Jeremy Bamber

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Nope. Not the same. The reason there were no records in the US was that local landline calls were entirely free of charge. In 1985, that was not the case in the UK. Every single landline call - no matter what distance - was charged on a timed basis (with different rates for local and national calls). Therefore, the exchange would without doubt have generated a billing record of all landline calls, including number dialled and call duration.

Can you provide evidence of this? Specifically that itemized bills were available then? Digital exchanges were only just being introduced in the UK in 1985 and I believe the old analogue exchanges only recorded total time of local and national calls, not when they were made or to which number.

It would save the thread going off on a tangent, since if there were no phone records available it's no surprise they were not introduced as evidence.

 

[anglolawyer]

I think you're quoting the wrong post here.

Sorry, you're right. I thought I was quoting the one where you said you thought we were one and the same.

 

[anglolawyer]

Can you provide evidence of this? Specifically that itemized bills were available then? Digital exchanges were only just being introduced in the UK in 1985 and I believe the old analogue exchanges only recorded total time of local and national calls, not when they were made or to which number.

It would save the thread going off on a tangent, since if there were no phone records available it's no surprise they were not introduced as evidence.

It's an interesting and important tangent.

 

[anglolawyer]

Of course, but towel-dry hair is still damp. If he had been disturbed from a night's sleep (no doubt his claim), then he would have had dry disheveled hair.

True. I like the idea. Someone came up with another possibility that explained the slow driving but I forgot it. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[anglolawyer]

Another random thought. Say Bamber made it his business to know that BT did not keep records of call times. When he switched from plan A (the hit man) the timing problem in plan B surfaced. I speculate that he realised the call could not be made using the cordless phone because that phone would keep a record of the number called and (I surmise) the time also. So he screwed up the cordless knowing the rotary would be brought downstairs to replace it as had occurred before. That allowed him to move the time of the call from, say, 2.45 to 3.00. In the 15 minutes he could cycle home, then call Julie at once, then shower and dispose of possibly bloodied clothes, then call Witham and Chelmsford, getting through at 3.26. Or maybe the clean up was first, then the call to Julie, then the cops. I bet he called Julie first, though.

 

[MikeG]

That would require the phone to have a battery. Does anyone know the make and model of the handset?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Another random thought. Say Bamber made it his business to know that BT did not keep records of call times. When he switched from plan A (the hit man) the timing problem in plan B surfaced. I speculate that he realised the call could not be made using the cordless phone because that phone would keep a record of the number called and (I surmise) the time also. So he screwed up the cordless knowing the rotary would be brought downstairs to replace it as had occurred before. That allowed him to move the time of the call from, say, 2.45 to 3.00. In the 15 minutes he could cycle home, then call Julie at once, then shower and dispose of possibly bloodied clothes, then call Witham and Chelmsford, getting through at 3.26. Or maybe the clean up was first, then the call to Julie, then the cops. I bet he called Julie first, though.

Sorry I'm missing something. What call is this at 03:00?

 

[anglolawyer]

Nevill to Jeremy. Jeremy said the call came in at 3.00

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Nevill to Jeremy. Jeremy said the call came in at 3.00

If Jeremy was at the farm beating and shooting Nevill to death, surely he wouldn't phone himself to say so? He'd know he was out and wouldn't answer.

I thought removing the cordless phone would be to hide the fact that no call was made. Which brings into doubt your timing concerns. Jeremy could have finished up and left well before 03:00.

 

[anglolawyer]

If Jeremy was at the farm beating and shooting Nevill to death, surely he wouldn't phone himself to say so? He'd know he was out and wouldn't answer.

I thought removing the cordless phone would be to hide the fact that no call was made. Which brings into doubt your timing concerns. Jeremy could have finished up and left well before 03:00.

It's a good point. If Bamber used the rotary phone to call himself and the call was not answered then there would be no chargeable event. You would think that would show up in the billing. It would prove Nevill had not called and conclusively convict Bamber. How the heck did he plan to deal with that?

I'm not sure which timing concerns of mine you mean. Can you explain the second paragraph?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I'm not sure which timing concerns of mine you mean. Can you explain the second paragraph?

If there is no 03:00 call, there is no 26 minute delay to explain before the call to the police. Jeremy could have left the farm at 02:30, got home, cleaned up and called his girlfriend, then the police.

Which raises the question, why say he got a call at 03:00 and give himself that delay to explain?

 

[LondonJohn]

No. While LJ lived near Morshead Mansions I lived in the place at the time of these events (true) so we are two totally different people. I even know who lives in that flat now.

Holy Moly! Seriously?! You lived in Morshead Mansions when first Sheila Caffell, then Jeremy Bamber (and his NZ buddy IIRC) partied after the murder? Wasn't Bamber actually arrested there? From 2001-2008 I lived just round the corner on Elgin Avenue (have moved a bit further away since then).

And yeah I got confused about the burglary - thanks for correcting me.

 

[anglolawyer]

Holy Moly! Seriously?! You lived in Morshead Mansions when first Sheila Caffell, then Jeremy Bamber (and his NZ buddy IIRC) partied after the murder? Wasn't Bamber actually arrested there? From 2001-2008 I lived just round the corner on Elgin Avenue (have moved a bit further away since then).

And yeah I got confused about the burglary - thanks for correcting me.

Yes. I think I moved away at some time around then. It's odd that I have no recall of being aware of the fact that the Mansions featured in the case. It's a long time ago though. I used to walk up Elgin Avenue every day to get the tube.

The NZ guy was Brett Collins. The arrest may well have been made there. Need to check that.

 

[anglolawyer]

If there is no 03:00 call, there is no 26 minute delay to explain before the call to the police. Jeremy could have left the farm at 02:30, got home, cleaned up and called his girlfriend, then the police.

Which raises the question, why say he got a call at 03:00 and give himself that delay to explain?

Good question. I see the point. He could have said he got the call at 3.15 or 3.20. So, OK, if guilty then he had a problem to solve that obliged him to say he got the call at 3.00. I don't know what that problem would be. Gadzooks! He's innocent!

Or I've missed something.

 

[LondonJohn]

Can you provide evidence of this? Specifically that itemized bills were available then? Digital exchanges were only just being introduced in the UK in 1985 and I believe the old analogue exchanges only recorded total time of local and national calls, not when they were made or to which number.

It would save the thread going off on a tangent, since if there were no phone records available it's no surprise they were not introduced as evidence.

Itemised bills certainly weren't available to customers at that time, since BT ended up waiting until its Digital Local Exchanges came online en masse to offer itemisation to customers. However, BT had been putting computerised call-logging technology into all of its analogue TXE4 exchanges in London and the South East (presumably including South Essex) throughout the early 1980s, since the manual call metering system was proving impossible to manage with growing subscriber numbers and phone usage.

I think therefore it's very possible that BT had computerised call logging attached to the local exchange (Colchester?). This would indeed have recorded called numbers and call durations, but this primary information would have remained within BT (and would have been used for things like network architecture planning and pricing/marketing), while the customer still just got a totalised bill.

The only people who would know for sure would be the BT network bods who covered that area in the 1980s, and I suppose there are also records somewhere of the detailed timing of various technology roll-outs across BT exchanges. But I believe that call logging very probably was in place in the local exchange by mid 2005. It might well be that neither the prosecution nor the defence realise that BT collected these data! But it also might be the case that this exchange had not actually been upgraded yet......

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes. I think I moved away at some time around then. It's odd that I have no recall of being aware of the fact that the Mansions featured in the case. It's a long time ago though. I used to walk up Elgin Avenue every day to get the tube.

The NZ guy was Brett Collins. The arrest may well have been made there. Need to check that.

Elgin Ave used to be my tube station as well (obv). When they renovated it in around 2004-5, I tried to get one of the large metal iconic LU "Maida Vale" tube signs, since I found out they were all being replaced - but LU told me they weren't allowed to give or sell them to anyone for health & safety reasons!

I wonder what happened to the flat once Bamber was convicted and sentenced. And what would have legally happened to the inheritance? Is it still legally Bamber's?

 

[anglolawyer]

Elgin Ave used to be my tube station as well (obv). When they renovated it in around 2004-5, I tried to get one of the large metal iconic LU "Maida Vale" tube signs, since I found out they were all being replaced - but LU told me they weren't allowed to give or sell them to anyone for health & safety reasons!

I wonder what happened to the flat once Bamber was convicted and sentenced. And what would have legally happened to the inheritance? Is it still legally Bamber's?

The flat was sold out of the estate, then sold again to its present owner. Bamber will have been disinherited by reason of the murder since that's the law.

Funnily enough, I was reading something this evening about Peter Eaton (Ann's husband). He and Ann (cousin to Bamber) ended up living at White House Farm. Bamber's loss was their gain, albeit the farm was tenanted, not owned by the family. Well, anyway, Peter Eaton was accused of being a chiseler, flogging off farm equipment and pocketing the proceeds and even doing dodgy deals with potatoes. Yes! Barbara Wilson, Nevill's secretary, was so distressed by his conduct that she reported him to the police and the police took a long and detailed statement from her. I don't know whether he was prosecuted.

Nothing quite like an everyday story of country folk. There's even a Pargeter involved

 

[anglolawyer]

I can't copy and paste for some reason but at paragraph 68 of the court of appeal judgment from 2002 it says there was no billing information of the kind there is today. That paragraph has some other stuff about the effect on Bamber's phone if he had been called from WHF and the caller had abandoned the call leaving the phone off the cradle. LJ, maybe you could look at that.

Meanwhile, I am going to ruminate on Guybrush Threepwood's irritating poser. More anon.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can't copy and paste for some reason but at paragraph 68 of the court of appeal judgment from 2002 it says there was no billing information of the kind there is today. That paragraph has some other stuff about the effect on Bamber's phone if he had been called from WHF and the caller had abandoned the call leaving the phone off the cradle. LJ, maybe you could look at that.

Meanwhile, I am going to ruminate on Guybrush Threepwood's irritating poser. More anon.

For sure there was no billing information. But I contend that BT may very well have had this information by way of their call-logging computers in the analogue exchange - even though this information was not used at that time in billing records. I can only hope that somebody either on the crown or defence side (or both) contacted actual engineering/network management people at BT to ascertain whether BT had gathered these data for internal use.

On the other point, I believe this is central to showing that Jeremy Bamber lied about the nature of the phone calls that night. At that time, if one party (here, Nevill Bamber) called another party (here, Jeremy Bamber), and the first party (i.e. the one who placed the call) did not replace the handset on the cradle, then the second party (the called party) would be stuck with an open line. It would not be possible for the second party to briefly replace his handset on the cradle and then pick it up again and hear a dial tone. Instead, the second party would still hear the open connection to the first party. For the second party to break the open line and enable a dial tone (and thus the ability to make a new outgoing call), the second party would have to place the handset on the cradle and wait for something like 2 minutes, at which point the exchange would automatically terminate the open line and enable the second party to receive a dial tone when the handset was picked up again.

And, IIRC, Jeremy Bamber had claimed that Nevill Bamber phoned him in panic, then Nevill Bamber dropped the phone and all Jeremy could hear was background noise. Jeremy claims (IIRC) that he then very briefly replaced his own handset on the cradle, and was able to get a dial tone when he picked the handset up again - at which point he claims he immediately made an outgoing call to the police. But this claimed sequence of events simply wouldn't have been possible. If Jeremy had only briefly placed his phone back on the cradle, when he picked it up again he would still have been connected to the open line from Neville Bamber (and would presumably have heard more background noise from White House Farm). In order for Jeremy to have been able to get a dial tone - and to thus have been able to call the police - he would have to have placed his phone on the cradle and waited for about 2 minutes before picking the phone up again. He never claimed to have done this - he claimed that he was able to make the new outgoing call to the police more-or-less immediately.

 

[Essexman]

What is interesting about the alleged phone call from Neville, Is that Jeremy sais in a police interview that the Telecom provider could prove the call happened, Then the police tell him they cant, Jeremy Bamber believed the phone company would have a record.


I have tried to insert an image of it but it wont let me until I have made 15 posts on this forum