When did I say that? Bews says they stayed & observed the window, then decided it was a 'trick of the light'.
Sheila's nightdress goes missing. When, how?
Just when modern technology came in. What modern technology?
The nightdress was tested prior to the trial. The evidence submitted. It was perfectly possible to fully check the nightdress in 1985.
Up to your old tricks, I see. Say something, then forget or deny you said it. Then demand that proof is produced that you said it. Then when proof is produced, deny it anyway or insult the other person.
It was one cheque book fraud.
I know you are a very passionate supporter of Bamber. Because Julie identified the twins. However distorting the facts will not help his 35 year 'Campaign for Freedom'.
I don't necessarily agree with Jackie's argument that Julie's criminality implies she may have been lying. It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. You can be a terrible person and still be telling the truth. You can be a very dishonest person and still, at the crucial moment, tell the God's honest truth. The fact she engaged in criminality is, however, relevant and it's a factor to consider in the round.
You are not being honest here, Adam. You and others minimise Julie's criminality when you know she did more. Any discussion on that basis is not an honest discourse.
I think you've got to come clean and tell us what your interest in this case is. Same applies to certain others.
Calling a Forum member 'Mad Jackie' is also a bit out or order, and once again puts the lie to the claim that you personally insult nobody.
