The very best of luck to Jeremy

[guest154]

I can't confirm who's the submissions were.  But I believe they wer ethe entire submissons, I haven't stated that I think Simon let Jeremy down, just that his team did. Whoever did either parts of these, was flawed.

Yeah I am legally qualified - I thought I'd said that, sorry. I don;t know which expert it was who was contacted. I was never given a copy of the submissions to keep, I jsut looked at someone elses copy and there notes (hence the yellow highlights) but I am fairly certian Simon will know who was contacted and if no he's able to find out through his CRCC contacts.


I don't know what involvement you had in anything, but I do know that it wasn't at the highest level - we would have knowledge of each other if you were at the top.


Rochford.
It won't be a comletely balanced piece, it's an Expose on Bamber. I believe the editor will be Peter Wright? Which I guess means it will be a Sunday piece.

[petey]

Neil. Mat is very unlikely to step foot on this forum when you are around as I pointed out last night

Why ever would u want this to be the case?

I believe that Mat has made a number of valid points which have further added to the debate.

Just because he believes JB to be guilty, doesn't mean we should chase him away.

Obviously i wasn't personally involved in the submissions so don't know how accurate his posts are but I certainly think he should be welcomed on the forum.

Without wanting to be too bitchy, I would much rather read Mat's posts than the rubbish that you often post too, particularly when your posts often contains threats.

[Roch]

Rochford.
It won't be a comletely balanced piece, it's an Expose on Bamber. I believe the editor will be Peter Wright? Which I guess means it will be a Sunday piece.

Mat, I really do hope that this 'expose' is not based partly upon Ann Eaton anecdotes?

[guest154]

Rochford. I believe they are on the case overall.

Why ever would u want this to be the case?

I believe that Mat has made a number of valid points which have further added to the debate.

Just because he believes JB to be guilty, doesn't mean we should chase him away.

Obviously i wasn't personally involved in the submissions so don't know how accurate his posts are but I certainly think he should be welcomed on the forum.

Without wanting to be too bitchy, I would much rather read Mat's posts than the rubbish that you often post too, particularly when it often contains threats.

Thank you, Petey.

[JackiePreece]

mat what a load of @@@@@@@s  there is not one single thing you have written that you could prove to be true.

I could have written anything you have written in 15 minutes and you are not even winding anyone up because you are not even a good fake.

I would be excited for another expose in the mail because I thought the benefactors of Neville and Junes fortunes would have run out of things to make up about Jeremy

He wasn't violent
He liked farming

Everyone knows the truth!

[JackiePreece]

Petey wise up Mat hasn't answered any questions from Neil
If you can't see that well...

Petey why don't you list Mats "valid point"

[ngb1066]

I can't confirm who's the submissions were.  But I believe they wer ethe entire submissons, I haven't stated that I think Simon let Jeremy down, just that his team did. Whoever did either parts of these, was flawed.

Yeah I am legally qualified - I thought I'd said that, sorry.

 I don;t know which expert it was who was contacted.

I was never given a copy of the submissions to keep, I jsut looked at someone elses copy and there notes

I don't know what involvement you had in anything, but I do know that it wasn't at the highest level - we would have knowledge of each other if you were at the top.

Mat  - again several points arise.

1) So you did not in fact read the final submissions made by Simon McKay?

2) You had not confirmed that you are legally qualified until your last post. Are you a solicitor or a barrister?

3) So you do not know which expert was contacted but you do know exactly what he said when contacted by the CCRC?

4) Are you saying you were shown a copy of the submissions by someone working at the CCRC?

5) How could you possibly know what involvement I or anyone else for that matter may have had?  The final submissions were made by Simon McKay and in the name of McKay Law.  You could only have knowledge of the involvement of people other than Simon if you worked for McKay Law, which you do not.

You are welcome to post here Mat and free to post whatever views you have on the case.  I have to say however that something does not feel quite right here, but we will see.

 

[guest154]

Mat  - again several points arise.

1) So you did not in fact read the final submissions made by Simon McKay?

2) You had not confirmed that you are legally qualified until your last post. Are you a solicitor or a barrister?

3) So you do not know which expert was contacted but you do know exactly what he said when contacted by the CCRC?

4) Are you saying you were shown a copy of the submissions by someone working at the CCRC?

5) How could you possibly know what involvement I or anyone else for that matter may have had?  The final submissions were made by Simon McKay and in the name of McKay Law.  You could only have knowledge of the involvement of people other than Simon if you worked for McKay Law, which you do not.

You are welcome to post here Mat and free to post whatever views you have on the case.  I have to say however that something does not feel quite right here, but we will see.

I read everything that I was given. This must include the SM material, surely. I don't see why it wouldn't. Wasn't it Simon who's experts wrote about the silencer/burns? Because if so I read that information as stated so his material must have been included in the documents that I saw highlighted.

I know what the expert said because this was part of the yellow highlighting - I just don't remember the name of said expert. I never had a copy of the CRCC submissions to ready myself - I saw someone elses highlighted documents and the hand notes that had been made on the side.

4 - No, not as ABC as that.

You don't work for McKay law or freelance for them which is how I knew/ came to the conclusion you weren't invovled in the case high up.

[JackiePreece]

Mat you could write a book about 'when I grow up I would like to be a barrister' ?

[guest154]

If my posts are being deleted, I don't see why I should carry on?

[JackiePreece]

Come on Neil he is completely barking mad everyone can see it

Imagine if the submissions were flying around everywhere how would that leave the ccrc

He has not give ONE credible answer to your questions

Amusing though

[ngb1066]

If my posts are being deleted, I don't see why I should carry on?

Mat - Two posts were deleted, one of them yours.  They were deleted for breaching forum rules.  You know that your last post was totally unacceptable.  If you really do not know why I will have to explain further.

[guest154]

Mat you could write a book about 'when I grow up I would like to be a barrister' ?

what about this though, NGB? She's goading me. I was responding to this post.

[Neil]

Hi Neil  I have read it was the farm Secretary who lived quite near to the farm she had keys.

I've only just got in, so a belated thank you Susan.

[JackiePreece]

Do you remember the whole of Facebook and some members were had over a secretly found diary of Taff Jones, I never believed it for a second, all false

I have had David Eaton contact me through twitter he never existed

Tim Benetts ex wife

It's what they do for kicks !!!