I was always taught that one should be able to debate both sides but whenever I try to argue for Bambers innocence, I immediately get stuck with the phone call.
Not only does it make no sense for Nevill to turn his back on an armed and dangerous Sheila to try and rouse his son in the middle of the night, the timings of JBs two calls are too uncertain to be able to draw any firm conclusions.
This is not helped by sloppy record keeping by the police and muddied further by Bamber changing his story to fit with the ludicrously misrepresented call log "evidence" that Nevill called police himself at 3.26.
In his first WS, he claimed that after trying to return NBs 3.10am call and getting the engaged tone, he "immediately" called the police and then called JM at 3.25 for some "reassurance" ( but not mentioning anything about Sheila or a gun )
After his arrest, he admits that he had to look up the number in the phone book and this took 10 minutes. He says that he called Julie before he called the police but only for a minute or two "because he had to call the police" - again there is no mention of any guns in this conversation in which he is seeking advice/reassurance from JM. Nor is there any mention of his attempt to phone Witham but getting no answer.
When he is challenged about the changed order of his calls, he claims he is muddled up and that his original WS was correct despite his apparent certainty in both of his accounts.
I don't want to write an essay in my first post so will conclude with this passage from the appeal judgement regarding how long it would take to reset the line although I think the point is moot. If NB did call and terminated it but left the receiver off the hook then JBs description of getting the engaged tone would fit. If the receiver was not terminated at the callers end, Bamber would have had to replace his receiver for 1-2 minutes before he could call but he makes no mention of remaining connected and we cannot know the actual state of the telephones that night.
There was no evidence of telephone billing information of the sort which would be available these days. There was, however, expert evidence called as to the effect of a telephone call having been made from White House Farm to Goldhanger which was then abandoned by the caller with the receiver being left off the cradle, as claimed by the appellant. If such a sequence had occurred, the telephone link would have remained open either until the handset at White House Farm was replaced or until the handset at Goldhanger had been replaced and left in position for a period which could vary from 1 to 2 minutes, when an automatic interruption of the link would take place. Until one or other of these events, the appellant would have been unable to make any call from the Goldhanger telephone.
