Call To Julie

[Erik Narramore]

Adam:
I first mentioned the answering machine years ago. And today in reply 9!

Jeremy says he received the call from Nevill at roughly 3.10 a.m.

Susan Battersby claims it was 3.12 a.m. when Julie came into her room after the brief call from Jeremy.

If Jeremy is guilty:

(i). at what time do you say he called the answering machine at Bourtree Cottage from the farmhouse?
and,
(ii). at what time does he call Julie from Bourtree Cottage?

Munksa:
Did he even have an answering machine pre murder though? Unless it can be established then it's waste of my time imo to discuss.

I have head of this answering machine but he got it pro murders.

Munksa,

If Jeremy is guilty, he must have at least one answering machine pre-murders, maybe two if he wants a 'clean' one for the murders that he then hides or destroys while he pretends his usual one was not switched-on that evening.

Munksa:
No clue QC

Sorry, it would have to be the one answering machine.  The reason I am getting confused is because I have been looping together all the logical deductions and it gets convoluted and confusing.

I now realise that he can't have planned the phone calls.  It follows that he had just the one answering machine and if he is guilty, that must have been switched on.  He has then opportunistically come up with the idea of the call on the hoof, then it goes as Adam says - he rings his own number, presses the hook switch down, leaves the handset off the hook, then takes the ladies push bike back.  He then unravels things at the other end by disposing of the answerphone tape or deleting the record on the phone digitally (hoping that there is no way for it to be recovered by forensic examination).  He rings Julie, then the police, etc., etc.

I accept all this is possible, but in order for it to be plausible I need a solution to the problem of timings.  Remember, he is making three calls:

- one to himself;
- one to Julie;
- one to the police.

How does he manage to keep the timings consistent, bearing in mind he is staging this on the assumption that there could be a traceable record at the telephone exchange of what he is doing?

Specifically, this is what I asked Adam:

Quote from: QCChevalier on January 08, 2022, 06:09:PM
Jeremy says he received the call from Nevill at roughly 3.10 a.m.

Susan Battersby claims it was 3.12 a.m. when Julie came into her room after the brief call from Jeremy.

If Jeremy is guilty:

(i). at what time do you say he called the answering machine at Bourtree Cottage from the farmhouse?
and,
(ii). at what time does he call Julie from Bourtree Cottage?

Or do we say that he doesn't care about the timings of calls, he even invents the call from Nevill?  If so, what does he need the bike for?

Jane:
Surely all he needed was a spare tape? I seem to think the early answer machines were like mini tape recorders.

It depends on the model and type of machine used.  Do we know?

Munksa:
Agreed! This is why I don't want to think of a scenario unless I am sure he definitely had one pre murders

I think you misunderstand.  I'm not arguing against scenarios, I merely say that it is confusing because we have to think in reverse about how he might have planned it.

My questions still stand.  At what times did he make the relevant calls?  Or do you say he simply invented the call from Nevill?

Adam:
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10965.0.html

I have done a recent time scale of the massacre.

At what time does he ring himself from the farm?

Your time for ringing Julie is different to that given by the prosecution.  Susan Battersby seems very sure that Julie came into her room at 3.12 a.m. immediately after her call from Jeremy.

Rob:
If he simply invents the call from Nevil QC then there is no need to delay? He either phones the Police direct, or even better 999 and just says my farther just called etc.

The delay suggests to me he faked a call from WHF?

Yes, could be.  If you accept Susan Battersby's evidence, then you have a 10-minute or so delay which I assume is needed by the guilt camp so that Jeremy can hurriedly cycle back.  But I think they forget that he is cycling back in the dark and being careful not to be seen around Goldhanger and the cottage.

I'm still doubtful that this adds up.  It does look like he winged it and invented the call from Nevill, if he is a guilty.

Adam:
Well there are lots of different times as to when he phoned Julie. Bamber wasn't even sure if he phoned her before or after the police.

He phoned himself around 3am.

So Susan Battersby's evidence is wrong now?  How convenient for you, to leave the times open like that; but we do have a definite book-end, because PC West must have taken Jeremy's call no later than 3.25 a.m., probably 3.24 a.m.

Let's see:

He phones himself at 3 a.m.

We're now disregarding Susan Battersby's evidence.  She must have been lying.

We'll err on the side of the prosecution and say he cycled back to the cottage in reasonably quick order.  DI Wilson managed it in 16 minutes during daylight.  How about 25 minutes?

He then composes himself, but wait, he needs to ring the police.

It's now 3.27 a.m.  He should have been speaking with PC West three minutes ago, and he first has to ring two other police numbers and he also needs to ring Julie.

Oh dear.

OK.  Let's say he cycles there in 20 minutes.  Then it becomes just about possible, but it means he only has minutes to make multiple phone calls and compose and collect himself, etc., etc.

To me, this doesn't add up.  Or rather, it only adds up if you shave more time off his cycle journey between the crime scene and the cottage.  Shall we say 17 minutes?  But it took DI Wilkinson 16 minutes in daylight.

It remains doubtful he could have done this.  Sorry.

Adam:
Why are you focusing on SB? There are about 6 people who give varying times on when Bamber called Julie.

The reason should be obvious, if you know the case.

It is Susan Battersby who was encouraged by the police to give a precise time [*date], and she obliged them.  Interestingly, this was not the time of Jeremy's call, rather it was the time that Julie came into Susan Battersby room after Jeremy's call - though Jeremy's call was brief, hence the significance of the time given.  I wonder why Julie did that?  Perhaps we should pass over that question in silence, as a famous philosopher once said.

As you rightly say, the flatmates were all over the place with times, even suggesting it could have been any time between 2.00 and 3.30 a.m.!  But that doesn't help the prosecution case, does it.  It means Jeremy could be as right as the flatmates about when he rang Julie, and in that regard, you have not a leg to stand on.

Anyway, whichever way you look at it, if you are saying Jeremy has staged the call, then it doesn't add up.

If you want to change your story and say that Jeremy just made up the call from Nevill out of thin air, fine.  In that case, you don't need June's bike, Jeremy can just go back on foot.

ilovebooze:
This is my point. And I apologise if I've missed anything. If they could trace a length of a call they could surely prove if said call took place at all? So why didn't the police or prosecution or defence use this?

If Jeremy is guilty, I don't believe he could have planned the call from Nevill or staged one, which leaves only the option of inventing a call from Nevill.

Actually he probably phoned his cottage around 2.50am. Then phoned Julie around 3.15am.

In all the excitement he lost track of time. Or thought a shorter gap between receiving Nevill's call & phoning the police was better.

So now we're saying Jeremy phoned himself at 2.50 a.m.

We'll err on the side of the prosecution and say he has nothing else to do in the farmhouse at this point and can leave quickly.  So he makes off from the farm reasonably smartly at 2.55 a.m.

Adam says he rings Julie from the cottage at 3.15 a.m.  You'll see immediately that the timings are still tight.  He has to be very careful not to be seen around Goldhanger and the cottage especially.

For this to work, he needs to be at the cottage by 3.10 a.m. and then ring Julie quickly and only be on the phone with her briefly.

He speaks with PC West at 3.24 a.m., so he has a 10-minute window after his call to Julie to shower, change and compose himself.

All the time he is doing this, it will be on his mind that the police may ask him why it took him almost 35 minutes to get through to the police.  This must be why he lied in his statement and said 3.10 a.m. for Nevill's call.  He then suggests to the police in an interview that they should check on the call times with British Telecom.

Of course, all of this is possible, but the issue here is plausibility: it doesn't sound convincing to me.

Munksa:
If he had planned this murders for months, I am sure he would have done his homework if calls could be traced or not.

One could say he was adamant because he knew it couldn't.

He even said a pathetic thing in desperation , that a witness could have seen him through the window taking the call! Ya right, what are the chances of someone seeing him taking a call at 3am in a quiet rural  " sleepy" village?

Who told him?  Where did he find this information?  How?

Adam:
Just need a BT log to show a 10 second phone call took place at 3.10am from WHF on the night.

Good luck finding that.

Oh & Bamber is saying he phoned the police at 3.36am. So there is time.

So to be clear, now you're saying that Jeremy was telling the truth all along and he rang Julie at 3.30 a.m.?

Adam:
That is what I just said. Assuming he did phone WHF at all.

And assuming he did phone Julie at 3.15am.

Bamber told the police he received Nevill's call around 3.10am.

What is the problem.

The problem is that you're all over the place.  You're the one who boasts that you know it all about this case and that Jeremy is definitely guilty beyond all doubt, so make up your mind please about what occurred.

You're being evasive and changing the times and explanations when cornered because the prosecution case does not add up.

If Jeremy did this, he must have invented the call from Nevill, but he then tells the police to check with BT.  It's now suggested he was just being cocky.  I note that whenever a stumbling block arises in this case, it's always put down to Jeremy being arrogant or cocky.  That's the go-to explanation.

Ok, let's say he was being cocky, we're still left with doubt about the safety of the conviction because we have a story that doesn't add up.

Someone else says Jeremy must have established the position with BT as part of his planning.  So he rang up BT and asked them?  I can only assume he must have done so under a false name.  Who did he speak to?  I doubt an ordinary BT operator would know this information.  The police looked into this and needed a witness statement from an engineer and even his evidence is inconclusive.

Adam:
This is a straight forward scenario.

QC will try to go around in circles on specific times.

If Bamber did phone his cottage from WHF, it would be around 2.45am - 3.00am.

He then cycles back & phones Julie/the police.

That is if he did phone WHF.

You are now putting the time back potentially by another five minutes, but conceding that you think it could have been as late as 3.00 a.m., when I have already shown you that this is next-to-impossible, and certainly rather implausible.

You don't have a clue.

Munksa:
I wish I had an answer to that.

Where there a will there is a way. He could have started it as casual conversation, he knew lots of people around London Clubs and I am sure sone of them will be unsavoury character. He could have got an idea.

Mind you I said COULD.

I don't believe it, sorry.  You just need to think about it logically.  He needed to be sure.  That means he needed to speak to somebody with knowledge of analogue telephony engineering.  He needed to conduct this conversation in such a way that the expert does not know who he is and cannot alert the police at a later point - even months down the line.  It's the sort of thing the person asked would remember.

I will accept that it is possible that he could have convinced himself of the point on some level, perhaps through something as trivial as a TV documentary or engineering magazine article or whatever.

However, there is doubt here.  You admit that you can't produce to me even something on a probable level that would suggest he could have obtained this information from an innocent source.  A man is in prison.  I totally appreciate the gravity and tragedy of the crime, but we can't just go round making assumptions like this.