The timings of Jeremy's calls to Julie and to the police.

[Caroline]

Yes that's true he was conflicted/unsure.  I have posted about this previously. Apparently in the early days DS Jones was according to Dr V, the pathologist, the only dissenter.  However the important point is that as far as Dr V was concerned there was nothing impressive in what DS Jones said nor anything of evidential value:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3827.msg144292#msg144292

You have recently posted on Blue about police practices in the 80's ie going on hunches and fabricating evidence:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6155.msg272871.html#msg272871

 

I certainly did and I still think that some of the evidence was planted - I haven't changed my mind about that.

[Holly Goodhead]

I certainly did and I still think that some of the evidence was planted - I haven't changed my mind about that.

Yet 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2931.msg103751.html#msg103751

[Holly Goodhead]

Ha, ha!! Wow! That's a bit of a leap Holly - it wasn't an invitation!I think you only change the subject to play down the significance of what's been said - so back to he topic. It's totally unrealistic not to have expected him to have called 999. When I thought Bamber might be innocent, I also played down the significance of the calls but was never happy doing so, because there is no excuse unless he knew the local number off by heart - which he didn't.

Good, no one likes rejection.  I could never get those shorts out of my mind

Not at all, I thought we had agreed to disagree on the phone calls...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5638.msg202074#msg202074

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5638.msg202105#msg202105

[Caroline]

Yet 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2931.msg103751.html#msg103751

No yet about it - I won't be changing my mind on that!

[ActualMat]

Thanks for the Myall statements, Caroline. I shall bookmark this thread as Myall's is a statement I seem to have to keep coming back to.

[Holly Goodhead]

If West wrote it down, Jeremy must have said it - there was no reason for him to just add the sentence.

Why must?  Ever heard of poor listening skills?  A feature of which can be jumping to conclusions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_to_conclusions

[Holly Goodhead]

@ Caroline

If JB phoned Goldhanger from WHF allowed his answering machine to pick up then ended the call WHF end I think you will find the line would not have remained open WHF end for the operator to listen in?  Just lifting the handset from the cradle does not create an open line?

[puglove]

@ Caroline

If JB phoned Goldhanger from WHF allowed his answering machine to pick up then ended the call WHF end I think you will find the line would not have remained open WHF end for the operator to listen in?  Just lifting the handset from the cradle does not create an open line?

And that's another dreadful habit...looking on blue. Guilty as charged!! When I read that the 27 club all died because of suicide, I wanted to scoop my eyes out with a spork, jump out of my bedroom window, and set fire to myself.

Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night!!   

[Caroline]

@ Caroline

If JB phoned Goldhanger from WHF allowed his answering machine to pick up then ended the call WHF end I think you will find the line would not have remained open WHF end for the operator to listen in? Just lifting the handset from the cradle does not create an open line?

I think you should go back to the drawing board on that one because it does. Leaving the phone off the hook would cause the engaged tone if someone tried to call (which is what happened), the operator can break into the line to see if a conversation is going on OR if the line is engaged because it's off the hook.

[Holly Goodhead]

I think you should go back to the drawing board on that one because it does. Leaving the phone off the hook would cause the engaged tone if someone tried to call (which is what happened), the operator can break into the line to see if a conversation is going on OR if the line is engaged because it's off the hook.

I am not talking about what tone a caller would receive if they called WHF and it was off the hook.  I am talking about the operator distinguishing between a call made from WHF and terminated from WHF ie depressing the cradle and leaving the phone off the hook and a call made from WHF where the call was answered but no depression of the cradle occurred and the handset was simply left off the hook at WHF 

JB sure must have done his homework on all of this 

[Caroline]

I am not talking about what tone a caller would receive if they called WHF and it was off the hook.  I am talking about the operator distinguishing between a call made from WHF and terminated from WHF ie depressing the cradle and leaving the phone off the hook and a call made from WHF where the call was answered but no depression of the cradle occurred and the handset was simply left off the hook at WHF 

JB sure must have done his homework on all of this 

If he called GH from WHF, depressed the button and just left the handset on the counter, it would be off the hook but the call to WHF would be terminated. The operator could still break into the line. Even if it had been answered from the other end and left connected, the operator could still listen in. I'm not sure what point your're trying to make. Why would he need to do his homework? That's how phones worked then, he was surely familiar with the procedure. 

[Holly Goodhead]

If he called GH from WHF, depressed the button and just left the handset on the counter, it would be off the hook but the call to WHF would be terminated. The operator could still break into the line. Even if it had been answered from the other end and left connected, the operator could still listen in. I'm not sure what point your're trying to make. Why would he need to do his homework? That's how phones worked then, he was surely familiar with the procedure. 

The scenarios and the mechanical processes are entirely different:

a) NB phoning GH from WHF.  JB receiving call from WHF.  NB leaving handset on worktop thus not ending call.

b) JB phoning answering machine at GH.  Answer machine kicks in effectively being answered.  JB depressing cradle at WHF and effectively terminating the call.  This was the scenario you gave:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6179.msg274576.html#msg274576

Why would JB be familiar with the capability of the operator in the 1980's? I certainly would not have been. 

Last week you doubted JB would be offay with the fact that Witham police station covered WHF and now, this week, you think he should be offay with operator capability.  Lol. 

Are you able to provide your sources? 

[Caroline]

The scenarios and the mechanical processes are entirely different:

a) NB phoning GH from WHF.  JB receiving call from WHF.  NB leaving handset on worktop thus not ending call.

b) JB phoning answering machine at GH.  Answer machine kicks in effectively being answered.  JB depressing cradle at WHF and effectively terminating the call.  This was the scenario you gave:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6179.msg274576.html#msg274576

Why would JB be familiar with the capability of the operator in the 1980's? I certainly would not have been. 

Last week you doubted JB would be offay with the fact that Witham police station covered WHF and now, this week, you think he should be offay with operator capability.  Lol. 

Are you able to provide your sources?

It was the scenario HE gave and there is no way an operator would be able to tell the difference between your scenario's or they would have given evidence in that respect. I didn't say he would be familiar with operator capability, just just how the phones work - it's not that difficult or compliacted LOL. You clearly don't know how the phone syatem worked back then. Ask an old BT engineer - I did!

[Holly Goodhead]

It was the scenario HE gave and there is no way an operator would be able to tell the difference between your scenario's or they would have given evidence in that respect. I didn't say he would be familiar with operator capability, just just how the phones work - it's not that difficult or compliacted LOL. You clearly don't know how the phone syatem worked back then.Ask an old BT engineer - I did!

The scenario who gave? 

The engineer at trial was asked what the effect would be on the GH line if NB had called GH from WHF with JB picking up and NB leaving the handset off the cradle ie not terminating the call. 

68. 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.

What you are suggesting in your post as follows is entirely different:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6179.msg274576.html#msg274576

I'll leave the old BT engineers in your capable hands thanks 

[Caroline]

The scenario who gave? 

The engineer at trial was asked what the effect would be on the GH line if NB had called GH from WHF with JB picking up and NB leaving the handset off the cradle ie not terminating the call. 

68. 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.

What you are suggesting in your post as follows is entirely different:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6179.msg274576.html#msg274576

I'll leave the old BT engineers in your capable hands thanks 

And? if after calling GH, Jeremy depressed the button, the call would be ended. The expert witness wasn't saying what did happen, he's just explaining what would have happened in either case. I'm saying Jeremy hung up the call (depressed the button). You can't say he didn't - we don't know but it's my theory and I'm entitled to it!

There is only one way to find out how the old phone system worked and that's to ask an old BT engineer - you continue speculating though - if that works for you