Phone Calls

[Erik Narramore]

If he planned it, he planned it.  Tracing of phone calls is a very obvious point.  If what Rob said on the other thread is true and the line could only be closed at the caller end, then Jeremy can't stage the call from Nevill.  It's impossible.  Furthermore, we know that Jeremy did later on make calls from Bourtree Cottage.
Thus, what the guilt camp are telling us is that Jeremy has decided to wing it and invent a call from Nevill and hope either that the police don't check with BT or there is no practicable way of establishing the position.  I find that rather unlikely.  The pro-guilt camp agree with me, which is why they explain it as Jeremy's arrogance.  Notice what Jane is saying.  Think about it.  Jane is tacitly conceding the point, but saying: 'Oh, but Jeremy is arrogant and would have chanced it'.  Jeremy's supposed 'arrogance' has become the deus ex machina of the pro-guilt camp as they confront the practical and logical difficulties of the prosecution scenario.

My own belief is that, if Jeremy did this, the phone calls were an unplanned aspect and thought up on the hoof due to Nevill ending up in the kitchen.  This is based on the simple logical observation that Jeremy could not - and would not - plan for Nevill to be in the kitchen.  Even if Jeremy knew that Nevill would be sleeping downstairs, he would kill Nevill where he found him, for two reasons: (i). he needs to make it look like Sheila has run amok; and (ii). he needs to kill Nevill anyway.  If Nevill's body is found in such a way that suggests he was struggling with Sheila in the kitchen, Jeremy may have decided he needed to give himself what he considered to be the extra insurance of an 'alibi', otherwise investigators might well ask how it came to be that Nevill is running through the house away from a slight, weak woman (of course, there are rational explanations for this anyway - for one thing, she has a loaded rifle - but we need not go into that now, and the point is that Jeremy will not have thought about it that way).

In that scenario, Jeremy may well have decided to wing it, but the guilt camp also want us to believe that Jeremy would tell the police to make inquiries with BT.  Why would Jeremy do that?

My goodness, this Jeremy was a helpful, public-spirited chap wasn't he!  He commits mass murder and helps the police catch him.  I suppose it was only fair, as Taff did give him a sporting chance at the start.

[Erik Narramore]

Adam:
Very doubtful. Once Bamber puts his phone down if taking a call from Nevill, then the line will be open.

It's called ending a phone conversation.

You've just contradicted yourself.  You mean you think the line would be closed?

The problem Rob describes is well-known, so I will investigate the point myself and not rely on your assurances, thanks.

Interesting to know we've hit another roadblock in the prosecution case that can only be overcome by falling back on 'Jeremy's arrogance'.

Adam:
As said, Bamber would -

Ring his answering machine from WHF. Leave a 10 second message. Hang up.

That ends the call. On both ends.

I thought of this as well.  It's in my Jeremy scenario, albeit I agree that if he is going to stage the call in a way that is sensitive to timings (which is the only reason he would do it), then he must terminate the call at the farm end, leave the handset off the hook, and he absolutely must return to Bourtree Cottage by push bike (whatever the practicalities of this method of conveyance, another issue).

I had understood that an answerphone at Bourtree Cottage was examined by the police, but I don't recall where that is confirmed.  Assuming that is the case, then it must be that Jeremy had a second answerphone, which he rigged up on the night and then hid.

Another issue here is, if Jeremy did have an answerphone at the cottage that was seized by the police, how did Jeremy take the call from Nevill in the first place?  Surely if Nevill had first started speaking into the answerphone, that evidence would have been retained by police?  Is Jeremy saying that he just didn't connect the answerphone that evening (they did have an on-off switch in those days, I seem to recall)?

Rob:
If the answer phone was off QC the phone would ring but no call would be registered? I did read somewhere that the police removed a answerphone but don't quote me.

I've just realised that the answerphone theory doesn't stand up.  Before I explain why, I will address your comment.  You're overlooking that if Jeremy is guilty, he has obtained a second answerphone and rigged that up and switched it on prior to leaving for White House Farm.  On the other hand, if Jeremy is innocent, the answer function on the phone has simply been switched off, meaning that the phone would ring on in the normal manner without the interruption of an automated message.

Now I will explain why the answerphone theory doesn't hold together.  The reason is that in order for it to work, Jeremy would need to obtain a second phone that would be used that night then hid from the police, but as I have already explained, Jeremy could not have planned to stage a call as he had no way of knowing that Nevill would be in the kitchen and there was no phone in the bedroom, so he had no means to explain how Nevill could reach a phone.

A pro-guilt person could reply to this by saying that Jeremy could have planned to stage a pre-incident call from Nevill as part of an alibi, but if you think about this within the parameters of a prosecution scenario, that can't work and this would be intuitive and obvious to Jeremy, if he were guilty.  The bottom line is, he has to kill Nevill in bed or wherever Nevill is sleeping.  Anything else represents the plan going awry.

I am swinging back and forth on this case, but I am very doubtful that Jeremy could have carried out this plan.  If he did, then I'm still struggling to see how he did it.