Author Topic: A question for Jackie:  (Read 2326 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18896
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #285 on: May 18, 2017, 08:56:PM »
I agree.  At some point it will probably be made public though.

But that just sounds like the CT and their claims that items haven't been disclosed - you could carry on saying that ad infinitum.
What is the face of a coward? The back of his head as he runs out the door and abandons his principles.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 15419
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #286 on: May 18, 2017, 08:57:PM »
;D ;D ;D ;D 8) 8)

Hi Maggie
I was sat further down the aisle from Roch I was sent along to keep my eye on him and his bag of evidence we thought somebody might be lurking in the toilets hehehe

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12547
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #287 on: May 18, 2017, 09:00:PM »
Hi Maggie
I was sat further down the aisle from Roch I was sent along to keep my eye on him and his bag of evidence we thought somebody might be lurking in the toilets hehehe
:o :o ;D ;D

Offline JackieD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #288 on: May 18, 2017, 09:47:PM »
I think I spelled Learjet wrong. 

Seriously though - the source of the new/old evidence is Essex Constabulary.  It is their own evidence.  Its original intended use would have been as proof that the case was four murders and one suicude.  It was made to 'disappear' because it could not be used in the case against Jeremy.  It has reappeared as part of the evidence that has been disclosed in more recent years.

Like I say - I wouldn't worry.  I have absolutely no confidence that the CCRC will refer the case.  Your main concern should be the potential impact on public opinion.

Exactly, and the timing is perfect

Offline Roch

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9409
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #289 on: May 19, 2017, 01:40:AM »
But that just sounds like the CT and their claims that items haven't been disclosed - you could carry on saying that ad infinitum.

I don't get what you mean. And if you are referring to the disclosure booklet - how do you know that things being asked for have been disclosed? Is everyone linked to the defence sitting on top of all the stuff mentioned in the booklet but pretending they haven't actually got it and asking for it to be released again?

The evidence I refer to is real. It is something that has been skirted around on here. Delved in to by several posters. For example, Mike and Hartley argued about it. Mike got it right. Hartley got it wrong.  Other posters have visited it from both sides of the fence.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 01:41:AM by Roch »
"She was on a mission - a date with death, in league with the devil..." 

(Mike Tesko 2012)

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18896
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #290 on: May 19, 2017, 09:45:AM »
I don't get what you mean. And if you are referring to the disclosure booklet - how do you know that things being asked for have been disclosed? Is everyone linked to the defence sitting on top of all the stuff mentioned in the booklet but pretending they haven't actually got it and asking for it to be released again?

The evidence I refer to is real. It is something that has been skirted around on here. Delved in to by several posters. For example, Mike and Hartley argued about it. Mike got it right. Hartley got it wrong.  Other posters have visited it from both sides of the fence.

Because anyone can say this or that exists and proves A or B and you can go on saying that but that doesn't mean it actually does exist. For instance tape of Nevill's call to the police - I don't believe for one single second such a tape exists because I don't believe that Nevill called the police in the first place. EP can't produce what they don't have.

As for the evidence you refer to; from what you say people have debated it so it can't be compelling evidence - it can still be argued and how do you know Mike got it right and Hartley got it wrong? Also if it is already on this forum, I fail to see why you're not able to point to the debate in question?
What is the face of a coward? The back of his head as he runs out the door and abandons his principles.

Offline Roch

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9409
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #291 on: May 19, 2017, 04:03:PM »
Because anyone can say this or that exists and proves A or B and you can go on saying that but that doesn't mean it actually does exist. For instance tape of Nevill's call to the police - I don't believe for one single second such a tape exists because I don't believe that Nevill called the police in the first place. EP can't produce what they don't have.

As for the evidence you refer to; from what you say people have debated it so it can't be compelling evidence - it can still be argued and how do you know Mike got it right and Hartley got it wrong? Also if it is already on this forum, I fail to see why you're not able to point to the debate in question?

I used to have these kind of arguments with Hartley.  I can remember expressing that the reverse to there having been a prosecution led 'conspiracy' is a defence led 'conspiracy'. 

What is being asked for are missing items of evidence, for which there exists only 'trace evidence' within the body of material already disclosed to the defence  / CT.   It is not 'invented' evidence.

The fact that Mike got something right and Hartley got it wrong is a very interesting diversion to explore. 

Mike Tesko can get facts wrong because he is prone to theorise and he has gone on record expressing that if it's OK for the prosecution to bend facts to suit - then it's OK for him to do the same in response. Even though he can ask sublime questions on the case and point out glaring inconsistencies - he is essentially undermined by his other posting traits.

Vs

Hartley could get a lot of things wrong because he is a very strict adherent of the official line given by the prosecution and authorities: typed witness statements; Dickinson findings; and CCRC etc etc.  He does not and will not deviate from the official line.  All prosecution evidence is kosher; bona-fide etc etc.   His rigidity does not allow for any skullduggery in the case, among the prosecution side: i.e. police; relatives; and using 'red tape' to deliberately impede etc.

The reason why one is right and one is wrong in this instance is purely black and white.  Like the panic alarm.  When Vic and others were right and Mike was wrong.  It's as simple as that.  With reference to evidence I am referring to Mike was right.  Scipio was also wrong on the same evidence.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 04:06:PM by Roch »
"She was on a mission - a date with death, in league with the devil..." 

(Mike Tesko 2012)

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2043
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #292 on: May 19, 2017, 07:13:PM »

Hartley could get a lot of things wrong because he is a very strict adherent of the official line given by the prosecution and authorities: typed witness statements; Dickinson findings; and CCRC etc etc.  He does not and will not deviate from the official line.  All prosecution evidence is kosher; bona-fide etc etc.   His rigidity does not allow for any skullduggery in the case, among the prosecution side: i.e. police; relatives; and using 'red tape' to deliberately impede etc.
.

I don't adhere to anything Roch, I'm happy to consider skullduggery, just show me the evidence to support its existence.

The same is true regardless of the argument, I'm fairly measured and reasonable in dismissing claims both for or against if there isn't evidence to support them.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18896
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #293 on: May 19, 2017, 07:16:PM »
I used to have these kind of arguments with Hartley.  I can remember expressing that the reverse to there having been a prosecution led 'conspiracy' is a defence led 'conspiracy'. 

What is being asked for are missing items of evidence, for which there exists only 'trace evidence' within the body of material already disclosed to the defence  / CT.   It is not 'invented' evidence.

The fact that Mike got something right and Hartley got it wrong is a very interesting diversion to explore. 

Mike Tesko can get facts wrong because he is prone to theorise and he has gone on record expressing that if it's OK for the prosecution to bend facts to suit - then it's OK for him to do the same in response. Even though he can ask sublime questions on the case and point out glaring inconsistencies - he is essentially undermined by his other posting traits.

Vs

Hartley could get a lot of things wrong because he is a very strict adherent of the official line given by the prosecution and authorities: typed witness statements; Dickinson findings; and CCRC etc etc.  He does not and will not deviate from the official line.  All prosecution evidence is kosher; bona-fide etc etc.   His rigidity does not allow for any skullduggery in the case, among the prosecution side: i.e. police; relatives; and using 'red tape' to deliberately impede etc.

The reason why one is right and one is wrong in this instance is purely black and white.  Like the panic alarm.  When Vic and others were right and Mike was wrong.  It's as simple as that.  With reference to evidence I am referring to Mike was right.  Scipio was also wrong on the same evidence.

Except that you haven't answered the question, you haven't said how you know who was wrong and who was right and if it can be debated then it's hardly compelling, just a matter of opinion.
What is the face of a coward? The back of his head as he runs out the door and abandons his principles.

Offline Roch

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9409
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #294 on: May 19, 2017, 07:59:PM »
Except that you haven't answered the question, you haven't said how you know who was wrong and who was right and if it can be debated then it's hardly compelling, just a matter of opinion.

The simple answer is that it's not a matter of opinion. Hartley has never once agreed there is a bloodied palm print on the Bible. Do you think that is a matter of opinion - or is Hartley just plain wrong?  Remember I pointed out that he won't deviate from the official line.  People have made the error of misreading the evidence I am referring to - because they have been misled.
"She was on a mission - a date with death, in league with the devil..." 

(Mike Tesko 2012)

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18896
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #295 on: May 19, 2017, 08:09:PM »
The simple answer is that it's not a matter of opinion. Hartley has never once agreed there is a bloodied palm print on the Bible. Do you think that is a matter of opinion - or is Hartley just plain wrong?  Remember I pointed out that he won't deviate from the official line.  People have made the error of misreading the evidence I am referring to - because they have been misled.

Not sure what one has to do with the other but the notion of the palm print originated from Jeremy. It is a matter of opinion given that it has never officially been confirmed. I still say that as far as being mislead is concerned, that can happen both ways and maybe you have been mislead. When someone says "No, no, don't believe that, believe this" they add their slant and who knows which version is correct? Maybe neither or maybe the truth is some place in the middle.
What is the face of a coward? The back of his head as he runs out the door and abandons his principles.

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2043
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #296 on: May 19, 2017, 08:13:PM »
The simple answer is that it's not a matter of opinion. Hartley has never once agreed there is a bloodied palm print on the Bible. Do you think that is a matter of opinion - or is Hartley just plain wrong?  Remember I pointed out that he won't deviate from the official line.  People have made the error of misreading the evidence I am referring to - because they have been misled.

It is an opinion of some lay people that there is a bloodied Palm print on the bible.

That is not enough to convince me. I am of the 'opinion' that it would have been identified as such long before now, if it were the case.

However, if an expert in a relevant field provides evidence that it is indeed a palm print, then that would be another matter.

It is not a case of being 'Right' or 'Wrong', and I rarely adopt such absolutes.

I do not believe I am being unreasonable with my opinion on this.

Your sustained attack on my views is rather unsavoury and simply an attempt to dismiss and undermine them without actually having cause to do so. I suspect you would have greater success trying to push water up hill.  :-\
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 08:30:PM by Hartley. »

Offline JackieD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #297 on: May 19, 2017, 08:25:PM »
The simple answer is that it's not a matter of opinion. Hartley has never once agreed there is a bloodied palm print on the Bible. Do you think that is a matter of opinion - or is Hartley just plain wrong?  Remember I pointed out that he won't deviate from the official line.  People have made the error of misreading the evidence I am referring to - because they have been misled.

Interesting and informative post
You have shared some great information with Mark

Offline Roch

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9409
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #298 on: May 20, 2017, 01:49:PM »
Not sure what one has to do with the other but the notion of the palm print originated from Jeremy. It is a matter of opinion given that it has never officially been confirmed. I still say that as far as being mislead is concerned, that can happen both ways and maybe you have been mislead. When someone says "No, no, don't believe that, believe this" they add their slant and who knows which version is correct? Maybe neither or maybe the truth is some place in the middle.

I'm 100% certain that you believe 100% - that it's a palm print. 

I can assure you - I have not been misled.  It's not that type of evidence.  The only way it would be possible to mislead regarding this evidence, would be to conceal it and tell lies about it.  That is what was achieved under DCS Michael Ainsley's stewardship - in order to prosecute Jeremy.  Without such concealment and lies, it would not have been possible to prosecute Jeremy.

It is an opinion of some lay people that there is a bloodied Palm print on the bible.

That is not enough to convince me. I am of the 'opinion' that it would have been identified as such long before now, if it were the case.

However, if an expert in a relevant field provides evidence that it is indeed a palm print, then that would be another matter.

It is not a case of being 'Right' or 'Wrong', and I rarely adopt such absolutes.

I do not believe I am being unreasonable with my opinion on this.

Your sustained attack on my views is rather unsavoury and simply an attempt to dismiss and undermine them without actually having cause to do so. I suspect you would have greater success trying to push water up hill.  :-\

You know it's a palm print but you wouldn't admit it as such - because that is not the official prosecution case.  I repeat - your downfall on here is, that you will not countenance any deviation from the prosecution case. 


Interesting and informative post
You have shared some great information with Mark

Do you mean MWT  or Mark Higgs?  I've had no contact with MWT for years. Don't recall exchanging  much with of any note with Mark Higgs recently.  Though I do plan to ask him a few things if I get round to it.  I think his recent video was correct in terms of the political aspect - but not so sure regarding some of the other claims made in it.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 01:49:PM by Roch »
"She was on a mission - a date with death, in league with the devil..." 

(Mike Tesko 2012)

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2043
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #299 on: May 20, 2017, 01:54:PM »
You know it's a palm print but you wouldn't admit it as such - because that is not the official prosecution case.  I repeat - your downfall on here is, that you will not countenance any deviation from the prosecution case. 

Please refer to the post which you have quoted, my position is quite clear.