Guardian re Boyce findings

[Caroline]

why would the star prosecution witness continue for a certain amount time continue accompanying him, sleeping with him and professing to love the bones of him, only ceasing to do so and approaching the police upon him dumping her " this so called road to Damascus moment" why would the relatives take the tenandcy of whf after what happened? Would you want to be near such a place armed with the knowledge of what ghastly deeds took place. And reference Jeremy referring to two different scenarios, maybe after fighting for almost 35 years he is tired and is trying every avenue to get to the appeal court. For a moment imagine if you are innocent and have been fighting for 30 odd years.......

You have asked this time and time again, rejecting every answer put forward. You can continue to do that and we can continue to reply with the answers previously given but as we don't know what Julie's motives were and can only guess. It's a pointless exercise.

Now answer the question I asked you!

[Caroline]

Oh no, they don't breed. If EP said there were three then there were three !

No, there were three exhibit references and the reason why has been explain more times than enough.

[Roch]

If they 're-wrote' it, it would say something new/different - it doesn't!

But they did re-write it. Their exact motivation for re-writing it cannot be known, only speculated.  Why would they risk doing something so serious?  Who would dare attempt to re-write a log unless thy had been ordered to do so? 

[Caroline]

But they did re-write it. Their exact motivation for re-writing it cannot be known, only speculated.  Why would they risk doing something so serious?  Who would dare attempt to re-write a log unless thy had been ordered to do so?

Have you seen these logs?

[lookout]

No, there were three exhibit references and the reason why has been explain more times than enough.

Judging by police records CONFIRM that they "seized"----took----physically handled 3 silencers in 1985.

[Caroline]

How can his culpability be 'the point' within the context of police officers re-writing incident logs?  I couldn't see any logs attached to your post.

I haven't attached the logs, but from that, I gather you haven't seen them?

[Caroline]

Judging by police records CONFIRM that they "seized"----took----physically handled 3 silencers in 1985.

Which records?

[Roch]

I haven't attached the logs, but from that, I gather you haven't seen them?

I've seen tonnes of logs over the years. I'm not sure which ones you're referring to.

[lookout]

Which records?

During the 2002 appeal, the records that someone must have been sitting on since 1985.

The 2002 appeal documents are on here aren't they ? That fact will be contained within them.

[Caroline]

I've seen tonnes of logs over the years. I'm not sure which ones you're referring to.

The varies copies alleged to have been rewritten by West - isn't that what you're talking about?

[Roch]

The varies copies alleged to have been rewritten by West - isn't that what you're talking about?

Yes I think I have seen some of them before. They were doing it for a reason.  it wasnt handwriting practice.

[Caroline]

During the 2002 appeal, the records that someone must have been sitting on since 1985.

The 2002 appeal documents are on here aren't they ? That fact will be contained within them.

Where? http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[Caroline]

Yes I think I have seen some of them before. They were doing it for a reason.  it want handwriting practice.

?

[ILB]

You have asked this time and time again, rejecting every answer put forward. You can continue to do that and we can continue to reply with the answers previously given but as we don't know what Julie's motives were and can only guess. It's a pointless exercise.

Now answer the question I asked you!

it's only pointless because your can't justify it. And if you read carefully you will see I've already answered you. Only takes a moment ......

[Caroline]

it's only pointless because your can't justify it. And if you read carefully you will see I've already answered you. Only takes a moment ......

So, it's OK to lie through your teeth in order to try and get an appeal. An innocent man wouldn't need to.