Forum Members Posts Being Deleted For No Reason

[bloggs and son]

I think if the deal had have been in place prior to the trial the story would have appeared in the first publication after the trial, which was 5 days later on the 2nd of November. It didn't appear until the 9th.

Not necessarily. I think ngb posted something that showed that the agreement was in place already before the trial. I think it came out at the 2002 appeal?

[NewChilledOutHartley]

Not necessarily. I think ngb posted something that showed that the agreement was in place already before the trial. I think it came out at the 2002 appeal?

No he blinking well has not! He seems to think that there is new evidence which has come to light, but for obvious reasons isn't willing to reveal what that actually is. He has posted nothing.

[bloggs and son]

No he blinking well has not! He seems to think that there is new evidence which has come to light, but for obvious reasons isn't willing to reveal what that actually is. He has posted nothing.

In actual fact I think it was campion who posted it if I remember rightly? By the way. I do not believe ngb is a liar, if that is what you are implying?

[NewChilledOutHartley]

In actual fact I think it was campion who posted it if I remember rightly? By the way. I do not believe ngb is a liar, if that is what you are implying?

No Grahame, I am not implying that. I am stating very clearly that you are innaccurate in your assertion that NGB has provided evidence indicating that a deal was in place.

Please stop trying to suggest that I am calling people liars!  That's twice now!

[Bridget]

No Grahame, I am not implying that. I am stating very clearly that you are innaccurate in your assertion that NGB has provided evidence indicating that a deal was in place.

Please stop trying to suggest that I am calling people liars!  That's twice now!

What did campion post grahame?

[ngb1066]

Hi Keira, but that is a pro bamber interpretation of events, not an actual account. Do we know what Liz actually said? Is there a copy of a statement by her, or the police record of her call? I don't recall seeing either of those myself.

All withheld under PII.  The account given on the official website is based up a careful analysis of material obtained recently by the defence.

[ngb1066]

In what way were they misled?

They were misled into believing that Julie Mugford conscience had got the better of her so she came forward voluntarily and gave the police her account.  In fact she did not come forward voluntarily and was put under intense pressure by the police.  That is very material and had the jury known the facts it is very likely that the assessment of her evidence would have been different.

[Bridget]

All withheld under PII.  The account given on the official website is based up a careful analysis of material obtained recently by the defence.

Then why do they themselves say that the contents of the phone call are still a mystery?

[Bridget]

They were misled into believing that Julie Mugford conscience had got the better of her so she came forward voluntarily and gave the police her account.  In fact she did not come forward voluntarily and was put under intense pressure by the police.  That is very material and had the jury known the facts it is very likely that the assessment of her evidence would have been different.

What is the evidence for that?

[bloggs and son]

No Grahame, I am not implying that. I am stating very clearly that you are innaccurate in your assertion that NGB has provided evidence indicating that a deal was in place.

Please stop trying to suggest that I am calling people liars!  That's twice now!

Hi Hartley I'm not meaning to do that. But I will defend ngb's honesty. As I said in my post after my first post I think it was campion who posted it. I'll have to phone him up and ak him in order to verify what he said? I know he spoke to me about it. I will just have to ask him what he actually said. Sorry.

[NewChilledOutHartley]

Hi Hartley I'm not meaning to do that. But I will defend ngb's honesty. As I said in my post after my first post I think it was campion who posted it. I'll have to phone him up and ak him in order to verify what he said? I know he spoke to me about it. I will just have to ask him what he actually said. Sorry.

There are no accusations for you to defend against. If ever there were, then Neil is quite capable of defending himself.

With regards to Campions posts on the subject, then you are also inaccurate. It's my own burden, and I even add to all by myself at times, but I personally find it quite annoying that people post information without even pretending to check that it is accurate. I don't mean the contentious issues which can be interpreted in a number of ways, I mean quite blatant inaccurate information.

[campion]

Hearters,  Calm Down O.C.   What doth precipitate your outburst ?? You are reminiscent of a Porkupine or a Hedgehog in a Wiccawork basket.

'I can say that' re: Stan Jones 1st interview with JM, was at Malcom Waters house, promulgated by her il
lustrious friend Lizzzzz Rimington.  This is described in Wikes'  definitive tome, in Chapter 15.         



Additionally in that reference work, at page 277 you will ascertain that Julie was staying at a hotel overlooking Sloane square, courtesy of NOTW, with reporters and photographers. Her Mother informed her, that Jeremy had been convicted.  Julie was upset.......!

[bob]

All withheld under PII.  The account given on the official website is based up a careful analysis of material obtained recently by the defence.

Neil - out of interest... when something is witheld under PII is there a requirement for an internal record to be kept justifying the decision at the time, such that if the evidence is later released (say, under some 30-year-rule or some such equivalent) that the justification used internally at the time could then be seen?

[NewChilledOutHartley]

Hearters,  Calm Down O.C.   What doth precipitate your outburst ?? You are reminiscent of a Porkupine or a Hedgehog in a Wiccawork basket.

'I can say that' re: Stan Jones 1st interview with JM, was at Malcom Waters house, promulgated by her il
lustrious friend Lizzzzz Rimington.  This is described in Wikes'  definitive tome, in Chapter 15.         



Additionally in that reference work, at page 277 you will ascertain that Julie was staying at a hotel overlooking Sloane square, courtesy of NOTW, with reporters and photographers. Her Mother informed her, that Jeremy had been convicted.  Julie was upset.......!

I'm quite calm Campion. Yes I saw your post and that is certainly an interesting observation, however what it is not, is proof that contracts etc were signed and sealed before the trial. If it were, then the defence would be able to take JM's statement straight to the CCRC.

Having said that, I'm not arguing that the deal was or was not in place, I'm just a little exasperated by the 'Chinese whispers' for want of a better description.

For example, somebody will probably now read this post and claim that I have said Campion was with Julie when the verdict came in. 

[susan]

campion  going off topic Grahame told me to speak to you about red kites I have 4 visit my garden and I was told you are very well versed on the kites and they have some kind of connection to the Bamber case. Anytime when you can come off the topic you are on.