The handwritten notes of Miss Marples (Ann Eaton) - read them here for yourself

[smiffy]

Why is it that it Ann Eatons notes made pre meeting on morning of 9th august includes references to the phone in the kitchen not being right and the sugar on the kitchen floor when to the COLP her account seems to read that she was unaware of these things until she first went into whf on the evening of the 9th of august.
The way she comments on those 2 issues seems designed to give the impression that upon entry was the first time she knew about those things..yet the notes suggest that was a lie and it was wrong.

[smiffy]

Clearly the relatives onvolved in the plotting about JB in working out what they were going to twist as to what he said or did not say on the 7th and 8th August to the police seemed to be in a muddle.
Ann in this note is trying to work out what was said when by JB on the 7th and 8th.
Clearly they got much wrong  and have changed things..
they were not sure what was said or when ..so seem to have improvised a fair bit.
Clarke took the statements and wrote them down and from some of Ann's other notes it is clear that JB's statements seem correct.
The claims to the contraary by some of the relatives fall as being mistaken or lies.

[Hartley]

Can I please ask one of the moderators to enlighten me on what they actually deem acceptable, bearing in mind the recent discussions and amendments to the forum rules.

Thank you.

[smiffy]

Can I please ask one of the moderators to enlighten me on what they actually deem acceptable, bearing in mind the recent discussions and amendments to the forum rules.

Thank you.

If the evidence presented allows it to be clearly stated that a  person lied in evidence then it falls to be allowed and acceptable to say so. If the evidence can even suggest a lie may be told then this too can be aired fairly.

Do you not like that Hartley...for you suggest or claim outright that JB lied without any proof whatsoever being presented ...not double standards that you demand is it such as..anything goes against JB but the relatives are immune may be what you want Hartley but I disagree...same rule applies to all in my book.

[ngb1066]

Can I please ask one of the moderators to enlighten me on what they actually deem acceptable, bearing in mind the recent discussions and amendments to the forum rules.

Thank you.

Hartley  - as you know it is difficult to determine where to draw the line where posts contain allegations against third parties. Care should be taken by posters in my view.  It is permissable to present views which are critical of people who were witnesses at the trial, whether police officers or civilians.  However, if allegations are made they should be made in a considered way and should be supported by evidence. 

We face a problem in that like it or not this forum contains many posts which include serious allegations against living named individuals.  Some of those posts are potentially defamatory.  We have to take note of the fact that none of those individuals have complained to the forum.  That has to influence the moderators in deciding what do do about new posts.  If specific complaints are received from persons named the moderators will have to consider whether action is necessary.

 

[Hartley]

Can I please ask one of the moderators to enlighten me on what they actually deem acceptable, bearing in mind the recent discussions and amendments to the forum rules.

Thank you.

Hartley  - as you know it is difficult to determine where to draw the line where posts contain allegations against third parties. Care should be taken by posters in my view.  It is permissable to present views which are critical of people who were witnesses at the trial, whether police officers or civilians.  However, if allegations are made they should be made in a considered way and should be supported by evidence. 

We face a problem in that like it or not this forum contains many posts which include serious allegations against living named individuals.  Some of those posts are potentially defamatory.  We have to take note of the fact that none of those individuals have complained to the forum.  That has to influence the moderators in deciding what do do about new posts.  If specific complaints are received from persons named the moderators will have to consider whether action is necessary.

Well if you are unable to control and police the disclaimer and rules, may I suggest being transparent and removing the following:

Any complaint received by the Admin team about a post which contains information that can not be proven and constitutes an attack upon any person will result in the immediate removal of the offending post and may also result in action against the member responsible for the post.

Please ensure that references to the victims in any case discussed on the forum are made in a respectful manner.  Please remember that victims may include those living as well as those deceased.

Please do not make personal attacks against other forum members. Challenge the arguments of others by presenting your opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.

[ngb1066]

Can I please ask one of the moderators to enlighten me on what they actually deem acceptable, bearing in mind the recent discussions and amendments to the forum rules.

Thank you.

Hartley  - as you know it is difficult to determine where to draw the line where posts contain allegations against third parties. Care should be taken by posters in my view.  It is permissable to present views which are critical of people who were witnesses at the trial, whether police officers or civilians.  However, if allegations are made they should be made in a considered way and should be supported by evidence. 

We face a problem in that like it or not this forum contains many posts which include serious allegations against living named individuals.  Some of those posts are potentially defamatory.  We have to take note of the fact that none of those individuals have complained to the forum.  That has to influence the moderators in deciding what do do about new posts.  If specific complaints are received from persons named the moderators will have to consider whether action is necessary.

Well if you are unable to control and police the disclaimer and rules, may I suggest being transparent and removing the following:

Any complaint received by the Admin team about a post which contains information that can not be proven and constitutes an attack upon any person will result in the immediate removal of the offending post and may also result in action against the member responsible for the post.

Please ensure that references to the victims in any case discussed on the forum are made in a respectful manner.  Please remember that victims may include those living as well as those deceased.

Please do not make personal attacks against other forum members. Challenge the arguments of others by presenting your opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.

I support the words you have quoted above.  When we receive a specific complaint we make a decision on it. We have to give posters some lattitude as otherwise the forum would be seriously restricted and could become of limited interest.  You made a personal attack on Smiffy earlier today (suggesting in effect that he was a child) but as you know we did not take action on that.  Self regulation on a forum like this is in my view the most effective form of regulation.  We try to intervene as little as possible.  Do you really want more aggressive forum moderation?

[Hartley]

Can I please ask one of the moderators to enlighten me on what they actually deem acceptable, bearing in mind the recent discussions and amendments to the forum rules.

Thank you.

Hartley  - as you know it is difficult to determine where to draw the line where posts contain allegations against third parties. Care should be taken by posters in my view.  It is permissable to present views which are critical of people who were witnesses at the trial, whether police officers or civilians.  However, if allegations are made they should be made in a considered way and should be supported by evidence. 

We face a problem in that like it or not this forum contains many posts which include serious allegations against living named individuals.  Some of those posts are potentially defamatory.  We have to take note of the fact that none of those individuals have complained to the forum.  That has to influence the moderators in deciding what do do about new posts.  If specific complaints are received from persons named the moderators will have to consider whether action is necessary.

Well if you are unable to control and police the disclaimer and rules, may I suggest being transparent and removing the following:

Any complaint received by the Admin team about a post which contains information that can not be proven and constitutes an attack upon any person will result in the immediate removal of the offending post and may also result in action against the member responsible for the post.

Please ensure that references to the victims in any case discussed on the forum are made in a respectful manner.  Please remember that victims may include those living as well as those deceased.

Please do not make personal attacks against other forum members. Challenge the arguments of others by presenting your opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.

I support the words you have quoted above.  When we receive a specific complaint we make a decision on it. We have to give posters some lattitude as otherwise the forum would be seriously restricted and could become of limited interest.  You made a personal attack on Smiffy earlier today (suggesting in effect that he was a child) but as you know we did not take action on that.  Self regulation on a forum like this is in my view the most effective form of regulation.  We try to intervene as little as possible.  Do you really want more aggressive forum moderation?

You didn't take action because you read the posts it was in response to.

[ngb1066]

Can I please ask one of the moderators to enlighten me on what they actually deem acceptable, bearing in mind the recent discussions and amendments to the forum rules.

Thank you.

Hartley  - as you know it is difficult to determine where to draw the line where posts contain allegations against third parties. Care should be taken by posters in my view.  It is permissable to present views which are critical of people who were witnesses at the trial, whether police officers or civilians.  However, if allegations are made they should be made in a considered way and should be supported by evidence. 

We face a problem in that like it or not this forum contains many posts which include serious allegations against living named individuals.  Some of those posts are potentially defamatory.  We have to take note of the fact that none of those individuals have complained to the forum.  That has to influence the moderators in deciding what do do about new posts.  If specific complaints are received from persons named the moderators will have to consider whether action is necessary.

Well if you are unable to control and police the disclaimer and rules, may I suggest being transparent and removing the following:

Any complaint received by the Admin team about a post which contains information that can not be proven and constitutes an attack upon any person will result in the immediate removal of the offending post and may also result in action against the member responsible for the post.

Please ensure that references to the victims in any case discussed on the forum are made in a respectful manner.  Please remember that victims may include those living as well as those deceased.

Please do not make personal attacks against other forum members. Challenge the arguments of others by presenting your opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.

I support the words you have quoted above.  When we receive a specific complaint we make a decision on it. We have to give posters some lattitude as otherwise the forum would be seriously restricted and could become of limited interest.  You made a personal attack on Smiffy earlier today (suggesting in effect that he was a child) but as you know we did not take action on that.  Self regulation on a forum like this is in my view the most effective form of regulation.  We try to intervene as little as possible.  Do you really want more aggressive forum moderation?

You didn't take action because you read the posts it was in response to.

That is guesswork on your part, but you are in part correct.

[grahameb]

Can I please ask one of the moderators to enlighten me on what they actually deem acceptable, bearing in mind the recent discussions and amendments to the forum rules.

Thank you.

Hartley  - as you know it is difficult to determine where to draw the line where posts contain allegations against third parties. Care should be taken by posters in my view.  It is permissable to present views which are critical of people who were witnesses at the trial, whether police officers or civilians.  However, if allegations are made they should be made in a considered way and should be supported by evidence. 

We face a problem in that like it or not this forum contains many posts which include serious allegations against living named individuals.  Some of those posts are potentially defamatory.  We have to take note of the fact that none of those individuals have complained to the forum.  That has to influence the moderators in deciding what do do about new posts.  If specific complaints are received from persons named the moderators will have to consider whether action is necessary.

Well if you are unable to control and police the disclaimer and rules, may I suggest being transparent and removing the following:

Any complaint received by the Admin team about a post which contains information that can not be proven and constitutes an attack upon any person will result in the immediate removal of the offending post and may also result in action against the member responsible for the post.

Please ensure that references to the victims in any case discussed on the forum are made in a respectful manner.  Please remember that victims may include those living as well as those deceased.

Please do not make personal attacks against other forum members. Challenge the arguments of others by presenting your opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully.

I support the words you have quoted above.  When we receive a specific complaint we make a decision on it. We have to give posters some lattitude as otherwise the forum would be seriously restricted and could become of limited interest.  You made a personal attack on Smiffy earlier today (suggesting in effect that he was a child) but as you know we did not take action on that.  Self regulation on a forum like this is in my view the most effective form of regulation.  We try to intervene as little as possible.  Do you really want more aggressive forum moderation?

You didn't take action because you read the posts it was in response to.

So we ARE doing our job then?

[smiffy]

Lets relect on Ann Eatons notes..
In this one she clearly has written up questions to be asked of the police and these were asked on the morning of the 9th of august.
She already is aware of spilled sugar.
 The document after it is from the COLP interview.
Ann mentions sugar and also mentions that at some later time she was told by the police that the sugar had been spilled when they were cleaning up.
The cleaning up took place on the 9th as we well know and as ANN well knew from her own notes etc.
But in the COLP interview ...it makes no sense..

for Ann cannot possibly have accepted the police version...the sugar was spilled on friday the 9th when the police were clearing up...because she knew (as we know) than the sugar was spilled before the friday. So if a police officer really did feed her this lie...she was in a position to instantly challenge it and reject it knowing it was a pack of lies. So why did she not do or say something at the time or for that matter raise it with the COLP that she knew she was being lied to.

Was Ann hiding a very big secret that meant it was unwise to challenge any explanation the police might give for the sugar....how did she know ,so early on, that sugar was on the kitchen floor...even before she had gone in the house to look for herself. In her COLP she claims to ask on the 9th about the sugar but claims she was not answered on this issue.

We know from crime scence photographs the sugar was on the floor before the photographs were takn on the 7th august.

[smiffy]

This extract from the COLP interview of Ann is rather interesting on yet another issue.

Ann claims  "I also now remember that there were crayons and a couple of pictures were on the dining room table, so I assumed that the twins had been in there doing some drawings."


Most interesting...DID ANN really see what she claims (on evening of 9th august)...for we have a problem.
The dining room was used by a large number of police on the afternnoon of the 8th of august. One can assume they used the table. It does not seem credible they did not disturb things here or re-arranged things to give later viewers a false impression.

So have the crayons and pictures been placed there...by the police...or replaced there...
from which one then wonders about the claims in regards to the tampon container and toy gun also being placed by the police on the table in the sitting room.

[smiffy]

I have mentioned previously Ann being taken around whf on the evening of the 9th.
In her statement of the 8th sept 1985 we have confirmation about Ralph's shotgun being out against the wall in the den. She even has Peter picking it up and examining it.

How strange then that DB claims that the next day he goes into the gun cupboard to find this shotgun in its cover somewhere inside but that he cant say where inside.
Clearly someone is lying here on a very important issue.
Did the Eatons take some guns and stuff home on the 9th august...? good chance they did.
Also Ann's story is flakey here as well ....as to wether DI Jones was present on that evening or not as in much of the account she refers to a single officer....DS Jones.. clearly something not right!

[Jackiepreece]

I cannot read that rubbish anymore

Anne the master of selective memory

[tyler]

Im confused 
Saturday 10th August
and Ann is stating that she went  alone to whf in order to clean up.
Wasnt this also the day where other members of the family stated that they all arrived there together to search the property for clues that the police may have missed?
And that within minutes,DB had found a sound moderator in the cupboard under the stairs?
Or have I got this wrong?