How did the relatives know JB had not been seen moving between WHF and his home

[Newbury1]

Are you 100% certain that all relatives' notes and diaries were contemporaneous and not in any way concocted or altered after the fact?  I only ask because three of the main prosecution witnesses all seem to have kept diaries / notes.  When I look at Stan Jones, I do not feel overly comfortable with all this diary / notes stuff.  There's a Rat away somewhere.  Or perhaps a Haddock?

Or Red Herrings - there's a good catch on here 

[Roch]

That is a completely different subject to that which my post is addressing. My post is addressing that in my opinion, if any of the relatives had knowledge of Jeremy being seen crouched at the side of the road on the night of the murders then that information would have found its way into at least one of their witness statements, personal notes or diaries.
Whether you believe that the notes and/or diaries are contemporaneous records, or not, is irrelevant.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree because I believe it may be potentially relevant.  Since there may be a reason why it is omitted from such notes and diaries (i.e. other than the reason that it simply didn't happen). 

[Roch]

Or Red Herrings - there's a good catch on here 

'The one that got away'  :D

[Hartley]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree because I believe it may be potentially relevant.  Since there may be a reason why it is omitted from such notes and diaries (i.e. other than the reason that it simply didn't happen).

Sorry, but I think you are right, we will have to disagree. Basically (in my opinion) there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the relatives stated that Jeremy had been seen on the night of the murders crouching behind a hedge. Nothing, nilch, zero, zip, except for Mikes word, which quite frankly means very little to me either.

Bearing that in mind, I'm not going to enter into discussions about why something may not be recorded, when there is no evidence that the 'something' happened in the first place.

One final observation, if the relatives lied about a lorry driver witnessing Jeremy crouched behind a hedge, then how is it possible that the police managed to trace that lorry driver? I think if you substitute 'complete bollocks' instead of where it says red herring, you may be a little closer to reality. 

[grahameb]

Sorry, but I think you are right, we will have to disagree. Basically (in my opinion) there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the relatives stated that Jeremy had been seen on the night of the murders crouching behind a hedge. Nothing, nilch, zero, zip, except for Mikes word, which quite frankly means very little to me either.

Bearing that in mind, I'm not going to enter into discussions about why something may not be recorded, when there is no evidence that the 'something' happened in the first place.

One final observation, if the relatives lied about a lorry driver witnessing Jeremy crouched behind a hedge, then how is it possible that the police managed to trace that lorry driver? I think if you substitute 'complete bollocks' instead of where it says red herring, you may be a little closer to reality. 

Erm. Hartley. Please don't think I'm trying to pick and argument here. It's probably the fact that I am slow in understanding. But first you seem to say that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the relatives stated that Jeremy had been seen on the night of the murders. And then in the last paragraph you say that if the relatives lied about witnessing Jeremy crouching behind a hedge then how is it possible that they were able to trace the lorry driver?
So did they state that Jeremy had been seen, or didn't they say?

[jon]

Shaw said ' he as left hole's for fool's to fall into ' or word's to that effect !!

[Hartley]

Erm. Hartley. Please don't think I'm trying to pick and argument here. It's probably the fact that I am slow in understanding. But first you seem to say that there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the relatives stated that Jeremy had been seen on the night of the murders. And then in the last paragraph you say that if the relatives lied about witnessing Jeremy crouching behind a hedge then how is it possible that they were able to trace the lorry driver?
So did they state that Jeremy had been seen, or didn't they say?

No worries Grahame. But that is precisely the point I am making.

Mike said that the relatives lied to the police that Jeremy was seen by a lorry driver.
I am saying this is in my opinion untrue and challenged Mike to prove it.

Mike then said that the lorry driver was found and questioned.
I am saying that if the relatives lied to the police then how could there be a lorry driver to trace?
--------------------------------------------------------

[grahameb]

No worries Grahame. But that is precisely the point I am making.

Mike said that the relatives lied to the police that Jeremy was seen by a lorry driver.
I am saying this is in my opinion untrue and challenged Mike to prove it.

Mike then said that the lorry driver was found and questioned.
I am saying that if the relatives lied to the police then how could there be a lorry driver to trace?
--------------------------------------------------------

Oh right. You were quoting Mike? It all makes sense now. I'll just get another cup of cocoa.

[mike tesko]

If lorry driver denied saying such a thing, then relatives were lying when they told police that such a lorry driver existed...

[Hartley]

If lorry driver denied saying such a thing, then relatives were lying when they told police that such a lorry driver existed...

You will work out your own contradiction eventually. 

[mike tesko]

Relatives lied when they told police a lorry driver saw Jeremy crouching down in the side of the road on evening of 6th August 1985, because lorry driver who was traced, denied that he had seen any such thing...

Some idiots would not know the truth if it hit them in the face...

[grahameb]

If lorry driver denied saying such a thing, then relatives were lying when they told police that such a lorry driver existed...

Where can I find the original account of this Mike?

[Hartley]

Relatives lied when they told police a lorry driver saw Jeremy crouching down in the side of the road on evening of 6th August 1985, because lorry driver who was traced, denied that he had seen any such thing...

Some idiots would not know the truth if it hit them in the face...

If they lied about a lorry driver, then surely there would not be a lorry driver to trace? 

In any event it's all irrelevant because you can't prove to people that the relatives made such claims, nor is it relied on in any capacity in regards to the case against Jeremy Bamber.

[smiffy]

If they lied about a lorry driver, then surely there would not be a lorry driver to trace? 

In any event it's all irrelevant because you can't prove to people that the relatives made such claims, nor is it relied on in any capacity in regards to the case against Jeremy Bamber.

I believe it was a case of the relatives possibly speaking to a lorry driver and attributing claims to him that he never made in order to help make a false case against JB.
And it is relevant as it undermines the credibility and reliability of those relatives.

[Hartley]

I believe it was a case of the relatives possibly speaking to a lorry driver and attributing claims to him that he never made in order to help make a false case against JB.
And it is relevant as it undermines the credibility and reliability of those relatives.

What allows you to come to that conclusion? Bearing in mind that there is no evidence of this whole incident in the first place?

Plus, which relative was it? They are often grouped together but they are individuals, so it would be interesting to hear who allegedly made the claim.

Another thing to contemplate is that does anybody really think it likely that one of them would claim something which could so easily be checked and found wanting?

I maintain, that it is in my opinion, untrue.