Why Nevill didn't call the Police

[Roch]

What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! 

I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.

Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.

So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?

Looks like possible crossed wires?  The gbros do like to have a bit of banter.  I hope Tyler does re-register.  I know that paul is stout-hearted enough to take a bit of flak, when wires get crossed, as they inevitabley do from time to time one here. 

[chochokeira]

By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates  it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.

One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.

From the 2002 Appeal

292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”

The flatmates gave different times so if colluding, as detailed in your opinion, the colusion was wide open for exploitation and harsh probing questions by the defence at trial. They surely would have smelt blood and gone for broke. Jeremy had a prominent QC representing him at the original trial. A prime example would been the current stories about the Millie Dowler murder conviction. It has been reported the family of Millie Dowler stating the ordeal of the trial was not worth the conviction.

Besides what did the flatmates have to gain in Jeremy's potential conviction............. There are no reports of any of them having a deal with a newspaper and none were due to gain any inheritance. Such details have been made known in the defence's discrediting of other witnesses.

Flatmate Susan Battersby appears to have gained from Jeremy's conviction.

"...in exchange for information Essex police helped get Susan out of a conviction for bank cheque fraud, and her witness statement was given to the police under the clear belief that ‘she would not be taken before the court as a result of making (her) statement…’ "

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TWMfY6ClmTQJ:youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/innocent-man-part-8.html+bamber+susan+battersby,+fraud&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk

[clifford]

What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! 

I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.

Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.

So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?

Paulg, I was merely pointing out that Tylers question was valid. I don,t think she meant the odds in literal terms,it was just a phrase.
I do not agree with personal attacks on anyone, and if it seemed I was defending that part of Tylers post, then I apologise.

[Hartley]

By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates  it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.

One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.

From the 2002 Appeal

292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”

The flatmates gave different times so if colluding, as detailed in your opinion, the colusion was wide open for exploitation and harsh probing questions by the defence at trial. They surely would have smelt blood and gone for broke. Jeremy had a prominent QC representing him at the original trial. A prime example would been the current stories about the Millie Dowler murder conviction. It has been reported the family of Millie Dowler stating the ordeal of the trial was not worth the conviction.

Besides what did the flatmates have to gain in Jeremy's potential conviction............. There are no reports of any of them having a deal with a newspaper and none were due to gain any inheritance. Such details have been made known in the defence's discrediting of other witnesses.

Flatmate Susan Battersby appears have gained from Jeremy's conviction.

"...in exchange for information Essex police helped get Susan out of a conviction for bank cheque fraud, and her witness statement was given to the police under the clear belief that ‘she would not be taken before the court as a result of making (her) statement…’ "

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TWMfY6ClmTQJ:youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/innocent-man-part-8.html+bamber+susan+battersby,+fraud&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk

Perhaps.

On the other hand, she could have been considered to have lost out rather than gained. She was home and dry after the cheque fraud until JM went to the police, she then had to pay the money back to the bank.

Unless JM paid her share or financially gifted her later on then I'm not sure this shows anything of substance to help either the defence or prosecutions case.

[smiffy]

By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates  it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.

One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.

From the 2002 Appeal

292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”

The flatmates gave different times so if colluding, as detailed in your opinion, the colusion was wide open for exploitation and harsh probing questions by the defence at trial. They surely would have smelt blood and gone for broke. Jeremy had a prominent QC representing him at the original trial. A prime example would been the current stories about the Millie Dowler murder conviction. It has been reported the family of Millie Dowler stating the ordeal of the trial was not worth the conviction.

Besides what did the flatmates have to gain in Jeremy's potential conviction............. There are no reports of any of them having a deal with a newspaper and none were due to gain any inheritance. Such details have been made known in the defence's discrediting of other witnesses.

And this is the day after the killings, not a month after.

wrong wrong wrong

AE's notes may have been edited at any time.... AE's statement was a month after the killings but refers to the day after...
AE should not have been present while a police officer was taking notes....so this may be false.
The police officer should have only noted what JM said  and there should have been no phone calls to check as any answer given could be wrong and is effectively hearsay.


oh  this so called probing and cross examination....how much experience do some posters have of court proceedings...very little it seems.
defences do not go heavily and ask every question for such an approach can go against the person they are defending......any claims that they do act in this way are way off what happens in practise.
Things in court can often be very stacked against the defence...as key points in evidence may get missed if too much time is spent on what appears to be trivial matters.

LOOK AT THIS THREAD....much of it is of little real importance for it distracts from key issues such as it being Sheila's fingernails  that gouged Ralph's arm...
that is key ....and indicates an attack by Sheila on Ralph and makes Sheila the killer....the only remaining worthy issue is whether Sheila shot herself or if the police shot her....

Police altering statements, fiddling evidence and manipulating witnesses is fairly obvious except to those with blinkered vision.

[paulg]

What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! 

I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.

Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.

So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?

Paulg, I was merely pointing out that Tylers question was valid. I don,t think she meant the odds in literal terms,it was just a phrase.
I do not agree with personal attacks on anyone, and if it seemed I was defending that part of Tylers post, then I apologise.

No worries, mate water off a ducks back.

But, the odds thing is there for a reason, and very apt.

Tyler posts were suggesting that the chances are very high for all to wake, but in reality they're not. As i said in one of my posts, all sorts of factors have to be taken into account when working on possibilities/odds, some will be shorter, some higher. But, it really isn't that far fetched that all housemates were woken by a 3:00am phone call...this is the point Cliff.

[curiousessex]

By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates  it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.

One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.

From the 2002 Appeal

292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”

The flatmates gave different times so if colluding, as detailed in your opinion, the colusion was wide open for exploitation and harsh probing questions by the defence at trial. They surely would have smelt blood and gone for broke. Jeremy had a prominent QC representing him at the original trial. A prime example would been the current stories about the Millie Dowler murder conviction. It has been reported the family of Millie Dowler stating the ordeal of the trial was not worth the conviction.

Besides what did the flatmates have to gain in Jeremy's potential conviction............. There are no reports of any of them having a deal with a newspaper and none were due to gain any inheritance. Such details have been made known in the defence's discrediting of other witnesses.

Flatmate Susan Battersby appears to have gained from Jeremy's conviction.

"...in exchange for information Essex police helped get Susan out of a conviction for bank cheque fraud, and her witness statement was given to the police under the clear belief that ‘she would not be taken before the court as a result of making (her) statement…’ "

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TWMfY6ClmTQJ:youknowwhokilledyoudontyou.blogspot.com/2011/02/innocent-man-part-8.html+bamber+susan+battersby,+fraud&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk

I believe someone has posted something in terms of statement comments from the Bank concerned in relation to the cheque fraud. The Bank did not press charges and possibly had not even reported the crime to the Police. I think Battersby and Mugford effectively came clean about it.

Even if you remove Battersby and Mugford there were other flatmates with nothing to gain.

[chochokeira]

What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! 

I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.

Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.

So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?

Looks like possible crossed wires?  The gbros do like to have a bit of banter.  I hope Tyler does re-register.  I know that paul is stout-hearted enough to take a bit of flak, when wires get crossed, as they inevitabley do from time to time one here.

You took the words out of my mouth, Rocky. I had to apologised to Harters yesterday for a similar misunderstanding - I mistook one of his responses regarding a serious aspect of the case for sarcasm.

It's so easy to have this sort of misunderstanding on the internet because it's such a rapid response medium and we don't have the facial clues which clarify meaning in face to face communication.

From where I'm sitting - and I stand to be corrected guys - it looked to me as though Tyler misunderstood paulg's and simong's betting patois as a direct attack on her. Tyler then responded in what she though was the same vein and paulg did likewise. Cliff seems to have taken the same view of the betting patois.

Hey, guys, I really like all of you, can we not forgive and forget this and start again?

[paulg]

What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! 

I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.

Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.

So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?

Looks like possible crossed wires?  The gbros do like to have a bit of banter.  I hope Tyler does re-register.  I know that paul is stout-hearted enough to take a bit of flak, when wires get crossed, as they inevitabley do from time to time one here.

You took the words out of my mouth, Rocky. I had to apologised to Harters yesterday for a similar misunderstanding - I mistook one of his responses regarding a serious aspect of the case for sarcasm.

It's so easy to have this sort of misunderstanding on the internet because it's such a rapid response medium and we don't have the facial clues which clarify meaning in face to face communication.

From where I'm sitting - and I stand to be corrected guys - it looked to me as though Tyler misunderstood paulg's and simong's betting patois as a direct attack on her. Tyler then responded in what she though was the same vein and paulg did likewise. Cliff seems to have taken the same view of the betting patois.

Hey, guys, I really like all of you, can we not forgive and forget this and start again?

As long aspeople realise that if one person wakes to a phone ringing, the chances of 3 others within the same enviroment also waking is not far fetched.

All forgotten this end.

[curiousessex]

By the time the police spoke to JM's flatmates  it was over a month since the night in question. JM herself had plenty of time to steer their evidence. The police by this time had an agenda and a desire to manipulate the flatmates evidence to suit the police agenda of framing JB.

One broke in cross examination...the others seem to have held to their dodgy stories the police wanted them to give..in my view.

From the 2002 Appeal

292. The source of the first part of these allegations is a hand-written note made by Ann Eaton, who was present with Julie Mugford when she was seen by the police and made a statement on the day after the killings, 8 August. Ann Eaton made a statement to the police on 8 September. In that statement, Ann Eaton said:
“I recall that the officers were asking Julie what time she had received the second telephone call from Jeremy. She said it was 3.30 a.m. The police officer said that it was very important and that it must be right. Julie asked the officer if she could ring her flat in London to confirm the times. The officer agreed and she made a telephone call apparently to her flat. She spoke to somebody and queried the time, then turned and said, “3.15 a.m.”

The flatmates gave different times so if colluding, as detailed in your opinion, the colusion was wide open for exploitation and harsh probing questions by the defence at trial. They surely would have smelt blood and gone for broke. Jeremy had a prominent QC representing him at the original trial. A prime example would been the current stories about the Millie Dowler murder conviction. It has been reported the family of Millie Dowler stating the ordeal of the trial was not worth the conviction.

Besides what did the flatmates have to gain in Jeremy's potential conviction............. There are no reports of any of them having a deal with a newspaper and none were due to gain any inheritance. Such details have been made known in the defence's discrediting of other witnesses.

And this is the day after the killings, not a month after.

wrong wrong wrong

AE's notes may have been edited at any time.... AE's statement was a month after the killings but refers to the day after...
AE should not have been present while a police officer was taking notes....so this may be false.
The police officer should have only noted what JM said  and there should have been no phone calls to check as any answer given could be wrong and is effectively hearsay.


oh  this so called probing and cross examination....how much experience do some posters have of court proceedings...very little it seems.
defences do not go heavily and ask every question for such an approach can go against the person they are defending......any claims that they do act in this way are way off what happens in practise.
Things in court can often be very stacked against the defence...as key points in evidence may get missed if too much time is spent on what appears to be trivial matters.

LOOK AT THIS THREAD....much of it is of little real importance for it distracts from key issues such as it being Sheila's fingernails  that gouged Ralph's arm...
that is key ....and indicates an attack by Sheila on Ralph and makes Sheila the killer....the only remaining worthy issue is whether Sheila shot herself or if the police shot her....

Police altering statements, fiddling evidence and manipulating witnesses is fairly obvious except to those with blinkered vision.

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

311. The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:
“I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy’s house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton.”


.......if rules were broken and it was 'wrong wrong wrong' then would the Appeal Court not have dismissed the evidence? Independent of any posters experience of cross examination and court proceedings

[clifford]

What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! 

I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.

Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.

So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?

Looks like possible crossed wires?  The gbros do like to have a bit of banter.  I hope Tyler does re-register.  I know that paul is stout-hearted enough to take a bit of flak, when wires get crossed, as they inevitabley do from time to time one here.

You took the words out of my mouth, Rocky. I had to apologised to Harters yesterday for a similar misunderstanding - I mistook one of his responses regarding a serious aspect of the case for sarcasm.

It's so easy to have this sort of misunderstanding on the internet because it's such a rapid response medium and we don't have the facial clues which clarify meaning in face to face communication.

From where I'm sitting - and I stand to be corrected guys - it looked to me as though Tyler misunderstood paulg's and simong's betting patois as a direct attack on her. Tyler then responded in what she though was the same vein and paulg did likewise. Cliff seems to have taken the same view of the betting patois.

Hey, guys, I really like all of you, can we not forgive and forget this and start again?

As long aspeople realise that if one person wakes to a phone ringing, the chances of 3 others within the same enviroment also waking is not far fetched.

All forgotten this end.

And this end too. Never could hold a grudge.

[chochokeira]

What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! 

I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.

Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.

So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?

Looks like possible crossed wires?  The gbros do like to have a bit of banter.  I hope Tyler does re-register.  I know that paul is stout-hearted enough to take a bit of flak, when wires get crossed, as they inevitabley do from time to time one here.

You took the words out of my mouth, Rocky. I had to apologised to Harters yesterday for a similar misunderstanding - I mistook one of his responses regarding a serious aspect of the case for sarcasm.

It's so easy to have this sort of misunderstanding on the internet because it's such a rapid response medium and we don't have the facial clues which clarify meaning in face to face communication.

From where I'm sitting - and I stand to be corrected guys - it looked to me as though Tyler misunderstood paulg's and simong's betting patois as a direct attack on her. Tyler then responded in what she though was the same vein and paulg did likewise. Cliff seems to have taken the same view of the betting patois.

Hey, guys, I really like all of you, can we not forgive and forget this and start again?

As long aspeople realise that if one person wakes to a phone ringing, the chances of 3 others within the same enviroment also waking is not far fetched.

All forgotten this end.

 :D

[chochokeira]

What a pair of absolute immature twats! And one of you a moderator aswell! I can see now why Paulg was never in the running to be a moderator and was chosen last because there was no one else,after much begging from his brother I might add.How very sad!
Should I report my grievances to a moderator? Oh I cant can I? One of the idiots is one!
I think that you should lose your moderator status for acting like a complete arsehole towards a member and making a mockery of the forum.
As that wont happen,I will cancel my membership instead.
I dont have to put up with that kind of treatment! 

I thought Tylers question was relevant and should have responded to in a serious manner.
It is not right that members are ridiculed no matter what stance they take.
Tyler I hope you take the time to reconsider your decission, and rejoin the forum.
It is better to ignore negative posts. You must have a bit of Jackie in you.

Tylers question was answered, i suggest you read the replies.

So lets get this straight Cliff, someone makes a personal attack, and you reply with the above?

Looks like possible crossed wires?  The gbros do like to have a bit of banter.  I hope Tyler does re-register.  I know that paul is stout-hearted enough to take a bit of flak, when wires get crossed, as they inevitabley do from time to time one here.

You took the words out of my mouth, Rocky. I had to apologised to Harters yesterday for a similar misunderstanding - I mistook one of his responses regarding a serious aspect of the case for sarcasm.

It's so easy to have this sort of misunderstanding on the internet because it's such a rapid response medium and we don't have the facial clues which clarify meaning in face to face communication.

From where I'm sitting - and I stand to be corrected guys - it looked to me as though Tyler misunderstood paulg's and simong's betting patois as a direct attack on her. Tyler then responded in what she though was the same vein and paulg did likewise. Cliff seems to have taken the same view of the betting patois.

Hey, guys, I really like all of you, can we not forgive and forget this and start again?

As long aspeople realise that if one person wakes to a phone ringing, the chances of 3 others within the same enviroment also waking is not far fetched.

All forgotten this end.

And this end too. Never could hold a grudge.

 :D

[smiffy]

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
The rest of her claims are  very suspect...ie she had no firm foundation to claim 3.00am at all and gives no explanation for arriving at the 3.00am claim ...as she fails to explain...then I can only reject her evidence as being of no value and more likely to be incorrect than correct. As she tries so hard to say nothing I see her claims as being false and knowingly false. If she really did not know or was aware then she should have honestly said so.

[curiousessex]

The following was detailed in the 2002 Appeal............

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

Lets look at the words quoted..
"Told" is a rather strong word to use in the circumstances which indicates some deception possible.
The rest of her claims are  very suspect...ie she had no firm foundation to claim 3.00am at all and gives no explanation for arriving at the 3.00am claim ...as she fails to explain...then I can only reject her evidence as being of no value and more likely to be incorrect than correct. As she tries so hard to say nothing I see her claims as being false and knowingly false. If she really did not know or was aware then she should have honestly said so.

OK so eject her evidence in your opinion.

Now deal with the other flatmates...........

e.g. and etc.

305. Helen Eaton (unrelated to Ann Eaton) was the housemate to whom Julie Mugford spoke whilst making her statement on 8 August. She first made a statement on 11 September in which she said that the phone call was at about 3 a.m. She confirmed that she had spoken to Julie Mugford when the latter was making her first statement and added:
“I told her that it was about 3 a.m. I should add that I am not exactly certain about the time of that phone call, although for some reason I thought it was made at about 3 a.m.”

311. The last of the flatmates, Susan Battersby, made a statement on 10 September. In that statement she said that she had been woken by the telephone and had looked at her radio clock and noticed that it was 3.15 a.m. She went on to point out that the time might not be accurate because she kept her clock 10 minutes fast. On 19 December, she made a further statement. In that statement she again referred to the telephone call being at 3.15 a.m. but later in the statement she said:
“I can say that sometime during the evening of Thursday 8 August 1985, I telephoned Julie at Jeremy’s house in Goldhanger. I spoke to Julie in relation to the time of the telephone call from Jeremy to our flat during the early hours of Wednesday 7 August 1985. I told Julie that Jeremy had phoned her at 3.12 a.m. I can now remember that when I looked at my clock radio display, the time showed 3.12 a.m. Previously I had said the phone call was at 3.15 a.m. I am positive the time was 3.12 a.m. I was aware that Julie wanted to know the time of this phone call as she had phoned the flat trying to contact me that day when she spoke to Helen Eaton.”