0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1415.0.html I am more than interested please explain , whilst on the subject of ACC Simpson , do you have any idea why he retracted his comment's at 28 -29 ?
The email:-
Any chance of an opinion from you here Hartley ?
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?
Nothing more than what I have already replied with, please stop asking me the same question over and over again.Previous reply copied below.Thank you.
I shall be meeting him between Christmas and New year, in Colchester (hopefully)...Thankyou Mike.I wonder if he could appeal to his former colleagues to come forward? Does he know how many individuals have copies of the photographs?He has previously told me that at least three of his colleagues have copies of the photograph of Sheila on the bed, with one wound - although he has not yet named them, nor have I asked him which ones he is talking about...
I find the possibility of an informant incredulous. The amount of money that could be made would blow any police pension out of the water. I would be singing like a canary, and would be booking a world cruise.
I of course cannot answer this one. But perhaps his life is worth more than a million quid?
Yes, (Z) told me that several officers kept copies of some of the photographs and other material, after they were ordered to give a false account about finding Sheila's body on the bedroom floor by the side of the bed with the gun atop it and a blue bible nearby. (Z) says they were given these specific instructions after being ordered to attend a special debriefing on 19th September 1985. (Z) says that statements were prepared for almost all of the officers by one of the seniors, and dated, 19th and some 20th September 1985 and that many of the firearms officers refused to sign the prepared statements because the contents were not true...(Z) only brought three photographs to show me today, there are five others, eight in total - photographs which correspond to the missing negatives which were cut out and kept by one of the disgruntled officers as insurance should there come a time when they might be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice, and perjury. (Z) says but for the removal of these eight negatives from the reel of film, the corresponding eight pictures would have been withheld under pii, but because they do not form part of the official evidence, they are not covered by pii...
(Z) showed me three photographs today which I have never seen before, (Z) says the negatives for these were cut out from the strip of negatives not as part of a cover up, but taken by officers who have been caught up in this conspiracy after they were ordered by senior officers to make false statements (which most officers refused to sign). (Z) says that most of the officers concerned refused to attend the trial to give the false testimony that was put into their statements by senior officers and later by the editing of those same statements by the DPP's office...
negatives are the key, I agree...
