0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Because it was the least of his worries.He had bigger fish to fry,like slotting together myriads of files/documents of a more important nature----------such as why everyone was out to fleece him.
Really? Well, he answered a question about a small piece of wire that your were all debating at the time. The wire was under the bedside table - I would say THAT was of a lot smaller relevance than the wallet.
Wire ? It was either from the telephone or electric blanket-----but I fail to see its relevance.?
What wire??
It was unimportant - something that was brought up here and too long was spent on it. I asked Jeremy about it so we could move on. He answered that irrelevant question but not the question about the wallet. It makes his 'final' explanation weak.
Doesn't make him a murderer though.
No, murdering makes him a murderer.
Here is the relevant thread about the wallet saga.I have to say, I think Caroline has misinterpreted Ann Eaton's statement. There appears to be nothing in this.Not for the first time, I am in agreement with Adam about something. He says the same.
I believe Gringo dissected this as early as 2015. He has written some good breakdowns on it.
I will look at that, but I realised there was something wrong as soon as I saw the relevant part of Ann's statement. I must also credit Adam for his integrity in the matter.
The trouble is that the more detail you go into the more your claims fall apart. Why do you miss out the word "specific" when you ask; "how do you answer a question if you can't remember what the question is" ? The most important detail about the wallet saga is your disingenuous claim that JB avoided answering for two years when this is not actually true. JB's words to you when you pointed out that he hadn't answered a question were, "I don't remember the specific question but the answer is no, or I didn't, why would I" or words to that effect. This was according to you, and my memory, some six weeks or so after the initial letter. What can we infer from this reply, assuming that our comprehension skills are at least that of a reasonably intelligent adult. First thing to notice is that the reply he gives does in fact answer the question that Caroline asked and that JB's reply covers the two different ways that Caroline herself has framed the question. The question was posed to Jeremy, "how did you know how much was in your father's wallet?" and also "did you know how much was in your father's wallet?" This is from Caroline's own posts on this matter. The distinction is important and telling. Telling because Caroline can't even bother to get right her own question but expects total recall from JB. From JB's reply it can be inferred that he remembers the question is about the contents of his father's wallet but cannot remember whether he was asked "how he knew?" or "if he knew?". This can be deduced from the fact that he felt confident enough to answer anyway. Also this is identical to the reply he gave when asked for the third time two years later. So Caroline presumably believes that this was just massive coincidence. What other explanation could there be for JB giving the same reply, when according to Caroline, JB didn't remember the question. Maybe that word "specific" is important and that is why you miss it out in order to misrepresent and dissemble, or perhaps your comprehension skills really are that poor. To claim that he still hasn't answered the question after this reply is absurd. To back your claim up by missing out important qualifying caveats ie. the word "specific" betrays either a woeful lack of comprehension skills or wilful dissembling. This is why your claimed insights from your now notorious and selectively quoted letters raise nothing more than eyebrows to the discerning reader on here and are widely seen as a joke. That you wrote again anyway two years later and asked again about the contents of his murdered father's wallet after being told "no, or I didn't. Why would I?" is preposterous and crass. Didn't really want to get sidetracked onto this again but you did bring it up so only fair to point out that it was debunked long ago as a gross misrepresentation. You also still haven't told us how many questions JB allegedly "avoided answering", nor how many you asked and there is still no response as to why you conclude that he overlooked rather than avoided.
