How I Iost the photo` of Sheila on the Bed...

[Roch]

Ok, so that could equally be David being a PITA and chasing them because he hadn't heard anything. Where are the actual message logs, I was looking for them earlier and couldn't find them.

Bridget, personally I find that explanation improbable..  Fair play to you for using your brain though    In the unlikely event that any prosecution witnesses end up in the dock, you could potentially be of use to them.   This is the only document that I know of. 

[Bridget]

Bridget, personally I find that explanation improbable..  Fair play to you for using your brain though    In the unlikely event that any prosecution witnesses end up in the dock, you could potentially be of use to them.   This is the only document that I know of.

Ho ho

The message seems to have been cut off mid sentence, so there must be more somewhere.

[Roch]

The message seems to have been cut off mid sentence, so there must be more somewhere.

That's the first time I've seen that suggested...  interesting.  Can you think of a reason for it to be cut off?  The doc looks like a ropey photocopy.

[bloggs and son]

Now you have me completely confooosed - do you mean #918? If so, I was also asking about the 11th September call from DB in that one.

fergetit it aint important anyway.

[bloggs and son]

That's the first time I've seen that suggested...  interesting.  Can you think of a reason for it to be cut off?  The doc looks like a ropey photocopy.

Where did you find it Rochford? I wonder if there are any other clearer copies anywhere? The missing words could be anything?

[Bridget]

That's the first time I've seen that suggested...  interesting.  Can you think of a reason for it to be cut off?  The doc looks like a ropey photocopy.

I think you'd have to know how HOLMES worked at the time to answe that, but my guess is that that is a print out from the front page list, and the fields may have been character limited. Maybe there was a way to access the full record from that front page.

Also, might there not be a hand written record of the call, like there is for the JB/West and West/Bonnett calls?

[Roch]

Where did you find it Rochford? I wonder if there are any other clearer copies anywhere? The missing words could be anything?

I pinched it from one of the sites.  It might have been this one.  It's interesting what Bridget has pointed out.  Mike once posted up a photocopied evidence schedule which appeared to have been tampered with by placing something over one of the boxes, so that the typed entry was missing.  He suggested it was something to do with the silencer but if memory serves me correctly, I think it related to the one allegedly found on the day of the incident. 

[Roch]

I think you'd have to know how HOLMES worked at the time to answer that, but my guess is that that is a print out from the front page list, and the fields may have been character limited.  Maybe there was a way to access the full record from that front page.

Also, might there not be a hand written record of the call, like there is for the JB/West and West/Bonnett calls?

So this is a Home Office document and not an EP schedule?  Handwritten stuff seems to be off limits to the defence.  The only handwritten stuff I've seen is the COLP / Dickinson notes (not sure which is which  )

[Bridget]

So this is a Home Office document and not an EP schedule?  Handwritten stuff seems to be off limits to the defence.  The only handwritten stuff I've seen is the COLP / Dickinson notes (not sure which is which  )

I don't know, maybe a better description would be an EP document generated on the HO system. It might help if we could see the whole thing.

[mike tesko]

The interesting thing about this entry relating to the find of a silencer by David Boutflour, is that is was reported has having been found on 11th September 1985, yet police claim they collected it on evening of 12th August 1985, and that Boutflour had already found it once in the same gun cupboard on 10th August 1985. Beats me why Boutflour should be reporting the find of the silencer on 11th September 1985, when he had already reportedly found it a month sooner, and it has already been handed to the police a month earlier - why would you report to the police details about the find of a silencer a month after you had already reported its find, and a month after police already had taken possession of it?

[Roch]

Mike, please read post no. 943.  Can you remember the schedule I am referring to?

[Reader]

. . . the symbol is opposite where it says Recent Posts it is a white triangle shaped thing is this the one you meant

No, it's not. However, the tower picture is large and would take some time to download. Maybe you didn't wait long enough.