Did you ever read the evidence or did you have other methods of forming your opinions?
I have a feeling that there's a WS by him.
-
I am asking for cites because it's against forum rules to post opinion as fact. You said;
"Nevill asked Mr Pike to come round and fix the phone if he was clueless: and surprised Mr Pike took it back to his workshop to see if he could fix it."
You mention CAL's book. but I can't see anything there suggesting that Nevill asked Mr Pike to come round and fix the phone, that Mr Pike had a workshop or that he fixed phones.
Unless you can provide evidence to confirm what you say then members are entitled to conclude you made it up.
There were 3 cordless phones in the mix, the first was installed by Mr Pike about September of 1984 but needed to be replaced in the following July after a lightening storm damaged it (2nd cordless), This was the phone that had the ring fault. Mr Pike didn't take the phone to repair it, he took it to exchange it but found that the replacement (3rd cordless) had the same fault and so just removed the cordless altogether.
I believe that you have posted on the MM board for some time? I am sure that there are things you have forgotten and no one is perfect. Whether or not Pike repaied phones or not (and he may have) is neither here nor there really, this is just a bit of point scoring - no need.
-
I have a feeling that there's a WS by him.
I suggest you find it and read it.
-
I suggest you find it and read it.
Thank-you. I'll bear your suggestion in mind.
-
There were 3 cordless phones in the mix, the first was installed by Mr Pike about September of 1984 but needed to be replaced in the following July after a lightening storm damaged it (2nd cordless), This was the phone that had the ring fault. Mr Pike didn't take the phone to repair it, he took it to exchange it but found that the replacement (3rd cordless) had the same fault and so just removed the cordless altogether.
I believe that you have posted on the MM board for some time? I am sure that there are things you have forgotten and no one is perfect. Whether or not Pike repaied phones or not (and he may have) is neither here nor there really, this is just a bit of point scoring - no need.
Thank you for confirming that what I said about Mr Pike, Nevill Bamber and the tale of the Envoy is correct.
I have no interest in 'point scoring', just in getting the facts correct. People who contradict the facts I post need to make sure they have the evidence to back up what they say. Relying on their faulty memories won't do; particularly when accusing me of being wrong. Now that is point scoring and it will fail.
-
I have not understood the purpose of this thread but I'd like to report that I see a telephone on one of the beds.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37196;image)
It looks like a more modern one than the one in the kitchen. It may have had redial functions. Did any of the police determine the last numbers phoned from this phone?
-
I am asking for cites because it's against forum rules to post opinion as fact. You said;
"Nevill asked Mr Pike to come round and fix the phone if he was clueless: and surprised Mr Pike took it back to his workshop to see if he could fix it."
You mention CAL's book. but I can't see anything there suggesting that Nevill asked Mr Pike to come round and fix the phone, that Mr Pike had a workshop or that he fixed phones.
Unless you can provide evidence to confirm what you say then members are entitled to conclude you made it up.
How do you think Mr Pike KNEW the phone was faulty?
Stop asking for cites to ludicrous things.
-
I think more people under 50 know about the case now----the TV series did that for us!
Those who watched WHF learnt about what happened; decided Jeremy Bamber was a psychotic evil b*srard; tweeted a few comments...and have just as quickly forgotten about it.
Time moves on and people get on with their lives.
No-one’s interested in the murderous twisted lump; nor his potty, warped supporters.
-
Thank you for confirming that what I said about Mr Pike, Nevill Bamber and the tale of the Envoy is correct.
I have no interest in 'point scoring', just in getting the facts correct. People who contradict the facts I post need to make sure they have the evidence to back up what they say. Relying on their faulty memories won't do; particularly when accusing me of being wrong. Now that is point scoring and it will fail.
He’s NEVER coming out of prison. He’s guilty as sin. There’s no new/old/hidden “evidence”. Nada. He’s so boring, in fact, I wonder how bored his supporters must be to want to follow such an irrelevant mass murderer who was found guilty 35 years ago and has lost ALL appeals. The crap he comes out with is all BS about “fresh” evidence, he’s a raging nutter FFS.
-
I have not understood the purpose of this thread but I'd like to report that I see a telephone on one of the beds.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37196;image)
It looks like a more modern one than the one in the kitchen. It may have had redial functions. Did any of the police determine the last numbers phoned from this phone?
Phone the police, Rob.
Quickly!
They might have missed it ^*&&
-
Phone the police, Rob.
Quickly!
They might have missed it ^*&&
What's their number?
-
What's their number?
So THAT was Jeremy's problem!!! He had to phone a local station -when he could find one which was open- because he didn't know the emergency number, and he only phoned them to get it. Now we know that, he can be forgiven and set free....................NOT!
-
I have not understood the purpose of this thread but I'd like to report that I see a telephone on one of the beds.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=37196;image)
It looks like a more modern one than the one in the kitchen. It may have had redial functions. Did any of the police determine the last numbers phoned from this phone?
I have already told you the origin of this picture. It was taken long after the murders after the Eaton's moved in. It is NOT a crime scene photograph.
-
I have already told you the origin of this picture. It was taken long after the murders after the Eaton's moved in. It is NOT a crime scene photograph.
I know that now. But I was confused too, to begin with why they put an odd non-crime scene photo in amongst the "case-related photos" file. What benefit is it to us?
Ispy is just making or trying to make me look silly. It was Ispy who raised the issue for the second time.
-
So THAT was Jeremy's problem!!! He had to phone a local station -when he could find one which was open- because he didn't know the emergency number, and he only phoned them to get it. Now we know that, he can be forgiven and set free....................NOT!
We have the same problem in NZ. Local stations would be unmanned overnight. Recently they introduced a new non-emergency police number 105 as opposed to the 111 emergency number.
I think I did ring the 105 number once IIRC and it took 10 -15 minutes to get answered and then heaps of time to sort out where one was and how the call was to be handled. Half an hour later the thought of first reporting some issue through the 105 number looked rather pointless.
-
I know that now. But I was confused too, to begin with why they put an odd non-crime scene photo in amongst the "case-related photos" file. What benefit is it to us?
Ispy is just making or trying to make me look silly. It was Ispy who raised the issue for the second time.
Are you talking about the blue forum? It's in the case related photographs because it's still case related. I 'think' it was taken as part of a documentary about the case.
-
What's their number?
Who's number?
-
Who's number?
Essex police.
-
Are you talking about the blue forum? It's in the case related photographs because it's still case related. I 'think' it was taken as part of a documentary about the case.
There were 4 bedrooms in the Bamber house. Only 3 appear to have been photographed.
-
We have the same problem in NZ. Local stations would be unmanned overnight. Recently they introduced a new non-emergency police number 105 as opposed to the 111 emergency number.
I think I did ring the 105 number once IIRC and it took 10 -15 minutes to get answered and then heaps of time to sort out where one was and how the call was to be handled. Half an hour later the thought of first reporting some issue through the 105 number looked rather pointless.
Our emergency number is 999 and is answered immediately. The caller is asked which of the emergency services are required.
-
Our emergency number is 999 and is answered immediately. The caller is asked which of the emergency services are required.
Different countries have different emergency numbers. I wonder if they all should work in every country, like how often do English tourists ring the wrong number when they are visiting NZ?
I wonder who answers the 999 number when it is called in NZ?
This is what Wikipedia says about the NZ system "In the interest of international compatibility, calls to foreign emergency numbers (112, 911,[14] 999 etc.), will be automatically diverted to 111. On average, 48% of calls to 111 are non-genuine. Over time, several measures have been introduced to attempt to reduce the number of non-genuine calls, such as the recorded message played to callers as soon as they dial 111 and charging for non-genuine calls made from landlines."
I didn't know that but it seems such a good idea.
-
Different countries have different emergency numbers. I wonder if they all should work in every country, like how often do English tourists ring the wrong number when they are visiting NZ?
I wonder who answers the 999 number when it is called in NZ?
This is what Wikipedia says about the NZ system "In the interest of international compatibility, calls to foreign emergency numbers (112, 911,[14] 999 etc.), will be automatically diverted to 111. On average, 48% of calls to 111 are non-genuine. Over time, several measures have been introduced to attempt to reduce the number of non-genuine calls, such as the recorded message played to callers as soon as they dial 111 and charging for non-genuine calls made from landlines."
I didn't know that but it seems such a good idea.
To ring England from anywhere abroad we have to use a 044 or 44 prefix. We'd be highly unlikely to call an English emergency number from abroad.
-
To ring England from anywhere abroad we have to use a 044 or 44 prefix. We'd be highly unlikely to call an English emergency number from abroad.
That is not what I meant, but I suppose there are those UK tourists who don't trust the destination police forces and do that too.
-
That is not what I meant, but I suppose there are those UK tourists who don't trust the destination police forces and do that too.
In an emergency it would be easy to turn to the familiar. At such times we tend to run on automatic. It's later when we might think of consequences.
-
There were 4 bedrooms in the Bamber house. Only 3 appear to have been photographed.
Jeremy's old room was locked but ALL of the bedroom were photographed, they're just not all on the internet.
-
That is not what I meant, but I suppose there are those UK tourists who don't trust the destination police forces and do that too.
Are you saying if someone was running amok with a gun in NZ and a British tourist was nearby they’d try to call the emergency number 999 for the English police?
Are they really THAT slow in NZ?
-
Jeremy's old room was locked but ALL of the bedroom were photographed, they're just not all on the internet.
So could someone have been hiding in there when the police arrived? Was it padlocked from the outside? How was it determined to be locked? I've spent time studying the Jonbenet Ramsey case and the room she was later found in was supposedly locked too.
-
Are you saying if someone was running amok with a gun in NZ and a British tourist was nearby they’d try to call the emergency number 999 for the English police?
Are they really THAT slow in NZ?
No, we Kiwis are OK but the English tourist might still ring the UK emergency number from NZ.
-
In an emergency it would be easy to turn to the familiar. At such times we tend to run on automatic. It's later when we might think of consequences.
Any normal person receiving a call from their father at 3am, saying their sister had gone berserk with the gun, and then the line was cut off would IMMEDIATELY dial 999.
They’d possibly also call one of the neighbours/farm workers/the Boutflours/Eaton’s who ALL lived on the same land and warned them Sheila had the gun & was going crazy, so to be careful in case she came after them. Or he could have asked them to make headway carefully and be on alert until he and the police arrived.
Why didn’t he do that,eh?
-
No, we Kiwis are OK but the English tourist might still ring the UK emergency number from NZ.
Really?!
I wouldn’t.
Would you phone NZ police if you were in the UK when someone had a gun pointed at you?
-
Any normal person receiving a call from their father at 3am, saying their sister had gone berserk with the gun, and then the line was cut off would IMMEDIATELY dial 999.
They’d possibly also call one of the neighbours/farm workers/the Boutflours/Eaton’s who ALL lived on the same land and warned them Sheila had the gun & was going crazy, so to be careful in case she came after them. Or he could have asked them to make headway carefully and be on alert until he and the police arrived.
Why didn’t he do that,eh?
Well how do we know he didn't? How do we know who else he called when he arrived home at Goldhanger?
-
So could someone have been hiding in there when the police arrived? Was it padlocked from the outside? How was it determined to be locked? I've spent time studying the Jonbenet Ramsey case and the room she was later found in was supposedly locked too.
There was NO-ONE else in the house.
It was thoroughly surrounded and searched in all rooms.
Of course they broke the door down to JB’s bedroom...do you seriously think the police wouldn’t have?
-
Well how do we know he didn't? How do we know who else he called when he arrived home at Goldhanger?
He didn’t phone 999
He didn’t make any calls to the Boutflours
He didn’t make any calls to the Eaton’s
Nor did he call any farm workers or secretary
This was all gone over & established 35 years ago...why are you asking such insignificant questions of no consequence?
I’m not replying to these type questions anymore...it’s wasting my time
-
Really?!
I wouldn’t.
Would you phone NZ police if you were in the UK when someone had a gun pointed at you?
There was the case of the McCanns and they didn't ring the Police emergency number immediately. There is a language barrier problem. Maybe they should have rung the UK police instead. It is all a bit tricky at times. The Bambers tried to keep it low key so kept away from the 999 emergency number.
I was in LA when a security guard at the airport pulled a gun at me. I tell you, you don't get time to ring anyone! They are gun happy over there!
-
He didn’t phone 999
He didn’t make any calls to the Boutflours
He didn’t make any calls to the Eaton’s
Nor did he call any farm workers or secretary
This was all gone over & established 35 years ago...why are you asking such insignificant questions of no consequence?
I’m not replying to these type questions anymore...it’s wasting my time
You don't know. You are making this up. Obviously he never called 999. They were recorded but there are no records of local calls in those days.
-
There was the case of the McCanns and they didn't ring the Police emergency number immediately. There is a language barrier problem. Maybe they should have rung the UK police instead. It is all a bit tricky at times. The Bambers tried to keep it low key so kept away from the 999 emergency number.
I was in LA when a security guard at the airport pulled a gun at me. I tell you, you don't get time to ring anyone! They are gun happy over there!
jeremy Bamber wasn’t in a foreign country
He was at home in England
Your stories are irrelevant
-
There was NO-ONE else in the house.
It was thoroughly surrounded and searched in all rooms.
Of course they broke the door down to JB’s bedroom...do you seriously think the police wouldn’t have?
So can you prove to me that that room was searched that morning? Is there evidence they broke down the door to that spare bedroom? Prove it!
-
You don't know. You are making this up. Obviously he never called 999. They were recorded but there are no records of local calls in those days.
Bollocks.
ALL 999 calls have ALWAYS been recorded, that’s why the vile bastord never called them
And don’t tell me I’m making it up. You’re absolutely CLUELESS!
Listen, I don’t mean to be rude, but I can no longer reply to you. You can’t grasp things.
-
So can you prove to me that that room was searched that morning? Is there evidence they broke down the door to that spare bedroom? Prove it!
Oh, FO, Rob.
You’re boring.
You’re not normal IMO
You come out with utter crap
Of course the whole house was searched, you ridiculous pancake!
Don’t be so bloody naive. Besides, even it WASN’T searched; what then? What are YOU going to do about it 35 years later?tell them to raid it and search his old bedroom FFS?!
For the final time, the WHOLE house was searched.
I’m muting you now.
-
Bollocks.
ALL 999 calls have ALWAYS been recorded, that’s why the vile bastord never called them
And don’t tell me I’m making it up. You’re absolutely CLUELESS!
Listen, I don’t mean to be rude, but I can no longer reply to you. You can’t grasp things.
All your communications have been highly opinionated and totally inaccurate so I'd prefer it if you didn't reply to me. I'm fine with that TBH.
-
Oh, FO, Rob.
You’re boring.
You’re not normal IMO
You come out with utter crap
Of course the whole house was searched, you ridiculous pancake!
Don’t be so bloody naive. Besides, even it WASN’T searched; what then? What are YOU going to do about it 35 years later?tell them to raid it and search his old bedroom FFS?!
For the final time, the WHOLE house was searched.
I’m muting you now.
Perfect example of your inability to debate the point.
-
Bollocks.
ALL 999 calls have ALWAYS been recorded, that’s why the vile bastord never called them
And don’t tell me I’m making it up. You’re absolutely CLUELESS!
Listen, I don’t mean to be rude, but I can no longer reply to you. You can’t grasp things.
I knew the 999 calls were recorded. I had already posted that. How about telling me something new.
Even that non-emergency call the police made by Jeremy was recorded. I've heard the actual tape so I believe that to be a fact.
-
Simmer down lads...
Rob mentions the Ramsey case and it’s a good point because Police failed to check the basement properly, where the victim was eventually discovered by the father later that day
On the other hand, it means nowt in this case due to Bambers narrative of the telephone call. As we have explained that phone call eliminated the possibility of a 3rd party, so you’re barking up the wrong tree here Rob
-
Simmer down lads...
Rob mentions the Ramsey case and it’s a good point because Police failed to check the basement properly, where the victim was eventually discovered by the father later that day
On the other hand, it means nowt in this case due to Bambers narrative of the telephone call. As we have explained that phone call eliminated the possibility of a 3rd party, so you’re barking up the wrong tree here Rob
Can you explain that to me? "that phone call eliminated the possibility of a 3rd party" I can't be certain that it wasn't the third party actually making the call to Jeremy Bamber.
Have you had a call at 3:20 AM where you think you know who you were talking to but later find out you were mistaken?
It would be pretty rare at the best of times to get a phone call at 3:30 AM. So maybe that has never happened to you. But how good are you at identifying a caller at any time? I think we all can make a mistake.
-
As I was writing that up I could sense there was even another possibility, where Nevill actually made the call while he was accompanied by an apparent non-threatening third party, who then turns against Nevill and sides with Sheila. Sheila had the gun, had killed her kids and fired the first shot in a suicide attempt, the third-person then gets the gun and shoots Neville and June and in the end fires the fatal shot into Sheila.
That would be a weird situation I must admit, but I'm sure it has happened before.
-
Can you explain that to me? "that phone call eliminated the possibility of a 3rd party" I can't be certain that it wasn't the third party actually making the call to Jeremy Bamber.
Have you had a call at 3:20 AM where you think you know who you were talking to but later find out you were mistaken?
It would be pretty rare at the best of times to get a phone call at 3:30 AM. So maybe that has never happened to you. But how good are you at identifying a caller at any time? I think we all can make a mistake.
I’ve honestly not had that kind of telephone call, that I was so groggy I didn’t know who I was talking to.
There were no signs of forced entry. Jeremy was adamant not vague that that was his father, and nothing has ever come to light In the intervening 35 years of a 3rd party.
-
I’ve honestly not had that kind of telephone call, that I was so groggy I didn’t know who I was talking to.
There were no signs of forced entry. Jeremy was adamant not vague that that was his father, and nothing has ever come to light In the intervening 35 years of a 3rd party.
Look, you've got to follow more of my posts to really understand what I'M SAYING. No one knows when Nevill finished work, so the others may have gone to bed and left the house unlocked for Nevill. During the evening someone else turns up to help Nevill. [That is after Jeremy calls it a night at 9:45 PM.]
They go into the house and find Sheila has nutted off.
" Nevill actually made the call while he was accompanied by an apparent non-threatening third party, who then turns against Nevill and sides with Sheila. Sheila had the gun, had killed her kids and fired the first shot in a suicide attempt, the third-person then gets the gun and shoots Neville and June and in the end fires the fatal shot into Sheila." He possibly leaves via a window and closes it behind him. (if Jeremy can do it so can someone else).
-
Look, you've got to follow more of my posts to really understand what I'M SAYING. No one knows when Nevill finished work, so the others may have gone to bed and left the house unlocked for Nevill. During the evening someone else turns up to help Nevill.
They go into the house and find Sheila has nutted off.
" Nevill actually made the call while he was accompanied by an apparent non-threatening third party, who then turns against Nevill and sides with Sheila. Sheila had the gun, had killed her kids and fired the first shot in a suicide attempt, the third-person then gets the gun and shoots Neville and June and in the end fires the fatal shot into Sheila." He possibly leaves via a window and closes it behind him. (if Jeremy can do it so can someone else).
There was never any other suspect In the WHF investigation. Only Sheila Caffell and Jeremy Bamber. Macdonald was eliminated quickly.
-
There was never any other suspect In the WHF investigation. Only Sheila Caffell and Jeremy Bamber. Macdonald was eliminated quickly.
That is right. But I have proof someone else lied about the case. I am really reluctant to say who I suspect.
It has to do with the guns in the house, who knows the house, and who is also a good marksman.
There was no forensic evidence that Jeremy had committed the crime either, it was just what he had said to Julie. He might have been lying to Julie and it was evident he was for MacDonald had a watertight alibi (so I've been told).
He lied about MacDonald, so the rest of what he told Julie could be lies as well.
So just having no forensic evidence is not proof of no third person. Remember there is real doubt about when the marks on the mantel piece occurred. Whoever put them there was the perp in my opinion.
-
I’ve honestly not had that kind of telephone call, that I was so groggy I didn’t know who I was talking to.
There were no signs of forced entry. Jeremy was adamant not vague that that was his father, and nothing has ever come to light In the intervening 35 years of a 3rd party.
Could have been Les Dennis on a good day. He was at the height of his game in '85.
-
Could have been Les Dennis on a good day. He was at the height of his game in '85.
I hadn't heard of him before now but he sure was a hard case. https://youtu.be/FNatm2mBoqI
-
Can you explain that to me? "that phone call eliminated the possibility of a 3rd party" I can't be certain that it wasn't the third party actually making the call to Jeremy Bamber.
Have you had a call at 3:20 AM where you think you know who you were talking to but later find out you were mistaken?
It would be pretty rare at the best of times to get a phone call at 3:30 AM. So maybe that has never happened to you. But how good are you at identifying a caller at any time? I think we all can make a mistake.
It's not that unusual. Back in the day, I've had calls between 2 and 3am wanting to order food or a taxi!! At that time of the morning, one's senses are immediately on high alert. One's first thought, especially if one has wider family/aging parents/a mentally ill sister? is that there's a problem. It's a mix of relief and irritation to hear a stranger's voice. Just to follow your chain of thought for a moment, just supposing, IF Nevill had made such a call, he'd dialled the wrong number? I'm prepared to bet a stranger would have acted faster than Jeremy.
-
It's not that unusual. Back in the day, I've had calls between 2 and 3am wanting to order food or a taxi!! At that time of the morning, one's senses are immediately on high alert. One's first thought, especially if one has wider family/aging parents/a mentally ill sister? is that there's a problem. It's a mix of relief and irritation to hear a stranger's voice. Just to follow your chain of thought for a moment, just supposing, IF Nevill had made such a call, he'd dialled the wrong number? I'm prepared to bet a stranger would have acted faster than Jeremy.
Hardly - for there's no address given nor the name of the caller. so how could a stranger do anything?
-
Hardly - for there's no address given nor the name of the caller. so how could a stranger do anything?
I'd have called 999. Whilst they probably couldn't have done anything, I, definitely couldn't. However, despite handing the responsibility to someone else, it wouldn't have stopped we worrying on behalf of the caller.
-
I knew the 999 calls were recorded. I had already posted that. How about telling me something new.
Even that non-emergency call the police made by Jeremy was recorded. I've heard the actual tape so I believe that to be a fact.
Wrong again, Rob.
Several times.
Firstly, when Jeremy Bamber phoned the local police it was NOT recorded.
You claim you’ve heard it:
“You don't know. You are making this up. Obviously he never called 999. They were recorded but there are no records of local calls in those days”
That, Rob, is a RECONSTRUCTION.
SO you HAVEN’T heard the call at all. Get your facts right. You’re making yourself look daft.
-
Look, you've got to follow more of my posts to really understand what I'M SAYING. No one knows when Nevill finished work, so the others may have gone to bed and left the house unlocked for Nevill. During the evening someone else turns up to help Nevill. [That is after Jeremy calls it a night at 9:45 PM.]
They go into the house and find Sheila has nutted off.
" Nevill actually made the call while he was accompanied by an apparent non-threatening third party, who then turns against Nevill and sides with Sheila. Sheila had the gun, had killed her kids and fired the first shot in a suicide attempt, the third-person then gets the gun and shoots Neville and June and in the end fires the fatal shot into Sheila." He possibly leaves via a window and closes it behind him. (if Jeremy can do it so can someone else).
You’re doing this on purpose — you must be!
This has all been established 35 years ago, and now you’re coming out with laughable scenarios which make you look like you’re two jellies short of a picnic.
I can’t be bothered to EXPLAIN every single point, as they’re too ludicrous: such as, if they all got shot around 10pm why did Nevill supposedly wait until 3am to phone his useless tosspot of a lazy thieving son?
Nor can I be bothered to explain it to you like I would to a 4-year-old that the “bad evil man climbed through a window at around 10pm after killing everyone instead of walking through the unlocked doors”
FGS! You’re either taking the piss big time, or you have some kind of condition
-
Wrong again, Rob.
Several times.
Firstly, when Jeremy Bamber phoned the local police it was NOT recorded.
You claim you’ve heard it:
“You don't know. You are making this up. Obviously he never called 999. They were recorded but there are no records of local calls in those days”
That, Rob, is a RECONSTRUCTION.
SO you HAVEN’T heard the call at all. Get your facts right. You’re making yourself look daft.
OK you might be right. It could be a reconstruction.
-
Wrong again, Rob.
Several times.
Firstly, when Jeremy Bamber phoned the local police it was NOT recorded.
You claim you’ve heard it:
“You don't know. You are making this up. Obviously he never called 999. They were recorded but there are no records of local calls in those days”
That, Rob, is a RECONSTRUCTION.
SO you HAVEN’T heard the call at all. Get your facts right. You’re making yourself look daft.
It's my understanding that calls to those stations large enough to warrant -and Chelmsford was- taped all incoming calls for reference, but they were only kept for a limited time. What Rob heard would have been a reconstruction taken from logs.
-
That is right. But I have proof someone else lied about the case. I am really reluctant to say who I suspect.
It has to do with the guns in the house, who knows the house, and who is also a good marksman.
There was no forensic evidence that Jeremy had committed the crime either, it was just what he had said to Julie. He might have been lying to Julie and it was evident he was for MacDonald had a watertight alibi (so I've been told).
He lied about MacDonald, so the rest of what he told Julie could be lies as well.
So just having no forensic evidence is not proof of no third person. Remember there is real doubt about when the marks on the mantel piece occurred. Whoever put them there was the perp in my opinion.
Just how much BS can you conjure up?!
To say you have “proof” someone else lied the case is embarrassing! You know nothing. You don’t even know about the case.
How could you, out in NZ have “proof” that no-one else has? You’re turning this thread into a laughingstock — especially when you then say “I suspect”.
The ONLY thing you’re right about is that the perp, Jeremy Bamber, did indeed put the markers under the mantel — unwittingly — when he and Nevill fought over the rifle. Thick JB didn’t realise the silencer had scratched the underside in the fierce struggle, and scientists confirmed that the patterns of the markings were caused by a struggle too.
You don’t have to be particularly sharp to see that, either...check the markings and how they were made & in what direction. Dead simple.
-
Police log of Jeremy's call at 3:36 AM
(http://twitpic.com/bz3ibk)
http://twitpic.com/bz3ibk
Police log of "another call"
(https://twitpic.com/6qkaq9)
https://twitpic.com/6qkaq9
I don't think there was two calls at all.
-
Police log of Jeremy's call at 3:36 AM
(http://twitpic.com/bz3ibk)
Police log of "another call"
(https://twitpic.com/6qkaq9)
You’ve posted blank squares...a bit like your profile pic
-
You’ve posted blank squares...a bit like your profile pic
I've just fixed them up.
-
Just how much BS can you conjure up?!
To say you have “proof” someone else lied the case is embarrassing! You know nothing. You don’t even know about the case.
How could you, out in NZ have “proof” that no-one else has? You’re turning this thread into a laughingstock — especially when you then say “I suspect”.
The ONLY thing you’re right about is that the perp, Jeremy Bamber, did indeed put the markers under the mantel — unwittingly — when he and Nevill fought over the rifle. Thick JB didn’t realise the silencer had scratched the underside in the fierce struggle, and scientists confirmed that the patterns of the markings were caused by a struggle too.
You don’t have to be particularly sharp to see that, either...check the markings and how they were made & in what direction. Dead simple.
Do you know what your problem is? You are so fixated that the perp was JB you fail to see errors in other people's statements.
If for a moment you stopped and thought who else could have done this you might start to see it. But I think it will be impossible to say it outright but I'll try and lead you all to examine the disturbing errors in the 3 witness statements. OK I might still be wrong but we will try and look at it.
-
Police log of Jeremy's call at 3:36 AM
(http://twitpic.com/bz3ibk)
Police log of "another call"
(https://twitpic.com/6qkaq9)
That's right. Jeremy's call, received and written down by Bonnett, a civilian police worker in the call room, was passed, verbally, via "another call" from Bonnett to West, who wrote similar, but not the same words.
I can't tell you how many times this has been discussed. It's what supporters repeatedly pull out of the hat as being "proof" that Nevill called. It appears to have bypassed their brains that it would be very odd for him to make an urgent -mentally ill daughter having hold of a loaded gun!!- call, using an 8 digit number when there was the availability of the 999 emergency number.
-
That's right. Jeremy's call, received and written down by Bonnett, a civilian police worker in the call room, was passed, verbally, via "another call" from Bonnett to West, who wrote similar, but not the same words.
I can't tell you how many times this has been discussed. It's what supporters repeatedly pull out of the hat as being "proof" that Nevill called. It appears to have bypassed their brains that it would be very odd for him to make an urgent -mentally ill daughter having hold of a loaded gun!!- call, using an 8 digit number when there was the availability of the 999 emergency number.
Sheila may have already shot herself (the first time) when that call was made. If so she wasn't running around.
-
Do you know what your problem is? You are so fixated that the perp was JB you fail to see errors in other people's statements.
If for a moment you stopped and thought who else could have done this you might start to see it. But I think it will be impossible to say it outright but I'll try and lead you all to examine the disturbing errors in the 3 witness statements. OK I might still be wrong but we will try and look at it.
OR!!!.......... Might it be that you've become fixated on the culprit being ANYone other than Jeremy Bamber? You're suggesting discrepancies in witness statements could indicate his innocence, but appear to fail to see that discrepancies in Jeremy's witness statements indicate guilt.
-
It's not that unusual. Back in the day, I've had calls between 2 and 3am wanting to order food or a taxi!! At that time of the morning, one's senses are immediately on high alert. One's first thought, especially if one has wider family/aging parents/a mentally ill sister? is that there's a problem. It's a mix of relief and irritation to hear a stranger's voice. Just to follow your chain of thought for a moment, just supposing, IF Nevill had made such a call, he'd dialled the wrong number? I'm prepared to bet a stranger would have acted faster than Jeremy.
April,
We all know Nevill (nor anyone else) phoned Jeremy between 3 to 3:25am that morning.
Besides Nevill already being dead, and when he was alive in the kitchen he was unable to speak, and despite the ridiculous idea of JB’s supporters that Nevill would’ve called him of all people in a dire emergency is sheer lunacy. In a dire emergency all thoughts of “what will the vicar say” don’t enter your mind: your wife has been shot dead or critically injured, your daughter is going berserk with a loaded rifle; you’ve been shot four times in the mouth, neck, shoulder...the ONLY people you NEED and want are paramedics and police. It’s not like it can all be hushed up. So all that nonsense they spout isn’t even worth responding to.
Whatever...HAD Nevill called Jeremy, and according to Jeremy he was upstairs in bed sleeping like a log, by the TIME he’d have heard the phone ringing downstairs it would have had to of rung a MINIMUM of 4/5 times to rouse him. Even when your phone next to you in bed rings when you’re asleep, it takes a good few rings to wake you. Always.
For all we know, his phone may not have even been that loud, which further reduces the chances of it waking him upstairs while he was supposedly in a deep sleep, exhausted after a long day’s work.
But let’s assume he had miraculous hearing and heard that downstairs phone ringing, by the time he roused, got up, stumbled downstairs all confused and concerned, his answer machine would have collected that call before he had chance to answer it.
We had a high tech answer machine back in the 1980s and like all the other machines we looked at, they all had the same facility whereby it rang a certain amount of rings before automatically answering the call. I can’t say for certain as it was so long ago, but I seem to recall we had a choice of six rings, eight , or 10 max. All machines were the same. They were set to answer no longer than 10 rings to avoid missing calls.
That means, Jeremy could NOT have reached that phone before the answerphone kicked in. He could not have been roused from his sleep (say, 4/5 rings), sat up in bed, got up, walked out the bedroom, walked downstairs and picked it up. He couldn’t have. The AM would’ve already kicked in.
So why didn’t Nevill leave a message?
And if Jeremy cut in and interrupted the answer machine (which you could do) it would have still been recording; it would have recorded his conversation with Nevill.
So the fact there was never any recording on the answer machine is also proof that neither Nevill, or anyone else, rang him.
The only call made to Goldhanger was by Jeremy himself who called his home number after murdering everyone, let it ring a few times before the answer machine kicked in, and then he cut the call off leaving his line at Goldhanger free. He left the phone off the hook at WHF deliberately, to “show” the police he couldn’t get back to Nevill after he pretended to phone him back.
-
OR!!!.......... Might it be that you've become fixated on the culprit being ANYone other than Jeremy Bamber? You're suggesting discrepancies in witness statements could indicate his innocence, but appear to fail to see that discrepancies in Jeremy's witness statements indicate guilt.
I don't think so, I can't understand the reasons that Jeremy uses for his appeals
1. He tries to make out Sheila did it. I say someone else shot Sheila.
2. He says there were two phone calls based on the Police logs but clearly they are the one and the same call from the son.
OK what are his discrepancies in his statements? Surely there is a thread about them?
-
Any normal person receiving a call from their father at 3am, saying their sister had gone berserk with the gun, and then the line was cut off would IMMEDIATELY dial 999.
They’d possibly also call one of the neighbours/farm workers/the Boutflours/Eaton’s who ALL lived on the same land and warned them Sheila had the gun & was going crazy, so to be careful in case she came after them. Or he could have asked them to make headway carefully and be on alert until he and the police arrived.
Why didn’t he do that,eh?
But we can't say what "anybody" would do; we can only say what "we"would do.
-
But we can't say what "anybody" would do; we can only say what "we"would do.
The caller told him what to do "come over". His father tells him what to do, so why does he even call the police?
He wasn't instructed to call the police.
So is he aware of something over and above the message he has received? How could he know there was something else going on?
-
I don't think so, I can't understand the reasons that Jeremy uses for his appeals
1. He tries to make out Sheila did it. I say someone else shot Sheila.
2. He says there were two phone calls based on the Police logs but clearly they are the one and the same call from the son.
OK what are his discrepancies in his statements? Surely there is a thread about them?
Does it not occur to you that, because he'd planned the whole thing around Sheila in order to make her appear culpable, he has to keep that thought alive?
He has a whole -albeit, changing- team around him, thinking up ways to get him out. An unrevealed call from Nevill to police, given that Bonnett wrote one, and West wrote another, provided an opportunity.
Off the top of my head, the timings of his phone calls for one.
-
April,
We all know Nevill (nor anyone else) phoned Jeremy between 3 to 3:25am that morning.
Besides Nevill already being dead, and when he was alive in the kitchen he was unable to speak, and despite the ridiculous idea of JB’s supporters that Nevill would’ve called him of all people in a dire emergency is sheer lunacy. In a dire emergency all thoughts of “what will the vicar say” don’t enter your mind: your wife has been shot dead or critically injured, your daughter is going berserk with a loaded rifle; you’ve been shot four times in the mouth, neck, shoulder...the ONLY people you NEED and want are paramedics and police. It’s not like it can all be hushed up. So all that nonsense they spout isn’t even worth responding to.
Everything you have written above is opinion. You don't know that Nevill was unable to speak, you don't know what he was thinking and you don't know that his wife had already been shot. Therefore your arguments are not sustainable.
Whatever...HAD Nevill called Jeremy, and according to Jeremy he was upstairs in bed sleeping like a log, by the TIME he’d have heard the phone ringing downstairs it would have had to of rung a MINIMUM of 4/5 times to rouse him. Even when your phone next to you in bed rings when you’re asleep, it takes a good few rings to wake you. Always.
For all we know, his phone may not have even been that loud, which further reduces the chances of it waking him upstairs while he was supposedly in a deep sleep, exhausted after a long day’s work.
But let’s assume he had miraculous hearing and heard that downstairs phone ringing, by the time he roused, got up, stumbled downstairs all confused and concerned, his answer machine would have collected that call before he had chance to answer it.
Did Jeremy Bamber have an answerphone?
We had a high tech answer machine back in the 1980s and like all the other machines we looked at, they all had the same facility whereby it rang a certain amount of rings before automatically answering the call. I can’t say for certain as it was so long ago, but I seem to recall we had a choice of six rings, eight , or 10 max. All machines were the same. They were set to answer no longer than 10 rings to avoid missing calls.
That means, Jeremy could NOT have reached that phone before the answerphone kicked in. He could not have been roused from his sleep (say, 4/5 rings), sat up in bed, got up, walked out the bedroom, walked downstairs and picked it up. He couldn’t have. The AM would’ve already kicked in.
Only if there was an answerphone.
So why didn’t Nevill leave a message?
And if Jeremy cut in and interrupted the answer machine (which you could do) it would have still been recording; it would have recorded his conversation with Nevill.
So the fact there was never any recording on the answer machine is also proof that Nevill, or anyone else, rang him.
The only call made to Goldhanger was by Jeremy himself who called his home number after murdering everyone, let it ring a few times before the answer machine kicked in, and then he cut the call off leaving his line at Goldhanger free. He left the phone off the hook at WHF deliberately, to “show” the police he couldn’t get back to Nevill after he pretended to phone him back.
More opinion.
Answers above.
-
Answers above.
How has it bypassed you that Jeremy did have an answering machine?
-
The caller told him what to do "come over". His father tells him what to do, so why does he even call the police?
He wasn't instructed to call the police.
So is he aware of something over and above the message he has received? How could he know there was something else going on?
Just supposing that Sheila HAD got hold of a gun, and Nevill was afraid of what she might do with it. He calls Jeremy, in the hope that he'll come over and calm Sheila down (for all we know, he might have been "summoned" to calm Sheila down on previous occasions).
He might be afraid of what he could be walking into, so is it such an outlandish notion that he would ring the police first?
-
How has it bypassed you that Jeremy did have an answering machine?
How did anyone work out that Jeremy had an answering machine?
I suppose it is easy enough to check, just ring his number when he isn't home.
-
Just supposing that Sheila HAD got hold of a gun, and Nevill was afraid of what she might do with it. He calls Jeremy, in the hope that he'll come over and calm Sheila down (for all we know, he might have been "summoned" to calm Sheila down on previous occasions).
He might be afraid of what he could be walking into, so is it such an outlandish notion that he would ring the police first?
But is it a crime to just let Sheila have time to deal to his father and mother? I know it is rather an immoral question but is this an actual crime?
The police were very reluctant to enter or even approach the property until sufficient force and skilled personnel were there.
-
How did anyone work out that Jeremy had an answering machine?
I suppose it is easy enough to check, just ring his number when he isn't home.
That would suppose thern knew him well enough to have his number.
-
Sheila may have already shot herself (the first time) when that call was made. If so he wasn't running around.
So he has his daughter who's shot herself and he phones a local police number rather than calling an ambulance? Where did I say anything about him "running around"? I'm happy to debate anything feasible but please don't insult my intelligence.
-
That would suppose thern knew him well enough to have his number.
Don't you have directory service in the UK?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6654.msg275868#msg275868 Caroline says she knows he had an answering machine but he says it was turned off.
-
Just supposing that Sheila HAD got hold of a gun, and Nevill was afraid of what she might do with it. He calls Jeremy, in the hope that he'll come over and calm Sheila down (for all we know, he might have been "summoned" to calm Sheila down on previous occasions).
He might be afraid of what he could be walking into, so is it such an outlandish notion that he would ring the police first?
If he'd been so afraid of what he'd find, why did he wait 20+ minutes before calling police?
-
Don't you have directory service in the UK?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6654.msg275868#msg275868 Caroline says she knows he had an answering machine but he says it was turned off.
Yes, but that wouldn't have been of any use if he'd been ex directory.
-
Yes, but that wouldn't have been of any use if he'd been ex directory.
Just a thought. Your alternative culprit theories would/might carry more weight if you suggested motives. Jeremy's needs no explanation.
-
Could someone please clarify whether there was an answering-machine functional at Bourtree at the time of the alleged phone call. I've read so much about one, but been unable to pinpoint mention of any being present in any witness statements.
-
Just a thought. Your alternative culprit theories would/might carry more weight if you suggested motives. Jeremy's needs no explanation.
Same motive maybe. Tricky to go down that road as it quickly becomes libel. It is an interesting thought though and an old one where partners work together to commit a crime but at some stage, they turn on each other as well. (Old movies of bank robbers working as a team and then one shoots the rest to get all the money for himself.)
So Jeremy ringing the police would get the "alternative culprit" in trouble if he hadn't left the building in time.
But things like leaving the silencer to Jeremy's gun and scratching the mantelpiece with the silencer could be part of the "alternative culprit's" revenge for Jeremy calling the police.
-
Same motive maybe. Tricky to go down that road as it quickly becomes libel. It is an interesting thought though and an old one where partners work together to commit a crime but at some stage, they turn on each other as well. (Old movies of bank robbers working as a team and then one shoots the rest to get all the money for himself.)
So Jeremy ringing the police would get the "alternative culprit" in trouble if he hadn't left the building in time.
But things like leaving the silencer to Jeremy's gun and scratching the mantelpiece with the silencer could be part of the "alternative culprit's" revenge for Jeremy calling the police.
So we're left with a situation in which neither Jeremy, culprit, nor Jeremy and co-culprit, get a penny, but Jeremy ends up with a life sentence and co-culprit goes free. Why doesn't Jeremy speak up? He's there for life. He has nothing to loose.
-
So we're left with a situation in which neither Jeremy, culprit, nor Jeremy and co-culprit, get a penny, but Jeremy ends up with a life sentence and co-culprit goes free. Why doesn't Jeremy speak up? He's there for life. He has nothing to loose.
Jeremy can't admit to a conspiracy. In the current scenario, Jeremy is innocent as he didn't shoot anyone.
-
Jeremy can't admit to a conspiracy. In the current scenario, Jeremy is innocent as he didn't shoot anyone.
Same motive maybe. Tricky to go down that road as it quickly becomes libel. It is an interesting thought though and an old one where partners work together to commit a crime but at some stage, they turn on each other as well. (Old movies of bank robbers working as a team and then one shoots the rest to get all the money for himself.)
So Jeremy ringing the police would get the "alternative culprit" in trouble if he hadn't left the building in time.
But things like leaving the silencer to Jeremy's gun and scratching the mantelpiece with the silencer could be part of the "alternative culprit's" revenge for Jeremy calling the police.
According to the above, Jeremy had a partner in crime. How would said partner know of Jeremy's call to police? What was said partner hanging around for after the deed was done?
-
According to the above, Jeremy had a partner in crime. How would said partner know of Jeremy's call to police? What was said partner hanging around for after the deed was done?
If there was only one phone call made by Nevill to Jeremy and then 20 minutes later who turns up but the police. It doesn't take too much intelligence to work out that it was Jeremy who must have called the police.
"Jeremy had a partner in crime". Jeremy will never admit to that so that is bordering on libel. Is it possible to libel Jeremy Bamber? I don't really think anyone other than Jeremy would care.
Maybe the third person was hoping to eliminate JB as well. Had Jeremy followed Nevill's instruction and came around without alerting the police maybe that was on the cards, so the third person had to wait to see if Jeremy turns up alone first.
How does this "third person"get out of the house when the police are there? I thought from the Jonbenet research that maybe he hides within the house for a day or so.
If that was the case this person would have a dodgy alibi for a day or so too.
Who has a dodgy alibi for the next 24 hours?
-
If there was only one phone call made by Nevill to Jeremy and then 20 minutes later who turns up but the police. It doesn't take too much intelligence to work out that it was Jeremy who must have called the police.
"Jeremy had a partner in crime". Jeremy will never admit to that so that is bordering on libel. Is it possible to libel Jeremy Bamber? I don't really think anyone other than Jeremy would care.
Maybe the third person was hoping to eliminate JB as well. Had Jeremy followed Nevill's instruction and came around without alerting the police maybe that was on the cards, so the third person had to wait to see if Jeremy turns up alone first.
I think you'll find that it was some 40 minutes after Nevill's alleged call that the police arrived.
-
I think you'll find that it was some 40 minutes after Nevill's alleged call that the police arrived.
I was not trying to be accurate there for I have not committed those facts to my memory. But I recall the police logged the call at 03:36 AM IIRC. But Jeremy was very cagy about whether he called Julie before he rang the police or the other way around. So how can we say when Nevill rang Jeremy?
So when do the police say they arrived at WHF?
Do you think Julie told him to ring the police?
-
Could someone please clarify whether there was an answering-machine functional at Bourtree at the time of the alleged phone call. I've read so much about one, but been unable to pinpoint mention of any being present in any witness statements.
There was indeed, it's on a list of things the police took. I'll try and find it but it might take a while
I have found this reference to it which means he DID use it;
"Virginia Greaves had left a message on the answer machine at Bourtree Cottage. She and Jeremy had dated briefly"
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 259). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
-
I've just fixed them up.
You said two calls were RECORDED and you’d listened to them.
That isn’t true, is it?
There are NO recordings of JB phoning the local police. None.
There’s only the ONE LOG which the PO wrote down, and a SECOND log where ANOTHER PO paraphrased what the first officer told HIM.
End of.
-
Do you know what your problem is? You are so fixated that the perp was JB you fail to see errors in other people's statements.
If for a moment you stopped and thought who else could have done this you might start to see it. But I think it will be impossible to say it outright but I'll try and lead you all to examine the disturbing errors in the 3 witness statements. OK I might still be wrong but we will try and look at it.
The person fixated is you, Rob
For some weird reason you WANT to believe there was a third party involved, when all the EVIDENCE proves there wasn’t.
The only errors in the witness statements were in both of Jeremy Bamber’s where he contradicted himself repeatedly, tripped himself up, told lies to cover original lies, and showed how thick he was
-
Sheila may have already shot herself (the first time) when that call was made. If so he wasn't running around.
The first shot semi paralysed Sheila as she lay on the bedroom floor; blood pumping from her neck
And you’re saying she then beat Nevill to a pulp in the kitchen
FFS, Rob, you’ve got to stop this. You’ll make yourself go mad.
-
Answers above.
“
Re: What Time Roughly Was The Bedroom Telephone Put In The Kitchen?
« Reply #337 on: June 12, 2020, 11:03:28 AM »
Quote
Quote from: Ispywithmybigeye on June 12, 2020, 09:32:36 AM
April,
We all know Nevill (nor anyone else) phoned Jeremy between 3 to 3:25am that morning.
Besides Nevill already being dead, and when he was alive in the kitchen he was unable to speak, and despite the ridiculous idea of JB’s supporters that Nevill would’ve called him of all people in a dire emergency is sheer lunacy. In a dire emergency all thoughts of “what will the vicar say” don’t enter your mind: your wife has been shot dead or critically injured, your daughter is going berserk with a loaded rifle; you’ve been shot four times in the mouth, neck, shoulder...the ONLY people you NEED and want are paramedics and police. It’s not like it can all be hushed up. So all that nonsense they spout isn’t even worth responding to.
Everything you have written above is opinion. You don't know that Nevill was unable to speak, you don't know what he was thinking and you don't know that his wife had already been shot. Therefore your arguments are not sustainable.
Whatever...HAD Nevill called Jeremy, and according to Jeremy he was upstairs in bed sleeping like a log, by the TIME he’d have heard the phone ringing downstairs it would have had to of rung a MINIMUM of 4/5 times to rouse him. Even when your phone next to you in bed rings when you’re asleep, it takes a good few rings to wake you. Always.
For all we know, his phone may not have even been that loud, which further reduces the chances of it waking him upstairs while he was supposedly in a deep sleep, exhausted after a long day’s work.
But let’s assume he had miraculous hearing and heard that downstairs phone ringing, by the time he roused, got up, stumbled downstairs all confused and concerned, his answer machine would have collected that call before he had chance to answer it.
Everything you have written above is opinion. You don't know that Nevill was unable to speak, you don't know what he was thinking and you don't know that his wife had already been shot. Therefore your arguments are not sustainable. ?
We had a high tech answer machine back in the 1980s and like all the other machines we looked at, they all had the same facility whereby it rang a certain amount of rings before automatically answering the call. I can’t say for certain as it was so long ago, but I seem to recall we had a choice of six rings, eight , or 10 max. All machines were the same. They were set to answer no longer than 10 rings to avoid missing calls.
That means, Jeremy could NOT have reached that phone before the answerphone kicked in. He could not have been roused from his sleep (say, 4/5 rings), sat up in bed, got up, walked out the bedroom, walked downstairs and picked it up. He couldn’t have. The AM would’ve already kicked in.
Only if there was an answerphone.
So why didn’t Nevill leave a message?
And if Jeremy cut in and interrupted the answer machine (which you could do) it would have still been recording; it would have recorded his conversation with Nevill.
So the fact there was never any recording on the answer machine is also proof that Nevill, or anyone else, rang him.
The only call made to Goldhanger was by Jeremy himself who called his home number after murdering everyone, let it ring a few times before the answer machine kicked in, and then he cut the call off leaving his line at Goldhanger free. He left the phone off the hook at WHF deliberately, to “show” the police he couldn’t get back to Nevill after he pretended to phone him back.”
The highlighter on here won’t seem to work for me, but my answers to YOUR replies es, Gunit, are:
“ Everything you have written above is opinion. You don't know that Nevill was unable to speak, you don't know what he was thinking and you don't know that his wife had already been shot. Therefore your arguments are not sustainable. ”
None of what I’ve written is opinion — it’s FACT.
FORENSICS PROVED that Nevill was first shot upstairs, meaning he was unable to SPEAK once he got down to the kitchen.
Are you refuting that? Are you saying those pathologists, ballistics and forensics were all wrong!
“Did Jeremy have an answerphone “
Yes, he did. Read the case.
“Everything you have written above is opinion. You don't know that Nevill was unable to speak, you don't know what he was thinking and you don't know that his wife had already been shot. Therefore your arguments are not sustainable”
Again, Gunit. None of what I’ve said is opinion. It’s FACT.
Nevill could NOT speak when he got down to the kitchen, but you’d know better than a professor of pathology, yes?
It’s also FACT that when Jeremy went into the master bedroom both Nevill and June were in bed.
It’s also fact Jeremy shot June when she was still IN bed. Are you suggesting Nevill didn’t NOTICE that?!
I’ve no idea how you brain is wired up but if you can’t work out the simplest of facts when they’ve been handed to you on a plate by experts, you ought to take up some kind of hobby that requires less thought process.
-
I don't think so, I can't understand the reasons that Jeremy uses for his appeals
1. He tries to make out Sheila did it. I say someone else shot Sheila.
2. He says there were two phone calls based on the Police logs but clearly they are the one and the same call from the son.
OK what are his discrepancies in his statements? Surely there is a thread about them?
One of the reasons you can’t understand the reasons Jeremy uses for his appeals (which he always loses), is that none of them make sense.
-
The caller told him what to do "come over". His father tells him what to do, so why does he even call the police?
He wasn't instructed to call the police.
So is he aware of something over and above the message he has received? How could he know there was something else going on?
You’re getting warm, Rob
-
Just supposing that Sheila HAD got hold of a gun, and Nevill was afraid of what she might do with it. He calls Jeremy, in the hope that he'll come over and calm Sheila down (for all we know, he might have been "summoned" to calm Sheila down on previous occasions).
He might be afraid of what he could be walking into, so is it such an outlandish notion that he would ring the police first?
Your supposition is laughable.
Everyone knows it was Nevill who had the most calming influence on Sheila, and when did she ever go berserk with a loaded gun ? Never, and you know it.
-
How did anyone work out that Jeremy had an answering machine?
I suppose it is easy enough to check, just ring his number when he isn't home.
FGS!
Everyone KNEW he had an answering machine!
He BOUGHT it, probably with money he’d stolen. He’s a thief.
Everyone SAW the machine.
The police SAW the machine.
It’s in the statements.
Why don’t you check your FACTS?
-
So he has his daughter who's shot herself and he phones a local police number rather than calling an ambulance? Where did I say anything about him "running around"? I'm happy to debate anything feasible but please don't insult my intelligence.
Rob actually insults his own intelligence IMO...
I still can’t decide if he’s genuinely living on a different planet or he enjoys making himself look a prat
-
You said two calls were RECORDED and you’d listened to them.
That isn’t true, is it?
There are NO recordings of JB phoning the local police. None.
There’s only the ONE LOG which the PO wrote down, and a SECOND log where ANOTHER PO paraphrased what the first officer told HIM.
End of.
There is a video with a voice recording being played. It may just be a dramatisation and not actually real. I'll take more notice next time I hear it.
So I will concede you are right on this point at this stage, for if they had recorded Jeremy's call the same would have happened for Nevill.
-
The person fixated is you, Rob
For some weird reason you WANT to believe there was a third party involved, when all the EVIDENCE proves there wasn’t.
The only errors in the witness statements were in both of Jeremy Bamber’s where he contradicted himself repeatedly, tripped himself up, told lies to cover original lies, and showed how thick he was
I think you are very wrong on this point. There are 3 other witness statements that are contradictory.
-
Don't you have directory service in the UK?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6654.msg275868#msg275868 Caroline says she knows he had an answering machine but he says it was turned off.
Have you ever stepped out of NZ, Rob?
Of course Great Britain has always had telephone directories — didn’t you read how Jeremy thumbed through his looking for the number of the local police station? It was a big part of the prosecution, because according to Jeremy he said it took him 10 minutes to find the number LOL.
In giant letters underneath the number it said “IN AN EMERGENCY CALL 999”
He couldn’t explain why he didn’t call 999; just came out with some cock and bull story that no-one believed
Caroline’s a very trustworthy and knowledgeable member on here, and she knows him better than most of us. If she said Jeremy claimed he had his answer machine turned off he obviously said that to her. But I don’t believe he did for a second!
I’ve had answerphones for decades and NEVER switch them off. That’s how I collect my missed calls.
Likewise, if I miss a call on my mobile it goes to voicemail, as does everyone’s.
I guarantee Jeremy kept his on 24/7 too, and if he didn’t (which I seriously doubt) he’d have DEFINITELY switched it on before leaving for WHF in case Nevill or the police called again!
-
The first shot semi paralysed Sheila as she lay on the bedroom floor; blood pumping from her neck
And you’re saying she then beat Nevill to a pulp in the kitchen
FFS, Rob, you’ve got to stop this. You’ll make yourself go mad.
One minute you realise I believe there was a third party involved but in the next post you seem to forget that.
You are lying if you write that I say "she then beat Nevill to a pulp in the kitchen".
I agree with your first statement though: "The first shot semi paralysed Sheila as she lay on the bedroom floor; blood pumping from her neck".
-
Same motive maybe. Tricky to go down that road as it quickly becomes libel. It is an interesting thought though and an old one where partners work together to commit a crime but at some stage, they turn on each other as well. (Old movies of bank robbers working as a team and then one shoots the rest to get all the money for himself.)
So Jeremy ringing the police would get the "alternative culprit" in trouble if he hadn't left the building in time.
But things like leaving the silencer to Jeremy's gun and scratching the mantelpiece with the silencer could be part of the "alternative culprit's" revenge for Jeremy calling the police.
Oh, that really makes sense — not.
No-one, absolutely NO-ONE had the finger pointed at them, except the perp , Jeremy.
So if he was in cahoots with someone, and they’d shot everyone and escaped without ever being seen, why would they seek revenge on Jeremy?
That’s one of the worst scenarios I’ve read.
-
FGS!
Everyone KNEW he had an answering machine!
He BOUGHT it, probably with money he’d stolen. He’s a thief.
Everyone SAW the machine.
The police SAW the machine.
It’s in the statements.
Why don’t you check your FACTS?
Show me the statement.
-
But is it a crime to just let Sheila have time to deal to his father and mother? I know it is rather an immoral question but is this an actual crime?
The police were very reluctant to enter or even approach the property until sufficient force and skilled personnel were there.
According to Jeremy he said Nevill sounded terrified and told him to come over as Sheila had gone berserk with the gun.
Why would he give them 20 minute cooling off period?
Why would he tell the police to hurry?
I really shouldn’t answer your posts...I’m questioning my own sanity
-
So he has his daughter who's shot herself and he phones a local police number rather than calling an ambulance? Where did I say anything about him "running around"? I'm happy to debate anything feasible but please don't insult my intelligence.
I meant to write: "Sheila may have already shot herself (the first time) when that call was made. If so SHE wasn't running around." Not "Sheila may have already shot herself (the first time) when that call was made. If so he wasn't running around."
Sheila wasn't running around with a gun, as she had shot herself and was paralysed. Nevill might have thought she was deceased at that stage at the time of making his call to Jeremy.
-
Jeremy can't admit to a conspiracy. In the current scenario, Jeremy is innocent as he didn't shoot anyone.
Of course he can’t.
But he’s tried every trick in the book to try and worm out of jail, so why on earth wouldn’t he say “Actually, I have good reason to believe it wasn’t Sheila who killed everyone, it was xxxx. Xxxx told me they planned to kill them all but I didn’t believe them.”
Why has he never come out with that?
And why blame it all on himself to Julie if it wasn’t him?
You’re getting more deluded as time goes on
-
According to the above, Jeremy had a partner in crime. How would said partner know of Jeremy's call to police? What was said partner hanging around for after the deed was done?
Why are you quoting YOURSELF, and answering with an affirmation?!😳
That’s YOUR hypothesis.
And there was no-one hanging around...
FGS, I’m muting you...
-
Of course he can’t.
But he’s tried every trick in the book to try and worm out of jail, so why on earth wouldn’t he say “Actually, I have good reason to believe it wasn’t Sheila who killed everyone, it was xxxx. Xxxx told me they planned to kill them all but I didn’t believe them.”
Why has he never come out with that?
And why blame it all on himself to Julie if it wasn’t him?
You’re getting more deluded as time goes on
And why blame it all on himself to Julie if it wasn’t him?
That is a good question but in most countries, a self-confession is not treated as evidence, there has to be some forensic evidence to back up a confession.
-
If there was only one phone call made by Nevill to Jeremy and then 20 minutes later who turns up but the police. It doesn't take too much intelligence to work out that it was Jeremy who must have called the police.
"Jeremy had a partner in crime". Jeremy will never admit to that so that is bordering on libel. Is it possible to libel Jeremy Bamber? I don't really think anyone other than Jeremy would care.
Maybe the third person was hoping to eliminate JB as well. Had Jeremy followed Nevill's instruction and came around without alerting the police maybe that was on the cards, so the third person had to wait to see if Jeremy turns up alone first.
How does this "third person"get out of the house when the police are there? I thought from the Jonbenet research that maybe he hides within the house for a day or so.
If that was the case this person would have a dodgy alibi for a day or so too.
Who has a dodgy alibi for the next 24 hours?
If Jeremy had a partner in crime why would he have been scared to turn up at WHF?
Why would he have called police in order for them to catch his partner in crime?
Why would he chance his partner in crime squealing on him?
Everything you say can be destroyed in a few words.
-
I think you are very wrong on this point. There are 3 other witness statements that are contradictory.
None that myself or anyone else has ever seen. And that includes top QCs.
You’re just a conspiracist. You WANT to believe someone else was involved for some strange reason, and you should concentrate more on why that is rather than taxing your brain trying to crack a nut that was broken 35 years ago
-
There was indeed, it's on a list of things the police took. I'll try and find it but it might take a while
I have found this reference to it which means he DID use it;
"Virginia Greaves had left a message on the answer machine at Bourtree Cottage. She and Jeremy had dated briefly"
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 259). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
Aah, OK... I thought it might have originated from that font of all useless knowledge - the Barnsley burglar.
Odd that Stan Jones et al. didn't question its existence in the first interviews, unless there are other transcripts which haven't been uploaded.
-
If Jeremy had a partner in crime why would he have been scared to turn up at WHF?
Why would he have called police in order for them to catch his partner in crime?
Why would he chance his partner in crime squealing on him?
Everything you say can be destroyed in a few words.
Was it going to plan? Didn't Julie say Jeremy said it was going to plan. Cross and double-cross. Well had it gone to plan Jeremy had not murdered anyone. So why would the police arrest him? But is he innocent? He appears to be in the absence of forensic evidence.
-
None that myself or anyone else has ever seen. And that includes top QCs.
You’re just a conspiracist. You WANT to believe someone else was involved for some strange reason, and you should concentrate more on why that is rather than taxing your brain trying to crack a nut that was broken 35 years ago
It is like what some authors write about, there being two guns used in the killings, as the bullets have different patterns on their surfaces, and some of the bullets being overweight. Where did they come from?
So who is really looking for mixed up statements about the presence or absence of guns?
-
“
Re: What Time Roughly Was The Bedroom Telephone Put In The Kitchen?
« Reply #337 on: June 12, 2020, 11:03:28 AM »
Quote
Quote from: Ispywithmybigeye on June 12, 2020, 09:32:36 AM
April,
We all know Nevill (nor anyone else) phoned Jeremy between 3 to 3:25am that morning.
Besides Nevill already being dead, and when he was alive in the kitchen he was unable to speak, and despite the ridiculous idea of JB’s supporters that Nevill would’ve called him of all people in a dire emergency is sheer lunacy. In a dire emergency all thoughts of “what will the vicar say” don’t enter your mind: your wife has been shot dead or critically injured, your daughter is going berserk with a loaded rifle; you’ve been shot four times in the mouth, neck, shoulder...the ONLY people you NEED and want are paramedics and police. It’s not like it can all be hushed up. So all that nonsense they spout isn’t even worth responding to.
Everything you have written above is opinion. You don't know that Nevill was unable to speak, you don't know what he was thinking and you don't know that his wife had already been shot. Therefore your arguments are not sustainable.
Whatever...HAD Nevill called Jeremy, and according to Jeremy he was upstairs in bed sleeping like a log, by the TIME he’d have heard the phone ringing downstairs it would have had to of rung a MINIMUM of 4/5 times to rouse him. Even when your phone next to you in bed rings when you’re asleep, it takes a good few rings to wake you. Always.
For all we know, his phone may not have even been that loud, which further reduces the chances of it waking him upstairs while he was supposedly in a deep sleep, exhausted after a long day’s work.
But let’s assume he had miraculous hearing and heard that downstairs phone ringing, by the time he roused, got up, stumbled downstairs all confused and concerned, his answer machine would have collected that call before he had chance to answer it.
Everything you have written above is opinion. You don't know that Nevill was unable to speak, you don't know what he was thinking and you don't know that his wife had already been shot. Therefore your arguments are not sustainable. ?
We had a high tech answer machine back in the 1980s and like all the other machines we looked at, they all had the same facility whereby it rang a certain amount of rings before automatically answering the call. I can’t say for certain as it was so long ago, but I seem to recall we had a choice of six rings, eight , or 10 max. All machines were the same. They were set to answer no longer than 10 rings to avoid missing calls.
That means, Jeremy could NOT have reached that phone before the answerphone kicked in. He could not have been roused from his sleep (say, 4/5 rings), sat up in bed, got up, walked out the bedroom, walked downstairs and picked it up. He couldn’t have. The AM would’ve already kicked in.
Only if there was an answerphone.
So why didn’t Nevill leave a message?
And if Jeremy cut in and interrupted the answer machine (which you could do) it would have still been recording; it would have recorded his conversation with Nevill.
So the fact there was never any recording on the answer machine is also proof that Nevill, or anyone else, rang him.
The only call made to Goldhanger was by Jeremy himself who called his home number after murdering everyone, let it ring a few times before the answer machine kicked in, and then he cut the call off leaving his line at Goldhanger free. He left the phone off the hook at WHF deliberately, to “show” the police he couldn’t get back to Nevill after he pretended to phone him back.”
The highlighter on here won’t seem to work for me, but my answers to YOUR replies es, Gunit, are:
“ Everything you have written above is opinion. You don't know that Nevill was unable to speak, you don't know what he was thinking and you don't know that his wife had already been shot. Therefore your arguments are not sustainable. ”
None of what I’ve written is opinion — it’s FACT.
FORENSICS PROVED that Nevill was first shot upstairs, meaning he was unable to SPEAK once he got down to the kitchen.
Are you refuting that? Are you saying those pathologists, ballistics and forensics were all wrong!
“Did Jeremy have an answerphone “
Yes, he did. Read the case.
“Everything you have written above is opinion. You don't know that Nevill was unable to speak, you don't know what he was thinking and you don't know that his wife had already been shot. Therefore your arguments are not sustainable”
Again, Gunit. None of what I’ve said is opinion. It’s FACT.
Nevill could NOT speak when he got down to the kitchen, but you’d know better than a professor of pathology, yes?
It’s also FACT that when Jeremy went into the master bedroom both Nevill and June were in bed.
It’s also fact Jeremy shot June when she was still IN bed. Are you suggesting Nevill didn’t NOTICE that?!
I’ve no idea how you brain is wired up but if you can’t work out the simplest of facts when they’ve been handed to you on a plate by experts, you ought to take up some kind of hobby that requires less thought process.
Your claims that you know the facts is getting ridiculous. Telling other members to find the evidence to support YOUR claims is unacceptable. None of your claims are facts unless and until YOU supply evidence to support them.
-
It is like what some authors write about, there being two guns used in the killings, as the bullets have different patterns on their surfaces, and some of the bullets being overweight. Where did they come from?
So who is really looking for mixed up statements about the presence or absence of guns?
I've explained the markings on the casings and bullet weights based on the forensics. But you seem to prefer to rely on unpublished manuscripts from an unknown author and a Tory MP.
-
I've explained the markings on the casings and bullet weights based on the forensics. But you seem to prefer to rely on unpublished manuscripts from an unknown author and a Tory MP.
Who should I believe?
-
There was indeed, it's on a list of things the police took. I'll try and find it but it might take a while
I have found this reference to it which means he DID use it;
"Virginia Greaves had left a message on the answer machine at Bourtree Cottage. She and Jeremy had dated briefly"
Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 259). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.
Where's the evidence JB had an answering machine at the time of the murders?
-
Where's the evidence JB had an answering machine at the time of the murders?
It would have been highly unusual, for someone who had every other innovative item, had he not had one. How else could he have picked up orders for cannabis? Didn't police take away an answering machine?
-
It would have been highly unusual, for someone who had every other innovative item, had he not had one. How else could he have picked up orders for cannabis? Didn't police take away an answering machine?
I can't see any evidence of an answering machine pre murders. AE called him 7th Aug when he was still at WHF and doesn't mention an answering machine. Nor was one referenced in police interviews.
-
I can't see any evidence of an answering machine pre murders. AE called him 7th Aug when he was still at WHF and doesn't mention an answering machine. Nor was one referenced in police interviews.
No-one seems to have any evidence of one. One of those rumours perhaps.
-
No-one seems to have any evidence of one. One of those rumours perhaps.
Although I believe ther is enough evidence to convict JB and I BELIEVE HE DID IT,I still get annoyed with people adding 'thoughts' as if it is evidence... it throws the integrity of the debate. IMO
-
No-one seems to have any evidence of one. One of those rumours perhaps.
Personally I don't think you can get an answerphone of the 1985 era to keep recording for 15 minutes or so.
I had one in those days and it would stop recording if there was just silence.
-
No-one seems to have any evidence of one. One of those rumours perhaps.
According to Carol Ann Lee, Virginia Greaves left a message on the answer machine at Bourtree Cottage. He had one post murders so why would he not have had it pre murders.
-
According to Carol Ann Lee, Virginia Greaves left a message on the answer machine at Bourtree Cottage. He had one post murders so why would he not have had it pre murders.
Even if he had one in the house pre-murders there is no evidence it could be used in the way people say it was.
-
According to Carol Ann Lee, Virginia Greaves left a message on the answer machine at Bourtree Cottage. He had one post murders so why would he not have had it pre murders.
I just wish she'd provided a cite, but she didn't.
-
I just wish she'd provided a cite, but she didn't.
Authors don’t provide cites for every single detail and expect them to do so is plainly ridiculous. How would you include a cite for “Virginia Greaves leaving a message at Bourtree Cottage”? Would it just be a direct quote and how would that make it any more acceptsble to you? Or would the only acceptable cite be to a recording placed online of the actual tape recorded message?
-
Authors don’t provide cites for every single detail and expect them to do so is plainly ridiculous. How would you include a cite for “Virginia Greaves leaving a message at Bourtree Cottage”? Would it just be a direct quote and how would that make it any more acceptsble to you? Or would the only acceptable cite be to a recording placed online of the actual tape recorded message?
CAL provided sources for most of what she wrote, so why not in this instance? In my opinion it was because she didn't have one.
-
Authors don’t provide cites for every single detail and expect them to do so is plainly ridiculous. How would you include a cite for “Virginia Greaves leaving a message at Bourtree Cottage”? Would it just be a direct quote and how would that make it any more acceptsble to you? Or would the only acceptable cite be to a recording placed online of the actual tape recorded message?
I totally agree, VS. I have visions of the joy experienced by some, when given the opportunity to jump on detractors for not providing cites, and their mindless refusal to accept anything as true, unless it has one. I see it, primarily, as yet another form of denial.
-
CAL provided sources for most of what she wrote, so why not in this instance? In my opinion it was because she didn't have one.
So what source would you expect to see for this piece of information?
-
AE makes ref to his tel on morning of 7th Aug and ponders how long it would take him to answer. No mention of an answering machine.
I bet I know what's coming next... &%5y%
-
CAL provided sources for most of what she wrote, so why not in this instance? In my opinion it was because she didn't have one.
I have checked the book now, and the “leaving the message”:revelation is in Chapter 31. Turning to the back of the book under “Notes and References” for Chapter 31 item 4 is listed as “Virginia Greaves w/s 12 th September 1985. Unless otherwise indicated the quotes that follow are from this source”.
Next!
-
I have checked the book now, and the “leaving the message”:revelation is in Chapter 31. Turning to the back of the book under “Notes and References” for Chapter 31 item 4 is listed as “Virginia Greaves w/s 12 th September 1985. Unless otherwise indicated the quotes that follow are from this source”.
Next!
Thank you for your diligence, VS. It may well be that both camps will conveniently turn blind eyes to that which they'd rather not see, but I can't help but feel that some are going to say that unless such WS, ie mentioned but not shown, can be made available, it doesn't exist.
-
Thank you for your diligence, VS. It may well be that both camps will conveniently turn blind eyes to that which they'd rather not see, but I can't help but feel that some are going to say that unless such WS, ie mentioned but not shown, can be made available, it doesn't exist.
But what evidence exists to support the idea JB had an answering machine pre 7th Aug?
-
Thank you for your diligence, VS. It may well be that both camps will conveniently turn blind eyes to that which they'd rather not see, but I can't help but feel that some are going to say that unless such WS, ie mentioned but not shown, can be made available, it doesn't exist.
We know that EP handed over witness statements to CAL which were not given to the defence. I think Ann Eaton would have been interested in an answerphone had she seen one. It's possible that Jeremy Bamber bought one after the event to pick up calls when he wasn't there.
-
We know that EP handed over witness statements to CAL which were not given to the defence. I think Ann Eaton would have been interested in an answerphone had she seen one. It's possible that Jeremy Bamber bought one after the event to pick up calls when he wasn't there.
An equal possibility is just because Ann didn't see one, isn't necessarily indicative of there not being one.
-
We know that EP handed over witness statements to CAL which were not given to the defence. I think Ann Eaton would have been interested in an answerphone had she seen one. It's possible that Jeremy Bamber bought one after the event to pick up calls when he wasn't there.
No we don't, we know Bamber is claiming that and you are speculating as to when iyt was bought to suit your own agenda. He had one, so the likelihood is tha he had one pre-murders.
-
An equal possibility is just because Ann didn't see one, isn't necessarily indicative of there not being one.
She appears to have examined the telephone quite carefully according to the statement I saw.
-
She appears to have examined the telephone quite carefully according to the statement I saw.
Cite?
-
Thank you for your diligence, VS. It may well be that both camps will conveniently turn blind eyes to that which they'd rather not see, but I can't help but feel that some are going to say that unless such WS, ie mentioned but not shown, can be made available, it doesn't exist.
And what is so galling is when these arbiters of "the truth" and demanders of cites are given what they demand, they fail to recognise it or apologise for making false claims such as CAL didn't give a cite. Oh well twas ever thus.
-
And what is so galling is when these arbiters of "the truth" and demanders of cites are given what they demand, they fail to recognise it or apologise for making false claims such as CAL didn't give a cite. Oh well twas ever thus.
They're too busy with their magnifying glasses looking for another non cite to it us with.
-
Personally I don't think you can get an answerphone of the 1985 era to keep recording for 15 minutes or so.
I had one in those days and it would stop recording if there was just silence.
You’re wrong.
We had an answer machine in 1982. We had to keep one in the house for business reasons.
What's more, it took full size cassette tapes and could record messages depending on how much tape was left: so if there was an hour’s time of tape left people could speak for as long as they liked.
We could also record conversations without the person knowing, which later became illegal — you had to inform them you were recording the conversation — but I doubt everyone did, or still does. Those machines are still in existence, although you won’t find them on Amazon or suchlike 😌
I still have that machine packed away somewhere, but I don’t use it as I have voicemail etc.
-
No-one seems to have any evidence of one. One of those rumours perhaps.
Why would anyone create a rumour pretending JB had an answering machine? What purpose would that serve?
There’s official notes documented that says he had one. I’m not hunting for them...I have a busy day ahead of me. But if you feel uneasy about it you’ll find the evidence.
-
I just wish she'd provided a cite, but she didn't.
Why are you doubting CAL?
Why would she tell a pointless lie?
-
Why would anyone create a rumour pretending JB had an answering machine? What purpose would that serve?
There’s official notes documented that says he had one. I’m not hunting for them...I have a busy day ahead of me. But if you feel uneasy about it you’ll find the evidence.
If there are official notes why didn't CAL use them as her source? I'm not saying there was an answer machine, so I don't need to look for evidence. It's those who are insisting that there was one who need to supply evidence to support their claims.
-
An equal possibility is just because Ann didn't see one, isn't necessarily indicative of there not being one.
It’s quite possible that Ann Eaton wasn’t aware he had an answer machine. She says in her statement that the one phone in the cottage was downstairs and had a long lead, so he could have left the telephone on any table in either the lounge or dining room depending on where he last used it.
The answer machine can’t be moved far from the telephone socket, but the leads are are long enough to place it underneath a table if you lacked room or something. Holly said that Ann never mentioned the answer machine, but maybe she didn’t notice it or even see it. She may not have even known what it was unless she studied it.
It’s irrelevant whether he had one before he murdered his family or not; it doesn’t change anything. And he could have said he hadn’t had it switched on when he went to bed, so it’s all pointless really.
But considering he liked the latest gadgets of the time and wanted teletext television etc when he moved into the cottage, I’d say he bought one before he killed everyone as he was working on the farm and would have needed one for his illegal drug dealing.
-
If there are official notes why didn't CAL use them as her source? I'm not saying there was an answer machine, so I don't need to look for evidence. It's those who are insisting that there was one who need to supply evidence to support their claims.
Had CAL provided cites for every single detail in her book, she’d have never got it written. You can console yourself with the fact that as Jeremy Bamber is so litigious and studies every single WORD, had he not had an answer machine he’d have immediately put out that CAL was making libellous comments. His silence speaks volumes, I find...
I am indeed saying he had an answer machine, because I’ve read several cites that says so.
-
Why are you doubting CAL?
Why would she tell a pointless lie?
Considering how doubting you are of everyone it’s astonishing how you believe everything Jeremy Bamber — the convicted mass murderer — spouts.
I don't believe everything anyone spouts. I don't even believe they spouted it unless there's evidence showing they did so.
-
I don't believe everything anyone spouts. I don't even believe they spouted it unless there's evidence showing they did so.
Well, as you’re so disbelieving and distrushut upl, why do you believe everything Jeremy Bamber says is true despite him not being able to give any evidence, and despite him making contradictory claims in his statements which were proved to be lies?
-
Well, as you’re so disbelieving and distrushut upl, why do you believe everything Jeremy Bamber says is true despite him not being able to give any evidence, and despite him making contradictory claims in his statements which were proved to be lies?
It's you who is suggesting that I believe everything Jeremy Bamber says, not me. In my opinion you're jumping to false conclusions.
-
Well, as you’re so disbelieving and distrushut upl, why do you believe everything Jeremy Bamber says is true despite him not being able to give any evidence, and despite him making contradictory claims in his statements which were proved to be lies?
What evidence do you have that any of us "believe everything Jeremy Bamber says is true" ???
-
You’re wrong.
We had an answer machine in 1982. We had to keep one in the house for business reasons.
What's more, it took full size cassette tapes and could record messages depending on how much tape was left: so if there was an hour’s time of tape left people could speak for as long as they liked.
We could also record conversations without the person knowing, which later became illegal — you had to inform them you were recording the conversation — but I doubt everyone did, or still does. Those machines are still in existence, although you won’t find them on Amazon or suchlike 😌
I still have that machine packed away somewhere, but I don’t use it as I have voicemail etc.
OK, it might depend on the type of machine, but plenty of times an answerphone has shut off simply if I paused for too long. Unless we know the type Jeremy possibly had we don't know the answer.
-
Had CAL provided cites for every single detail in her book, she’d have never got it written. You can console yourself with the fact that as Jeremy Bamber is so litigious and studies every single WORD, had he not had an answer machine he’d have immediately put out that CAL was making libellous comments. His silence speaks volumes, I find...
I am indeed saying he had an answer machine, because I’ve read several cites that says so.
It has always been forum policy to provide cites where appropriate. It is also good etiquette.
-
If there are official notes why didn't CAL use them as her source? I'm not saying there was an answer machine, so I don't need to look for evidence. It's those who are insisting that there was one who need to supply evidence to support their claims.
She cites the woman’s witness statement as her source, I already told you this so why are you deliberately ignoring it?
-
She cites the woman’s witness statement as her source, I already told you this so why are you deliberately ignoring it?
Because it appears the goal posts have been moved from demanding cites, to sub dividing those cites into groups of official and non official...................and you can bet your life corroboration with be demanded of official cites when they're seen to favour guilt over innocence.
-
Because it appears the goal posts have been moved from demanding cites, to sub dividing those cites into groups of official and non official...................and you can bet your life corroboration with be demanded of official cites when they're seen to favour guilt over innocence.
Oh right, so only the actual witness statement will do, otherwise CAL obviously made it up? I getcha
-
Oh right, so only the actual witness statement will do, otherwise CAL obviously made it up? I getcha
That appears to be about the size of it. It remains to be seen how flexible are the requirements asked of supporters.
-
It has always been forum policy to provide cites where appropriate. It is also good etiquette.
I wholeheartedly agree, the annoying thing is that some posters are deciding to pick and choose over references and you begin to think - what's the point? Specifically - we have quoted Wilkes's book which states that Bamber was classified as a psychopath by a psychiatrist post trial and some posters are insinuating that this was made up. Common sense would tell you that given that the book was written in the early 90's when the defence team were very much alive and kicking, that had this been made up, they would have said so - Bamber would have said so. If Wilkes decided not to reveal the psychiatrist's name, that's up to him, but the cite is a valid one.
-
If there are official notes why didn't CAL use them as her source? I'm not saying there was an answer machine, so I don't need to look for evidence. It's those who are insisting that there was one who need to supply evidence to support their claims.
There was an answerphone, you have been given a cite, if you choose not to believe it then don't be surprised if people don't bother o provide cites to you in future!
-
There was an answerphone, you have been given a cite, if you choose not to believe it then don't be surprised if people don't bother o provide cites to you in future!
From what I've seen very few cites are provided anyway.
-
From what I've seen very few cites are provided anyway.
I always provide cites!
-
From what I've seen very few cites are provided anyway.
I gave you a cite and you completely ignored it.
-
Because it appears the goal posts have been moved from demanding cites, to sub dividing those cites into groups of official and non official...................and you can bet your life corroboration with be demanded of official cites when they're seen to favour guilt over innocence.
Absolutely.
-
Oh right, so only the actual witness statement will do, otherwise CAL obviously made it up? I getcha
No, I'd say we need photographic evidence as well. Witnesses can lie. You don't take Jeremy's witness statement as gospel do you.
-
It's you who is suggesting that I believe everything Jeremy Bamber says, not me. In my opinion you're jumping to false conclusions.
So tell us - do you believe everything he says or not?
-
What evidence do you have that any of us "believe everything Jeremy Bamber says is true" ???
The supporters of his on here obviously believe everything he says is true, otherwise they wouldn’t be so ferociously eager to try and help him get another appeal.
And they try desperately to come up with excuses for his behaviour, so if they don’t believe everything he says why on earth are they trying to get a mass murderer set free?
-
From what I've seen very few cites are provided anyway.
I have a good memory, though...
And although I seldom post cites, when I have done you’ve never acknowledged them.
Actually, as you’re so keen on cites, how about I do a new thread straight from the horse’s mouth?
I know where Jeremy Bamber’s two statements are that he made under caution.
Perhaps I could do a thread where we can compare all his contradictions he made in both of them, and maybe you could explain why he made so many? They’re cites, so you should be happy with that thread 😊
-
I have a good memory, though...
And although I seldom post cites, when I have done you’ve never acknowledged them.
Actually, as you’re so keen on cites, how about I do a new thread straight from the horse’s mouth?
I know where Jeremy Bamber’s two statements are that he made under caution.
Perhaps I could do a thread where we can compare all his contradictions he made in both of them, and maybe you could explain why he made so many? They’re cites, so you should be happy with that thread 😊
Do it. *Perhaps I could do a thread where we can compare all his contradictions he made in both of them,
-
The supporters of his on here obviously believe everything he says is true, otherwise they wouldn’t be so ferociously eager to try and help him get another appeal.
And they try desperately to come up with excuses for his behaviour, so if they don’t believe everything he says why. On Earth are they trying to get a mass murderer set free?
Could it be because he didn't do it?
-
I wholeheartedly agree, the annoying thing is that some posters are deciding to pick and choose over references and you begin to think - what's the point? Specifically - we have quoted Wilkes's book which states that Bamber was classified as a psychopath by a psychiatrist post trial and some posters are insinuating that this was made up. Common sense would tell you that given that the book was written in the early 90's when the defence team were very much alive and kicking, that had this been made up, they would have said so - Bamber would have said so. If Wilkes decided not to reveal the psychiatrist's name, that's up to him, but the cite is a valid one.
Definition of a cite:
refer to (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.
"authors who are highly regarded by their peers tend to be cited"
Yes a cite has been provided for the statement JB has been diagnosed with psychopathy but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
-
Definition of a cite:
refer to (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.
"authors who are highly regarded by their peers tend to be cited"
Yes a cite has been provided for the statement JB has been diagnosed with psychopathy but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
In Your Opinion (another requirement of this forum which you appear to have forgotten).
-
Definition of a cite:
refer to (a passage, book, or author) as evidence for or justification of an argument or statement, especially in a scholarly work.
"authors who are highly regarded by their peers tend to be cited"
Yes a cite has been provided for the statement JB has been diagnosed with psychopathy but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I can safely assert SC was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and June psychosis. I can produce wit stats confirming such from their psychiatrist who I can identify on the GMC register.
I thought you might be a little more circumspect Caro after your dealings with PH and his book fiasco.
-
I have a good memory, though...
And although I seldom post cites, when I have done you’ve never acknowledged them.
Actually, as you’re so keen on cites, how about I do a new thread straight from the horse’s mouth?
I know where Jeremy Bamber’s two statements are that he made under caution.
Perhaps I could do a thread where we can compare all his contradictions he made in both of them, and maybe you could explain why he made so many? They’re cites, so you should be happy with that thread 😊
Leaving G-Unit's opinion out of it, because it's no more valid than anyone else's here, added to which, unless what is posted is pro Jeremy, she'll attempt to destroy it, I feel certain that everyone else would be VERY happy with it.
-
I can safely assert SC was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and June psychosis. I can produce wit stats confirming such from their psychiatrist who I can identify on the GMC register.
I thought you might be a little more circumspect Caro after your dealings with PH and his book fiasco.
The difference here is that whilst you big up Sheila and June's diagnosis, you try to destroy Jeremy's.
-
I have checked the book now, and the “leaving the message”:revelation is in Chapter 31. Turning to the back of the book under “Notes and References” for Chapter 31 item 4 is listed as “Virginia Greaves w/s 12 th September 1985. Unless otherwise indicated the quotes that follow are from this source”.
Next!
Evidence of JB possessing an answering machine at Bourtree Cottage pre murders.
The argument is based on the premise if NB called JB at circa 3.30 am his answering machine would have kicked in before waking and walking downstairs.
-
The difference here is that whilst you big up Sheila and June's diagnosis, you try to destroy Jeremy's.
I've no need to big up Sheila and June's diagnosis. I can simply quote from their psychiatrist's witness statement.
-
The difference here is that whilst you big up Sheila and June's diagnosis, you try to destroy Jeremy's.
The two women were diagnosed and their doctors were identified and gave evidence. Those are checkable facts. It is claimed that Jeremy Bamber was diagnosed but the doctor was not identified and didn't give evidence. The claims which have been made about Jeremy Bamber are not supported by checkable facts.
-
The two women were diagnosed and their doctors were identified and gave evidence. Those are checkable facts. It is claimed that Jeremy Bamber was diagnosed but the doctor was not identified and didn't give evidence. The claims which have been made about Jeremy Bamber are not supported by checkable facts.
The only reason being that someone believed it helped their case to find these things out, ergo, those who delivered the opinions were asked. Presumably, it was considered, either to be a foregone conclusion, that anyone was unquestionably a psychopath who could slaughter their entire family, OR it wasn't believed it wouldn't be conducive to Jeremy's case for such a diagnosis to be known. But known it most definitely was, whether you choose to accept that or not.................
................And whilst we're on THAT subject, I probably know more people, who were close to the Bambers, than anyone here -and that's not a boast, it's an reasonable claim given that I live close and these people are my friends. Their names have never been seen in papers because, being close to the Bambers, they'd have refused to give interviews. Nor are there any witness statements from them, because they probably weren't asked. It does NOT make what they say, lies or irrelevancies. I will NOT, under any circumstances, reveal any names. I had enough problems on another forum when something I said in naivety -being an internet virgin- resulted in me being threatened with the police and having my qualifications revoked. There are still those supporters for whom nothing gives more pleasure than to hound and intimidate those who believe Jeremy to be a murderer. Information, concerning those who choose to remain private, won't come from me.
-
The only reason being that someone believed it helped their case to find these things out, ergo, those who delivered the opinions were asked. Presumably, it was considered, either to be a foregone conclusion, that anyone was unquestionably a psychopath who could slaughter their entire family, OR it wasn't believed it wouldn't be conducive to Jeremy's case for such a diagnosis to be known. But known it most definitely was, whether you choose to accept that or not.................
................And whilst we're on THAT subject, I probably know more people, who were close to the Bambers, than anyone here -and that's not a boast, it's an reasonable claim given that I live close and these people are my friends. Their names have never been seen in papers because, being close to the Bambers, they'd have refused to give interviews. Nor are there any witness statements from them, because they probably weren't asked. It does NOT make what they say, lies or irrelevancies. I will NOT, under any circumstances, reveal any names. I had enough problems on another forum when something I said in naivety -being an internet virgin- resulted in me being threatened with the police and having my qualifications revoked. There are still those supporters for whom nothing gives more pleasure than to hound and intimidate those who believe Jeremy to be a murderer. Information, concerning those who choose to remain private, won't come from me.
People who prefer to remain private should not be revealed, I agree wholeheartedly with that. Anything they may have said however, can't be relied on in debates for various reasons. Firstly it's hearsay. Secondly it's anonymous hearsay. The only way it can be aired is as opinion; i.e. "I heard that..." Claiming these opinions as facts is not tenable imo.
-
People who prefer to remain private should not be revealed, I agree wholeheartedly with that. Anything they may have said however, can't be relied on in debates for various reasons. Firstly it's hearsay. Secondly it's anonymous hearsay. The only way it can be aired is as opinion; i.e. "I heard that..." Claiming these opinions as facts is not tenable imo.
So it maybe relied upon, because it's in Barbara Willson's WS -despite that she wasn't there- that 'things weren't right', 'Nevill wasn't himself', but when "Bert" witnessed a contretemps between Nevill and Jeremy, so abusive that it reduced Nevill to tears, it can be dismissed.
-
So it maybe relied upon, because it's in Barbara Willson's WS -despite that she wasn't there- that 'things weren't right', 'Nevill wasn't himself', but when "Bert" witnessed a contretemps between Nevill and Jeremy, so abusive that it reduced Nevill to tears, it can be dismissed.
There are all kinds of people using the internet. Some have perfect recall and quote what they have heard or read completely correctly. Others don't. Without a checkable source there's no way of knowing what's correct and what isn't.
Information offered with a verifiable source can be offered as opinion, not as fact.
-
There are all kinds of people using the internet. Some have perfect recall and quote what they have heard or read completely correctly. Others don't. Without a checkable source there's no way of knowing what's correct and what isn't.
Information offered with a verifiable source can be offered as opinion, not as fact.
Given that so many of those who either knew the Bambers personally or gave witness statements -some which may not have been accurate- have died, it becomes increasingly difficult to check for accuracy.
-
Given that so many of those who either knew the Bambers personally or gave witness statements -some which may not have been accurate- have died, it becomes increasingly difficult to check for accuracy.
I'll try to make it clear.
1. You tell me that x said y. I check x's statement and I can confirm that x did say y. What he said may be true or untrue, but he definately said it.
2. You tell me that y said x. As there's no statement I can't check whether y said it or not. You could have made it up, disremembered y's exact words or even disremembered who said it.
1 has a checkable source and 2 doesn't. Therefore 1 can be given more weight than 2 can.
-
The only reason being that someone believed it helped their case to find these things out, ergo, those who delivered the opinions were asked. Presumably, it was considered, either to be a foregone conclusion, that anyone was unquestionably a psychopath who could slaughter their entire family, OR it wasn't believed it wouldn't be conducive to Jeremy's case for such a diagnosis to be known. But known it most definitely was, whether you choose to accept that or not.................
................And whilst we're on THAT subject, I probably know more people, who were close to the Bambers, than anyone here -and that's not a boast, it's an reasonable claim given that I live close and these people are my friends. Their names have never been seen in papers because, being close to the Bambers, they'd have refused to give interviews. Nor are there any witness statements from them, because they probably weren't asked. It does NOT make what they say, lies or irrelevancies. I will NOT, under any circumstances, reveal any names. I had enough problems on another forum when something I said in naivety -being an internet virgin- resulted in me being threatened with the police and having my qualifications revoked. There are still those supporters for whom nothing gives more pleasure than to hound and intimidate those who believe Jeremy to be a murderer. Information, concerning those who choose to remain private, won't come from me.
8((()*/ Very well said.
-
I'll try to make it clear.
1. You tell me that x said y. I check x's statement and I can confirm that x did say y. What he said may be true or untrue, but he definately said it.
2. You tell me that y said x. As there's no statement I can't check whether y said it or not. You could have made it up, disremembered y's exact words or even disremembered who said it.
1 has a checkable source and 2 doesn't. Therefore 1 can be given more weight than 2 can.
You you can accuse X and Y of being dishonest if what they said doesn't suit.
-
People who prefer to remain private should not be revealed, I agree wholeheartedly with that. Anything they may have said however, can't be relied on in debates for various reasons. Firstly it's hearsay. Secondly it's anonymous hearsay. The only way it can be aired is as opinion; i.e. "I heard that..." Claiming these opinions as facts is not tenable imo.
Then you can just ignore it then can't you?
-
I'll try to make it clear.
1. You tell me that x said y. I check x's statement and I can confirm that x did say y. What he said may be true or untrue, but he definately said it.
2. You tell me that y said x. As there's no statement I can't check whether y said it or not. You could have made it up, disremembered y's exact words or even disremembered who said it.
1 has a checkable source and 2 doesn't. Therefore 1 can be given more weight than 2 can.
Actually, because I don't post for your benefit, I'm really not concerned whether you believe me or not, nor what you choose to give weight to. I feel certain there will be some here, be they supporters or detractors, who won't question my integrity, or that of those who knew the Bambers well.
-
Actually, because I don't post for your benefit, I'm really not concerned whether you believe me or not, nor what you choose to give weight to. I feel certain there will be some here, be they supporters or detractors, who won't question my integrity, or that of those who knew the Bambers well.
It doesn't matter to me, I'm just pointing out why information supported by a cite is evidence. Information without one is rumour. It's nothing to do with integrity, it's to do with demonstrable accuracy. Even a person of integrity can make mistakes.
Meanwhile;
It has always been forum policy to provide cites where appropriate. It is also good etiquette.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11555.msg599970#msg599970
-
I'll try to make it clear.
1. You tell me that x said y. I check x's statement and I can confirm that x did say y. What he said may be true or untrue, but he definately said it.
2. You tell me that y said x. As there's no statement I can't check whether y said it or not. You could have made it up, disremembered y's exact words or even disremembered who said it.
1 has a checkable source and 2 doesn't. Therefore 1 can be given more weight than 2 can.
Although I agree with your post- wholeheartedly. People can deduce from someones behavior and form an educated opinion. JB gave his diagnosis with his sister. Mental health can change hour to hour in patients.
The fact the JB claimed his sister went berserk/had a psychotic moment as she was prone to- he claims -so is therefore responsible for the killings, where as the medication she was taking was sedentary in effect.
To say the psychiatrist have given evidence about her diagnosis in court, they did NOT claim she was guilty of such crimes. And to be fair as I have said before, the diagnosis is like an MOT only relevant from the last consultation. AND further more they were not present at the time of the murders. not much weight can be given really.
-
Although I agree with your post- wholeheartedly. People can deduce from someones behavior and form an educated opinion. JB gave his diagnosis with his sister. Mental health can change hour to hour in patients.
The fact the JB claimed his sister went berserk/had a psychotic moment as she was prone to- he claims -so is therefore responsible for the killings, where as the medication she was taking was sedentary in effect.
To say the psychiatrist have given evidence about her diagnosis in court, they did NOT claim she was guilty of such crimes. And to be fair as I have said before, the diagnosis is like an MOT only relevant from the last consultation. AND further more they were not present at the time of the murders. not much weight can be given really.
What's behind this discussion is the difference between fact and opinion. Some claim Jeremy Bamber is a diagnosed psychopath, but they are unable to provide any evidence to support their claim. He may well be a psychopath and he may have been diagnosed by an eminent psychiatrist, but the evidence amounts to a claim by a journalist who offered no evidence to support his claim.
-
What's behind this discussion is the difference between fact and opinion. Some claim Jeremy Bamber is a diagnosed psychopath, but they are unable to provide any evidence to support their claim. He may well be a psychopath and he may have been diagnosed by an eminent psychiatrist, but the evidence amounts to a claim by a journalist who offered no evidence to support his claim.
Psychopathic tendencies are a lot more common than we realise.
"Roughly 4% to as high as 12% of CEOs exhibit psychopathic traits, according to some expert estimates, many times more than the 1% rate found in the general population and more in line with the 15% rate found in prisons." https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo/#7ba3d436791e
-
Psychopathic tendencies are a lot more common than we realise.
"Roughly 4% to as high as 12% of CEOs exhibit psychopathic traits, according to some expert estimates, many times more than the 1% rate found in the general population and more in line with the 15% rate found in prisons." https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo/#7ba3d436791e
Fascinating as that is, Rob, it's irrelevant unless you have evidence showing that someone in this case was assessed and diagnosed as psychopathic by an accredited person.
-
Fascinating as that is, Rob, it's irrelevant unless you have evidence showing that someone in this case was assessed and diagnosed as psychopathic by an accredited person.
I thought the rate was much higher than 1%. Sorry, it was just an aside. From memory, there were rates of 20% of the population had some tendency but that might just be my memory.
-
What's behind this discussion is the difference between fact and opinion. Some claim Jeremy Bamber is a diagnosed psychopath, but they are unable to provide any evidence to support their claim. He may well be a psychopath and he may have been diagnosed by an eminent psychiatrist, but the evidence amounts to a claim by a journalist who offered no evidence to support his claim.
If it were proven that he had been diagnosed a psychopath would that change your opinion any re: who committed the murders?
-
If it were proven that he had been diagnosed a psychopath would that change your opinion any re: who committed the murders?
No, and we're wandering off topic now.
-
There are all kinds of people using the internet. Some have perfect recall and quote what they have heard or read completely correctly. Others don't. Without a checkable source there's no way of knowing what's correct and what isn't.
Information offered with a verifiable source can be offered as opinion, not as fact.
So in that case then, Gunit, we’ve established Jeremy Bamber doesn’t have perfect recall, either.
In fact, his recall is so bad that when he was pulled in to make another statement under caution at the police station, his recall was SO poor, he asked to see his original statement because he’d forgotten what he’d said — just weeks later.
That REALLY nailed him, that did.
You see, when you’re telling the TRUTH you don’t NEED to look at what you said a few weeks previously. It remains stuck in your head, forever, when a tragedy/massive event occurs.
Psychologists will tell you that people suffering such events remember every tiny detail, even down to the minutia. It becomes frozen in the brain and cannot be forgotten.
Even events that don’t personally have an effect on you, if they’re huge enough you’ll remember certain precise things of that day that you’d normally forget. As an example, I can guarantee to you that you remember EXACTLY where you were and what you were doing when you heard Princess Diana had been killed. Or when you heard about 9/11.
Having all your family murdered is something you’d NEVER forget. You’d even remember what you did the day before it happened.
So Jeremy Bamber has unwittingly proven what a big liar he is.
And the jury realised that.
-
If it were proven that he had been diagnosed a psychopath would that change your opinion any re: who committed the murders?
What Gunit is trying to forget, is that Jeremy Bamber proved he’s a psychopath when he shot dead all his family.
-
So in that case then, Gunit, we’ve established Jeremy Bamber doesn’t have perfect recall, either.
In fact, his recall is so bad that when he was pulled in to make another statement under caution at the police station, his recall was SO poor, he asked to see his original statement because he’d forgotten what he’d said — just weeks later.
That REALLY nailed him, that did.
You see, when you’re telling the TRUTH you don’t NEED to look at what you said a few weeks previously. It remains stuck in your head, forever, when a tragedy/massive event occurs.
Psychologists will tell you that people suffering such events remember every tiny detail, even down to the minutia. It becomes frozen in the brain and cannot be forgotten.
Even events that don’t personally have an effect on you, if they’re huge enough you’ll remember certain precise things of that day that you’d normally forget. As an example, I can guarantee to you that remember EXACTLY where you were and what you were doing when you heard Princess Diana had been killed. Or when you heard about 9/11.
Having all your family murdered is something you’d NEVER forget. You’d even remember what you did the day before it happened.
So Jeremy Bamber has unwittingly proven what a big liar he is.
And the jury realised that.
I'm afraid memory is not as reliable as you think it is.
Eyewitness testimony is a potent form of evidence for convicting the accused, but it is subject to unconscious memory distortions and biases even among the most confident of witnesses. So memory can be remarkably accurate or remarkably inaccurate. Without objective evidence, the two are indistinguishable.
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/teaching/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html#:~:text=The%20claim%20that%20eyewitness%20testimony,distortion%20without%20the%20witness's%20awareness.
-
What Gunit is trying to forget, is that Jeremy Bamber proved he’s a psychopath when he shot dead all his family.
As not all psychopaths kill and all murderers aren't psychopaths, nothing has been proved.
-
I'm afraid memory is not as reliable as you think it is.
Eyewitness testimony is a potent form of evidence for convicting the accused, but it is subject to unconscious memory distortions and biases even among the most confident of witnesses. So memory can be remarkably accurate or remarkably inaccurate. Without objective evidence, the two are indistinguishable.
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/teaching/myth-eyewitness-testimony-is-the-best-kind-of-evidence.html#:~:text=The%20claim%20that%20eyewitness%20testimony,distortion%20without%20the%20witness's%20awareness.
You haven’t understood what I wrote.
I’m not talking about witnesses trying to remember if they saw or heard anything on a certain day when an event happened that had no impact on them. Everyone knows that it’s hard to think back and remember an ordinary day where nothing extraordinary happened, and you’re asked, for example, if you saw anyone lingering around & what they looked like. That’s why photofits are not always good likenesses: we don’t all walk around studying every passing stranger.
But when a MASSIVE tragic event happens — to you personally — you remember EVERY SINGLE DETAIL.
Why do you think some people develop PTSD after a huge event they’ve been involved in? They suffer because besides it being like an internal nuclear bomb going off in their brain causing terror and horrific after-effects; the IMAGES, SOUNDS, and every other detail of that day becomes embedded in their brain. That’s why some people can never eat a certain food again if when the tragedy happened, they ate that same food on that day: just the sight of the food brings everything to the fore again.
Incidentally, when you put up links/cites from the WWW you need to check you’re getting them from a respected source. There’s lots of BS on the web, that some people who aren’t aware or knowledgable believe just because it’s there. It can look like it’s come from a respected source, but it could easily be a load of tosh. I think most people realise now not to believe everything they read on the internet...
-
You haven’t understood what I wrote.
I’m not talking about witnesses trying to remember if they saw or heard anything on a certain day when an event happened that had no impact on them. Everyone knows that it’s hard to think back and remember an ordinary day where nothing extraordinary happened, and you’re asked, for example, if you saw anyone lingering around & what they looked like. That’s why photofits are not always good likenesses: we don’t all walk around studying every passing stranger.
But when a MASSIVE tragic event happens — to you personally — you remember EVERY SINGLE DETAIL.
Why do you think some people develop PTSD after a huge event they’ve been involved in? They suffer because besides it being like an internal nuclear bomb going off in their brain causing terror and horrific after-effects; the IMAGES, SOUNDS, and every other detail of that day becomes embedded in their brain. That’s why some people can never eat a certain food again if when they tragedy happened they ate that on that day: just the sight of the food brings everything to the fore again.
Incidentally, when you put up links/cites from the WWW you need to check you’re getting them from a respected source. There’s lots of BS on the web, that some people who aren’t aware or knowledgable believe it just because it’s there. It can look like it’s come from a respected source, but it could easily be a load of tosh. I think most people realise now not to believe everything they read on the internet...
Hm.
I was involved in a car accident once. It wasn't a particularly bad one, but I was unable to give the police/insurers all the information they wanted. My mind blanked----------AND, at the time, my husband did not believe me!
-
You haven’t understood what I wrote.
I’m not talking about witnesses trying to remember if they saw or heard anything on a certain day when an event happened that had no impact on them. Everyone knows that it’s hard to think back and remember an ordinary day where nothing extraordinary happened, and you’re asked, for example, if you saw anyone lingering around & what they looked like. That’s why photofits are not always good likenesses: we don’t all walk around studying every passing stranger.
But when a MASSIVE tragic event happens — to you personally — you remember EVERY SINGLE DETAIL.
Why do you think some people develop PTSD after a huge event they’ve been involved in? They suffer because besides it being like an internal nuclear bomb going off in their brain causing terror and horrific after-effects; the IMAGES, SOUNDS, and every other detail of that day becomes embedded in their brain. That’s why some people can never eat a certain food again if when they tragedy happened they ate that on that day: just the sight of the food brings everything to the fore again.
Incidentally, when you put up links/cites from the WWW you need to check you’re getting them from a respected source. There’s lots of BS on the web, that some people who aren’t aware or knowledgable believe it just because it’s there. It can look like it’s come from a respected source, but it could easily be a load of tosh. I think most people realise now not to believe everything they read on the internet...
In your opinion.
-
Hm.
I was involved in a car accident once. It wasn't a particularly bad one, but I was unable to give the police/insurers all the information they wanted. My mind blanked----------AND, at the time, my husband did not believe me!
But it wasn’t a MAJOR accident: no lives were lost: no-one was even injured. So of course it wouldn’t have had a traumatic effect on you. It sounds like you may have been on autopilot when driving, hence why you didn’t notice things the police asked you. You may have been listening to the radio, or thinking about something...lots of minor RTA’s occur unexpectedly...
You can’t compare a prang in a car with having all your family shot dead!
-
As not all psychopaths kill and all murderers aren't psychopaths, nothing has been proved.
Don’t you think it would be a bit strange that in a crime where only two people could have done it, it would be the psychopath who was innocent?
-
Don’t you think it would be a bit strange that in a crime where only two people could have done it, it would be the psychopath who was innocent?
VS, I wonder if the response might be along the lines of there being no evidence of Jeremy's psychopathy? *%87
-
VS, I wonder if the response might be along the lines of there being no evidence of Jeremy's psychopathy? *%87
True, but my question was i. response to G-Unit’s claim that even if it were proven that Jb was a psychopath it wouldn’t change her opinion about the likelihood of him committing the crime.
-
True, but my question was i. response to G-Unit’s claim that even if it were proven that Jb was a psychopath it wouldn’t change her opinion about the likelihood of him committing the crime.
No, and we're wandering off topic now.
VS, I think you'll find that what you got in response to your question, was a short, sharp negative, prior to a convenient segway as a preventative to further discussion.
-
As not all psychopaths kill and all murderers aren't psychopaths, nothing has been proved.
Certainly not to those who continually make excuses. He was categorised as such pre- trial.
-
Don’t you think it would be a bit strange that in a crime where only two people could have done it, it would be the psychopath who was innocent?
Not when the other potential perp had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was brought up by an adoptive mother who had been diagnosed with psychosis and severe depression.
-
Certainly not to those who continually make excuses. He was categorised as such pre- trial.
Please identify the psychiatrist.
-
VS, I wonder if the response might be along the lines of there being no evidence of Jeremy's psychopathy? *%87
What evidence do you have APRIL?
-
Don’t you think it would be a bit strange that in a crime where only two people could have done it, it would be the psychopath who was innocent?
What I think is strange is putting it down to only two people who could have done it.
-
What I think is strange is putting it down to only two people who could have done it.
Maybe that's because you're new to the case eh Robittybob1 8(0(*
-
Maybe that's because you're new to the case eh Robittybob1 8(0(*
There is another person I'd like to look at as well who will remain anonymous at present.
-
Not when the other potential perp had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was brought up by an adoptive mother who had been diagnosed with psychosis and severe depression.
Are Schizophrenics more murderous than psychopaths as a rule?
-
Are Schizophrenics more murderous than psychopaths as a rule?
No, but I think it would depend on the individual case.
-
Are Schizophrenics more murderous than psychopaths as a rule?
A Schizophrenic has a defense to murder as they are often found insane at the time of the killing. I'd like to know the answer to that question too.
As a guess Schizophrenics would be more dangerous IMO.
-
A Schizophrenic has a defense to murder as they are often found insane at the time of the killing. I'd like to know the answer to that question too.
As a guess Schizophrenics would be more dangerous IMO.
Peter Sutcliffe was said to have schizophrenia----and he was certainly dangerous.
-
Please identify the psychiatrist.
Wilkes mentions this in his book, but even he doesn't identify the psychiatrist.
-
But it wasn’t a MAJOR accident: no lives were lost: no-one was even injured. So of course it wouldn’t have had a traumatic effect on you. It sounds like you may have been on autopilot when driving, hence why you didn’t notice things the police asked you. You may have been listening to the radio, or thinking about something...lots of minor RTA’s occur unexpectedly...
You can’t compare a prang in a car with having all your family shot dead!
Actually, I was injured, and taken to hospital. I remember being unable to move my hands---although I had no injuries to my hands, so I was either in shock or traumatised (not sure of the difference).
I suspect JB was too, when he made his first statements. He could well have been traumatised even if he committed the murders, IMO.
-
What evidence do you have APRIL?
He was categorized as being such pretrial.
-
Please identify the psychiatrist.
I don't need to and you and GU can delude yourselves that he doesn't exist - but you know he does really 8((()*/
-
A Schizophrenic has a defense to murder as they are often found insane at the time of the killing. I'd like to know the answer to that question too.
As a guess Schizophrenics would be more dangerous IMO.
This is the big question. let us look at how the diagnosis thingy works.
Patient tells doctor events and 'feeling's before -during-after events. The doctor who has read well on the subject from other people give a diagnosis BASED on the 'feelings' which was relayed to him/her.
It is NOT a science in a factual respect, it is based on trust and theory.
1. to trust the patient isn't 'playing a card' to get the correct diagnosis to fit an agenda (Well known tactic in criminal trials)
2.The theory is based on guess work from the information he/she(psychiatrist) has to hand.
So any psychiatrist cannot possibly KNOW for sure Sheila was a danger to her family and self- if they were, she would have been sectioned for sure.
JB was not presented for a psychiatric assessment before the killings, his mental state would have been based on his behavior after, taking into account a grieving process. witnesses would build a picture before the killings to add to the information already gained.
Maybe he wasn't a psychopath - just a greedy,cruel cold bloodied b@stard who murdered people to get what he wanted.
-
I don't need to and you and GU can delude yourselves that he doesn't exist - but you know he does really 8((()*/
If you have any evidence of such why not share it with the forum?
-
Certainly not to those who continually make excuses. He was categorised as such pre- trial.
Evidence please.
-
If you have any evidence of such why not share it with the forum?
Share what with the forum? And if I might add, that's a bit rich given that you couldn't answer simple question.
-
Evidence please.
Read Wilkes's book. The reason you don't know his name, is because Bambers legal team didn't ask the psychiatrist to give evidence - with good reason. Have you seen Bamber deny the claim?
-
As not all psychopaths kill and all murderers aren't psychopaths, nothing has been proved.
Why does it bother you that Jeremy Bamber is a psychopath?
You're correct: not all psychopaths murder, and not all murderers are psychopaths.
Some murders happen through the heat of the moment, passion etc
But when a man PLANS & PLOTS — then shoots dead all his family, including two little six-year-old boys — you try telling a psychiatrist that man is not a psychopath and you’ll find yourself being studied.
-
Not when the other potential perp had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was brought up by an adoptive mother who had been diagnosed with psychosis and severe depression.
You will insist on inferring Sheila was the other “perp”, despite the FACT it was PROVED in court by EXPERTS (which you’re not) that Sheila could not have killed herself or the others, and it was proven beyond all doubt by the JURY that Jeremy Bamber was the PERP.
Sooner you accept that, the better for you.
-
A Schizophrenic has a defense to murder as they are often found insane at the time of the killing. I'd like to know the answer to that question too.
As a guess Schizophrenics would be more dangerous IMO.
Wrong.
Schizophrenics are actually more at danger of being killed themselves. That’s a fact. I don’t have a cite, but Google does &^^&*
Schizophrenics RARELY kill, actually. It’s extremely rare.
-
Peter Sutcliffe was said to have schizophrenia----and he was certainly dangerous.
And it only affected him on Friday nights when he went out alone...
If you read up about him, the psychiatrists have never been sure what he is. Like many other lifers they make out they’re mad to try and get a cushy life in Broadmoor.
He’s definitely a psychopath though.
-
Read Wilkes's book. The reason you don't know his name, is because Bambers legal team didn't ask the psychiatrist to give evidence - with good reason. Have you seen Bamber deny the claim?
It’s in CAL’s book too
-
Wrong.
Schizophrenics are actually more at danger of being killed themselves. That’s a fact. I don’t have a cite, but Google does &^^&*
Schizophrenics RARELY kill, actually. It’s extremely rare.
That was being said 10 years ago, ("Schizophrenics are actually more at danger of being killed themselves") hasn't been repeated that often lately though.
-
That was being said 10 years ago, ("Schizophrenics are actually more at danger of being killed themselves") hasn't been repeated that often lately though.
Probably because no schizophrenics have murdered anyone. Duh!
-
Probably because no schizophrenics have murdered anyone. Duh!
I have a feeling that isn't true.
-
I have a feeling that isn't true.
Cite please.
-
Cite please.
You must be mad. You want a cite about my feelings.
-
You must be mad. You want a cite about my feelings.
You said you have a “feeling” it isn’t true that a schizophrenic hasn’t killed anyone in the last 10 years, so I asked you to show me a case where one has. Google is your friend, Rob. Or ask The Lord — He might tell you. Also ask The Lord why he cocked up and made some evil b*stards who kill all their family...
-
You said you have a “feeling” it isn’t true that a schizophrenic hasn’t killed anyone in the last 10 years, so I asked you to show me a case where one has. Google is your friend, Rob. Or ask The Lord — He might tell you. Also ask The Lord why he cocked up and made some evil b*stards who kill all their family...
Exactly.
"Probably because no schizophrenics have murdered anyone" in the last 10 years. I think that is so unlikely.
I'm not to sure how the courts actually work. I often hear of homicides and I think that sounds like the person nutted off. The prosecutor would get a psychiatrist to assess the perpetrator. If the psychiatrist finds the person was mentally deficient at the time of the homicide is there a murder trial? Could that be why we don't get to hear about a lot of the murders committed by schizophrenics?
-
Why do posts on this thread relate to SC's mental illness when there's a current thread running re this?
Please stick to topic.
-
Why do posts on this thread relate to SC's mental illness when there's a current thread running re this?
Please stick to topic.
Discussions evolve.
Rob asked a question to which I replied.
How rigid is this forum, exactly?
-
Discussions evolve.
Rob asked a question to which I replied.
How rigid is this forum, exactly?
Well let's try to comply. But you are right about how they evolve.
-
We know that EP handed over witness statements to CAL which were not given to the defence. I think Ann Eaton would have been interested in an answerphone had she seen one. It's possible that Jeremy Bamber bought one after the event to pick up calls when he wasn't there.
In Ann Eaton's statement she mentions that she repeatedly called Jeremy Bamber's cottage on the 7th. At no time does she say it went to the answering machine.
-
In Ann Eaton's statement she mentions that she repeatedly called Jeremy Bamber's cottage on the 7th. At no time does she say it went to the answering machine.
So what?
It may have gone to AM and she didn’t think to mention it; the officer taking the statement may not have added that part — or JB deliberately turned it off knowing it only rang maybe eight times before kicking in, and he knew that would be dangerous in case police wondered how he got to the phone when Nevill supposedly rang at 3am without the AM kicking in and recording the conversation.
He could’ve said he had it switched off, but as the phone was downstairs he’d most likely have it turned ON in case he didn’t hear the phone ring while asleep...
Or, there is the possibility he bought it after killing his family, which he could possibly prove even now...
-
So what?
It may have gone to AM and she didn’t think to mention it; the officer taking the statement may not have added that part — or JB deliberately turned it off knowing it only rang maybe eight times before kicking in, and he knew that would be dangerous in case police wondered how he got to the phone when Nevill supposedly rang at 3am without the AM kicking in and recording the conversation.
He could’ve said he had it switched off, but as the phone was downstairs he’d most likely have it turned ON in case he didn’t hear the phone ring while asleep...
Or, there is the possibility he bought it after killing his family, which he could possibly prove even now...
Keep it simple; it didn't go to answerphone because there wasn't one.
-
Keep it simple; it didn't go to answerphone because there wasn't one.
He had an answer machine.
Fact.
You need to read the cite.
Whether he bought it with the money he effectively stole after murdering his family isn’t known, but he defintely had one.
I’ve explained as simply as possible for you so you understand 😊
-
So what?
It may have gone to AM and she didn’t think to mention it; the officer taking the statement may not have added that part — or JB deliberately turned it off knowing it only rang maybe eight times before kicking in, and he knew that would be dangerous in case police wondered how he got to the phone when Nevill supposedly rang at 3am without the AM kicking in and recording the conversation.
He could’ve said he had it switched off, but as the phone was downstairs he’d most likely have it turned ON in case he didn’t hear the phone ring while asleep...
Or, there is the possibility he bought it after killing his family, which he could possibly prove even now...
I stand by what I said originally "At no time does she say it went to the answering machine". Don't waste my time.
-
I stand by what I said originally "At no time does she say it went to the answering machine". Don't waste my time.
I wasn’t actually replying to you, Rob
So you’ve wasted your own time replying to me
I was replying to Gunit who seems to think JB didn’t have an answering machine, when he most definitely did
Why it upsets you or anyone else is quite frankly, weird.
I don’t know, or care, WHEN he got his AM but he most definitely had one. If you and Gunit read through everything you’d know that
-
I wasn’t actually replying to you, Rob
So you’ve wasted your own time replying to me
I was replying to Gunit who seems to think JB didn’t have an answering machine, when he most definitely did
Why it upsets you or anyone else is quite frankly, weird.
I don’t know, or care, WHEN he got his AM but he most definitely had one. If you and Gunit read through everything you’d know that
Of course it matters when he acquired an answering machine: pre or post murders.
-
Of course it matters when he acquired an answering machine: pre or post murders.
How does it matter?
Yes, if he already had the AM prior to murdering his family, it could be queried why it didn’t kick in before he reached it when he claimed Nevill phoned him...but it’s all too late in the day now. The case is done and dusted (with/without queries the AM) so it makes no difference.
If it was proven JB had the machine BEFORE he killed everyone it would just reinforce his guilt. But he’d just say he hadn’t switched it on, so again, it’s all a pointless exercise.
Virginia Greaves certainly left a message on his AM at Goldhanger, she said so, and it’s in CAL’s book. But that may have been after the murders so doesn’t prove anything, except that he did have one at that time.
-
I wasn’t actually replying to you, Rob
So you’ve wasted your own time replying to me
I was replying to Gunit who seems to think JB didn’t have an answering machine, when he most definitely did
Why it upsets you or anyone else is quite frankly, weird.
I don’t know, or care, WHEN he got his AM but he most definitely had one. If you and Gunit read through everything you’d know that
Ann rang Jeremy many times on the 7th. "I stand by what I said: "At no time does Ann Eaton say it went to the answering machine".
-
How does it matter?
Yes, if he already had the AM prior to murdering his family, it could be queried why it didn’t kick in before he reached it when he claimed Nevill phoned him...but it’s all too late in the day now. The case is done and dusted (with/without queries the AM) so it makes no difference.
If it was proven JB had the machine BEFORE he killed everyone it would just reinforce his guilt. But he’d just say he hadn’t switched it on, so again, it’s all a pointless exercise.
Virginia Greaves certainly left a message on his AM at Goldhanger, she said so, and it’s in CAL’s book. But that may have been after the murders so doesn’t prove anything, except that he did have one at that time.
The case is not done and dusted till Jeremy dies in prison. Until then he has the right to appeal the case. Hoping to obtain justice at last.
-
The case is not done and dusted till Jeremy dies in prison. Until then he has the right to appeal the case. Hoping to obtain justice at last.
He can keep trying...but the appeal court aren’t obliged to hear another load of nonsense, hence why his attempts keep getting slung out.
They’re sick to the back teeth of him.
He only comes up with futile, pointless “new evidence” which is all rubbish.
If he could produce rock solid evidence that he’s innocent, then the CoA would listen. But so far he’s come up with zilch. And as he’s supposedly trawled through 4 million documents, and the best he can come up with is suggesting the phone log an officer jotted down when paraphrasing the officer who told him JB called saying Nevill had phoned him, and JB tried to make it look like two separate calls were made when it’s perfectly clear it was just ONE call, it doesn’t bode well for him.
He can never admit he killed them, because his life in prison would be worse — and he’d still never be released. So he keeps this nuttiness up to keep the spotlight on him; gain fruitcakes; receive letters to alleviate his boredom; and also receive cash, stamps, pressies from gullible types who he uses.
He’s a nasty piece of work. A user. Sponger. And egomaniac.
He knows he will never be released, so he’s adapted to his life in prison by switching off to the reality of it.
He’s institutionalised now, and in his world prison is now normal for him. So he makes the best of a bad situation by living in a kind of make-believe world. But I guarantee there’s times when he’s in bed at night trying to sleep, and the horror of his life overwhelms him. He threw EVERYTHING away through greed. Because he’s evil.
-
Ann rang Jeremy many times on the 7th. "I stand by what I said: "At no time does Ann Eaton say it went to the answering machine".
Rob, if Jeremy purchased that answer machine after the murders, I’m sure he’d happily prove that — even now. I doubt all his old bank accounts, credit card statements, receipts etc were thrown out when he was arrested and taken into remand. Someone probably has them...someone must have made an itinerary of all his household goods when he was sent down for life. Where did they go to, I wonder? Maybe that answer machine is in someone’s possession even now.
Had he bought it after the murders it might benefit him (he does clutch at any straw) He’d be able to say the AM didn’t kick in while he was asleep as he didn’t have one....why doesn’t he do that, I wonder?
-
Rob, if Jeremy purchased that answer machine after the murders, I’m sure he’d happily prove that — even now. I doubt all his old bank accounts, credit card statements, receipts etc were thrown out when he was arrested and taken into remand. Someone probably has them...someone must have made an itinerary of all his household goods when he was sent down for life. Where did they go to, I wonder? Maybe that answer machine is in someone’s possession even now.
Had he bought it after the murders it might benefit him (he does clutch at any straw) He’d be able to say the AM didn’t kick in while he was asleep as he didn’t have one....why doesn’t he do that, I wonder?
Prosecuting authorities have never used an answering machine against him.
He provided authorisation for the police to access his bank account.