Some on here hide behind "false identity" when making allegations?

[mertol22]

Ive been on the web tonight , and read a transcript about the 2002 failed appeal, does anyone know what picture 101 is of ?

[grahameb]

If you think im thick and have unbalanced thinking i suggest you read some of your own posts, especially the ones regarding cucumbers. Idiot.

Smiffy's post was rude and uncalled for. ngb may have to take action. Not me because that would be hypocritical. But I have deleted his post.

[andrea]

Thanks Grahame. He gets personal time and time again, there really is no need.

[Chochokeira]

If this was the open and shut case some here claim it to be, there would be no need to withold all of this evidence.

Any fair minded person would be deeply suspicious about EP's motives for witholding this huge amount of evidence and about the Chief Constable's refusal to co-operate.

So why have EP done this? Does the following explain one of the reasons for this non-disclosure?

"On receiving the 24 pages [of exhibit 29], the defence immediately noticed that the first two pages had not only been re-written on different paper from the rest, but had been edited. A comparison with police witness statements revealed that several key radio messages that were made had been left out. Why? The defence therefore asked for the original document so that it could be sent for electrostatic document analysis testing, but Essex constabulary refused. The request has been repeated many times, and on each occasion the constabulary has refused."

Debate in Parliament
9 Feb 2005 : 4 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter MP

[mertol22]

Hello Keira, This PII seems very out of date now not used much today, i understand it was considered but not used for the Princess Diana fatal crash, so what makes this case so special so the data remains under lock and key, the 30 year rule is not far away.

[Chochokeira]

Hello Keira, This PII seems very out of date now not used much today, i understand it was considered but not used for the Princess Diana fatal crash, so what makes this case so special so the data remains under lock and key, the 30 year rule is not far away.

Hi Mertol,

You've hit the nail on the head. What makes this case so special? Any ideas?

[ngb1066]

Neil dealt with it very quickly Grahame and rightly so, im not easily offended, but i was offended at that.

Smiffy thoughts about people with "issues" are a disgrace, and outdated. The post and the entire contents were aimed at me.

But i suppose there will be more where that came from.

I intervened immediately and removed the offending part of the post within minutes.  I hoped nobody had seen it but unfortunately it was referred to elsewhere.  This type insensitive personal attack is not necessary and has no place on the forum.  I do not like censoring posts but there has to be a line drawn somewhere and this was unacceptable.  As has been said many times before, we should attack the argument not the person presenting it.

 

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

In the interest of transparency I have "disclosed" my real first name.

[Alias]

I rather think that all the other evidence was entirely based on what others said that JB said or did?

Yep, pretty much the entire case was based on hearsay - no evidence! It must have been legal back then, but I wonder if Jeremy would have been convicted now, or if he had even been prosecuted.

[Chochokeira]

I don't believe that grouping people together and calling them "anti's" gives a true indication of peoples opinions. There are no doubt differing views from individuals within that group.

It's actually a very minor point point, and whether it happened or not would not in my opinion significantly add or subtract from the case put forward by the prosecution.

On the other hand we do have several witnesses who all state that such an incident took place, maybe you would say that they all lied because they are perceived to have a vested interest. Fair enough if that's your opinion, but clearly others disagree with you. What do you want me to do about it?

I think your argument is more philosophical in nature rather than being particularly relevant to Jeremys conviction. In my opinion.

Grahame states that there weren't any witnesses to this and I didn't think there were any witnesses to this. Can I ask you who these several other witnesses were, Hartley? Also, you state that these witnesses state that 'such an incident took place'. Do you mean by this that their accounts differ in any respect?

[mertol22]

Hi Mertol,

You've hit the nail on the head. What makes this case so special? Any ideas?

On its  own nothing, as much as its very tragic the events of that night the shootings may not be the reason for the refusal to release the documents ect, they would reveal gross failings by the police to resolve the situation and almost certain by sheer incompetence allowed one member of the family to commit suicide thats what i see.

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

But if the police had stuck to the original murder/suicide theory there would have been no need for all this pii/massive cover-up operation. The only reason anything really changed was in my opinion, not the pressure from relatives, but JM's statement to police in September '85. Why this was given such creedence I will never understand. Credible witness? In my opinion no.