Phone Calls - Do The Timings Work?

Started by Erik Narramore, January 28, 2022, 04:16:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Erik Narramore

Jeremy is not relying on call times, as such, for his story.  What he is telling them is that Nevill has rung him at about 3.10 a.m. and he has then "immediately" - his words in the first statement - rung the police.

To my knowledge, the prosecution allege a roughly 10-minute gap.

If Jeremy is now saying he rang the police at something like 3.30 a.m., that can't be relied on.  If we're honest, none of the times given for calls can be relied on, though I'm of the view that Jeremy must have called the police at about 3.24 a.m.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

Jeremy does lie and he also gets aspects of his own case wrong.  I think at one point he was trying to say that he actually rang the police at 3.30 a.m. or thereabouts, implying that he rang Julie first.  The reason he started saying this is to trap the police into a position that would allow a prior 999 call from someone else.

In any event, the times cannot be relied on from anybody, though my personal view is that PC West (or was it Bonnett?) was confusing the start time of his call with the end time and Jeremy must have rung PC West at 3.24 a.m.

3.24 a.m. is the bookend for timings as far as I concerned - whether that helps or hinders the prosecution or defence, or neither, is no concern of mine.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams