A Must Read - for all those seeking the truth in this matter...

[smiffy]

Cook claimed in evidence to have looked in the gun cupboard on the 7th august so must have seen Pargetters rifle and silencer at that time.

Collins supposedly removed a shotgun from the gun cupboard on the 7th shortly after entering whf so must have seen Pargetter's rifle and silencer.

[mike tesko]

Look at the following evidence (1):-

Was there any paint on the end of this silencer, by 29th August 1985?

[mike tesko]

Look at the evidence (2):-

Was there a 'U' shaped mark on the front face of the aga, when this photograph was taken on 12th September 1985?

[mike tesko]

Absence of paint on silencer in photographs taken on 29th August 1985, and an absence of any mark on the front face of the aga when this picture was taken on 12th September 1985, gives a big clue as to the time and occasion when or after the silencer was deliberately scratched against the front face of the aga - in particular, since the the photographs of the actual mark were not taken until 1st October 1985...

Three crucial dates then:-

(1) - 29th August 1985
(2) - 12th September 1985
(3) - 1st October 1985

[smiffy]

Is that a strap fitted to the rifle in one of the photographs?

[jon]

Hartley , Vidvic can you  give your view's on JB's submission's here ? Or better stiill in Hartley's case pick any hole's in it ? As both of view seemed to be away when this was posted !!

[Hartley]

Hartley , Vidvic can you  give your view's on JB's submission's here ? Or better stiill in Hartley's case pick any hole's in it ? As both of view seemed to be away when this was posted !!

Are you referring to the paint scratches on the mantel?

[jon]

Hartley , Vidvic can you  give your view's on JB's submission's here ? Or better stiill in Hartley's case pick any hole's in it ? As both of view seemed to be away when this was posted !!

Are you referring to the paint scratches on the mantel?

No JB's letter's , on page one !!

[Hartley]

Hartley , Vidvic can you  give your view's on JB's submission's here ? Or better stiill in Hartley's case pick any hole's in it ? As both of view seemed to be away when this was posted !!

Are you referring to the paint scratches on the mantel?

I started this reply before you posted.

Oh I see, you mean the list of allegations.

No I don't have the desire to run through each and every point, many of the points have been discussed in other threads. I particularly remember discussing with Smiffy and NGB point 161 (I think, need to check) which was about a police issued weapon.

Is there something in particular?

[Hartley]

It wasn't 161.

[jon]

It wasn't 161.

Have a look at 28 , 29 Acc Simpson's comment's , do you accept he made these and they are factual ?

[Hartley]

It wasn't 161.

Have a look at 28 , 29 Acc Simpson's comment's , do you accept he made these and they are factual ?

Do you accept that they are factual?

[jon]

It wasn't 161.

Have a look at 28 , 29 Acc Simpson's comment's , do you accept he made these and they are factual ?

Do you accept that they are factual?

If the reporter was to make a sworn statement , yes !!

[Hartley]

It wasn't 161.

Have a look at 28 , 29 Acc Simpson's comment's , do you accept he made these and they are factual ?

Do you accept that they are factual?

If the reporter was to make a sworn statement , yes !!

To be honest Jon, I have nothing to base an answer on, of course I'm sceptical, but I have nothing to really base an opinion on.

Judging by what has gone before, then I would be very cautious about accepting it without further details, Jeremy does have a habit of releasing half truths, for example the claim that the police were in conversation with somebody in the house, which was truthful, however he failed to mention the next line which said they were met with no reply. Or the mention that police heard voices when they entered the house, when in actual fact it was the voices of the raid team heard over the open telephone line.

So yes I actually do believe that there may be elements of truth, but not the whole truth, and if the whole truth was put together then it would not bear any resemblance to what is alleged.

But as I say, I do not have the information to provide you with an answer, and as there isn't an affidavit from the reporter then would it be fair to say that you don't either?

[jon]

It wasn't 161.

Have a look at 28 , 29 Acc Simpson's comment's , do you accept he made these and they are factual ?

Do you accept that they are factual?

If the reporter was to make a sworn statement , yes !!

To be honest Jon, I have nothing to base an answer on, of course I'm sceptical, but I have nothing to really base an opinion on.

Judging by what has gone before, then I would be very cautious about accepting it without further details, Jeremy does have a habit of releasing half truths, for example the claim that the police were in conversation with somebody in the house, which was truthful, however he failed to mention the next line which said they were met with no reply. Or the mention that police heard voices when they entered the house, when in actual fact it was the voices of the raid team heard over the open telephone line.

So yes I actually do believe that there may be elements of truth, but not the whole truth, and if the whole truth was put together then it would not bear any resemblance to what is alleged.

But as I say, I do not have the information to provide you with an answer, and as there isn't an affidavit from the reporter then would it be fair to say that you don't either?

Of course i do not , do you read anything into the HOLAB form's of DB find of the silencer ( 68 ) having no date upon them ? Provided you was shown this to be the case !