you should all know this?

[grahameb]

So, what do you think of the prince Phillip thing? I was under the impression that jb father was major leslie marsham? Think thats his name.

Prince phillip! Not a chance imo

Why is it that major Leslie Marsham never paid any maintenance towards the cost of bringing up Jeremy? Perhaps that is the reason then for involvement of Special Branch?

Why would special branch become involved because maintenance wasnt paid, its nothing to do with special branch. Not only that but jb was adopted so his biological father wouldnt have to pay anything anyway.

Where are you going with this mike? I mean prince phillip, jb's dad!! Come on think about how silly that sounds your sailing very close with that mike, it might land you in hot water.

You didn`t get the joke then, about non payment of maintenance, being the reason for involvement of Special Branch?

As for PP, you need to read up about what he was like when he was much younger, to say he was a womaniser would be something of an understatement. Just because Major Marshams name is on JB`s birth certificate, does not prove he is the biological father, at least not in my book? Anyway, there`s still a link to the royal family. Because JB`s natural mother worked for the royals...

I must admit he doesn't speak like a biological father. What biological father could reject their son like he did? If Jeremy was MY son I would doubt that he could ever have done such a terrible thing and I would stand by him. Even if he was guilty I'm not sure I could reject him? I will never reject my sons or my daughter what ever they did. I could never deny them my help or cast them away. My thoughts for them are like God's thoughts for me. And I'm no angel I can assure you.

[mike tesko]

No Mike i didnt get the joke!! I had a bad night last night.

So the pp thing is a joke too, because you cant be serious about that can you? Really?

Yes, deadly serious...

[curiousessex]

I have not contributed to the forum much recently as I have been away due to family commitments. However, I have recently been reading some of the latest posts from the sidelines.

If I understand this thread correctly Mike has been meeting with an informant 'Z' via a convoluted method involving mobile phone swaps / loans etc.

Again, if I have understood some of this thread correctly Mike has been advised that 'Z' has access to a photograph of Sheila lying on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her neck. This would corroborate what Mike has previously detailed in other threads regarding such a photograph that Mike says he has seen in the office of Ewen Smith (Jeremy's former solicitor).

If Mike was able to take a picture of the photograph that ‘Z’ has access then such a photograph would certainly be new evidence relating to the case.

As such, a photograph of a photograph, if made available to the CCRC, would have to be considered by the CCRC in relation to Jeremy’s claims for an appeal. Most particularly, if the original photograph / negative is, as alleged, being withheld under PII. By definition the withholding of such evidence would mean by definition that the ‘evidence’ as previously existed cannot have been available at the original trial.

Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.

If it can be proven, by such a photograph of a photograph, that Sheila is lying on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck and is then later to be shown, by photographs that are in the public domain, with two gun shot wounds to the neck, I would agree that it could not have been Jeremy who inflicted a second wound to Sheila’s neck.

I have mentioned before I did not understand why Mike did not take the opportunity of taking a picture of the photograph he was shown and then left alone with in the office of Ewen Smith. I seem to remember desribing this as a missed opportunity.

Maybe such an opportunity is presenting itself again............... ??

[Newbury1]

I have not contributed to the forum much recently as I have been away due to family commitments. However, I have recently been reading some of the latest posts from the sidelines.

If I understand this thread correctly Mike has been meeting with an informant 'Z' via a convoluted method involving mobile phone swaps / loans etc.

Again, if I have understood some of this thread correctly Mike has been advised that 'Z' has access to a photograph of Sheila lying on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her neck. This would corroborate what Mike has previously detailed in other threads regarding such a photograph that Mike says he has seen in the office of Ewen Smith (Jeremy's former solicitor).

If Mike was able to take a picture of the photograph that ‘Z’ has access then such a photograph would certainly be new evidence relating to the case.

As such, a photograph of a photograph, if made available to the CCRC, would have to be considered by the CCRC in relation to Jeremy's claims for an appeal. Most particularly, if the original photograph / negative is, as alleged, being withheld under PII. By definition the withholding of such evidence would mean by definition that the ‘evidence’ as previously existed cannot have been available at the original trial.

Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.

If it can be proven, by such a photograph of a photograph, that Sheila is lying on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck and is then later to be shown, by photographs that are in the public domain, with two gun shot wounds to the neck, I would agree that it could not have been Jeremy who inflicted a second wound to Sheila's neck.

I have mentioned before I did not understand why Mike did not take the opportunity of taking a picture of the photograph he was shown and then left alone in the office of Ewen Smith. I seem to remember describing this as a missed opportunity.

Maybe such an opportunity is presenting itself again............... ??

Hi curious, yes the photo of Sheila on the bed with one gunshot wound has been referred to again 

Call me Mr Cynical, but if Z has a copy why o why has he not discretely copied it and sent it anonymously to mike/media/JB's legal team ??

how long has he had this photo ??

Another tantalising carrot I think  - unless JB's legal team does have a copy 

[ngb1066]

I have not contributed to the forum much recently as I have been away due to family commitments. However, I have recently been reading some of the latest posts from the sidelines.

If I understand this thread correctly Mike has been meeting with an informant 'Z' via a convoluted method involving mobile phone swaps / loans etc.

Again, if I have understood some of this thread correctly Mike has been advised that 'Z' has access to a photograph of Sheila lying on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her neck. This would corroborate what Mike has previously detailed in other threads regarding such a photograph that Mike says he has seen in the office of Ewen Smith (Jeremy's former solicitor).

If Mike was able to take a picture of the photograph that ‘Z’ has access then such a photograph would certainly be new evidence relating to the case.

As such, a photograph of a photograph, if made available to the CCRC, would have to be considered by the CCRC in relation to Jeremy's claims for an appeal. Most particularly, if the original photograph / negative is, as alleged, being withheld under PII. By definition the withholding of such evidence would mean by definition that the ‘evidence’ as previously existed cannot have been available at the original trial.

Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.

If it can be proven, by such a photograph of a photograph, that Sheila is lying on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck and is then later to be shown, by photographs that are in the public domain, with two gun shot wounds to the neck, I would agree that it could not have been Jeremy who inflicted a second wound to Sheila's neck.

I have mentioned before I did not understand why Mike did not take the opportunity of taking a picture of the photograph he was shown and then left alone in the office of Ewen Smith. I seem to remember describing this as a missed opportunity.

Maybe such an opportunity is presenting itself again............... ??

Hi curious, yes the photo of Sheila on the bed with one gunshot wound has been referred to again 

Call me Mr Cynical, but if Z has a copy why o why has he not discretely copied it and sent it anonymously to mike/media/JB's legal team ??

how long has he had this photo ??

Another tantalising carrot I think  - unless JB's legal team does have a copy 

I am sure they do not.

[curiousessex]

Well if it is a 'carrot', in my opinion, it would be a make or break 'carrot'.

The 'carrot' if true would, as I have stated, be compelling.

If not true, then, for me, the 'carrot' would destroy the credibility of 'Z' coming forward because of a moral conscience whilst also undermining any claims that are being made in the name of Jeremy's support.

[Newbury1]

I have not contributed to the forum much recently as I have been away due to family commitments. However, I have recently been reading some of the latest posts from the sidelines.

If I understand this thread correctly Mike has been meeting with an informant 'Z' via a convoluted method involving mobile phone swaps / loans etc.

Again, if I have understood some of this thread correctly Mike has been advised that 'Z' has access to a photograph of Sheila lying on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her neck. This would corroborate what Mike has previously detailed in other threads regarding such a photograph that Mike says he has seen in the office of Ewen Smith (Jeremy's former solicitor).

If Mike was able to take a picture of the photograph that ‘Z’ has access then such a photograph would certainly be new evidence relating to the case.

As such, a photograph of a photograph, if made available to the CCRC, would have to be considered by the CCRC in relation to Jeremy's claims for an appeal. Most particularly, if the original photograph / negative is, as alleged, being withheld under PII. By definition the withholding of such evidence would mean by definition that the ‘evidence’ as previously existed cannot have been available at the original trial.

Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.

If it can be proven, by such a photograph of a photograph, that Sheila is lying on the bed with a single gun shot wound to the neck and is then later to be shown, by photographs that are in the public domain, with two gun shot wounds to the neck, I would agree that it could not have been Jeremy who inflicted a second wound to Sheila's neck.

I have mentioned before I did not understand why Mike did not take the opportunity of taking a picture of the photograph he was shown and then left alone in the office of Ewen Smith. I seem to remember describing this as a missed opportunity.

Maybe such an opportunity is presenting itself again............... ??

Hi curious, yes the photo of Sheila on the bed with one gunshot wound has been referred to again 

Call me Mr Cynical, but if Z has a copy why o why has he not discretely copied it and sent it anonymously to mike/media/JB's legal team ??

how long has he had this photo ??

Another tantalising carrot I think  - unless JB's legal team does have a copy 

I am sure they do not.

Apologies for the previous sarcasm - I agree with you. I don't think they have a copy either!!

This is old stuff packaged in a different way to re-sell it IMO

[grahameb]

As I mentioned before this one photograph would secure JB's immediate release. Z could easily copy it and send it anonymously to JB's team.

[curiousessex]

As I mentioned before this one photograph would secure JB's immediate release. Z could easily copy it and send it anonymously to JB's team.

Grahame

I would tend to agree with you................
As I have stated above................. Even I, given my posted / detailed concerns regarding the sequence and timing of telephone calls on the morning of 7th August 1985, would regard this as compelling.

[Buddy]

We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.

[curiousessex]

We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.

Maybe 'Z' should just become a member of the forum and post it into a locked thread.

[Buddy]

We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.

Maybe 'Z' should just become a member of the forum and post it into a locked thread.

He may already be a member curious.

[curiousessex]

We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.

Maybe 'Z' should just become a member of the forum and post it into a locked thread.

He may already be a member curious.

Buddy

Maybe he is.......... I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.

[mertol22]

If this photo exists the negative would be even better.

[grahameb]

We are left in wonderland as regards the photograph of Sheila on the bed with one wound.
I do not believe this photograph exist, but I would be very happy to be proved wrong.
I would have Zs goolies in my hand to give me the photograph.

If he hasn't come forward befor Cliff it means that he has none. Your hands are empty.