Times, they are a changing....

[-Harters-]

No singing and dancing tonight. Engage me in some debate and I'll give it my best shot to counter your arguments.

Too late for me tonight. 

But with regards to timings, unless there is something to aid memory, then I'd suggest the most accurate time would be the first mentioned. I don't think a time given a month later, a year later or 27 years later would ever be more accurate.

It may be an innocent mistake, but it may also be an intentional reworking of the times to suit an argument. Obviously that applies regardless of the specific argument involved.

Pick it up tomorrow.

[petey]

Too late for me tonight. 

But with regards to timings, unless there is something to aid memory, then I'd suggest the most accurate time would be the first mentioned. I don't think a time given a month later, a year later or 27 years later would ever be more accurate.

It may be an innocent mistake, but it may also be an intentional reworking of the times to suit an argument. Obviously that applies regardless of the specific argument involved.

Pick it up tomorrow.

No worries.

I forgot to add the caveat that I may not win the said arguments but I'll try and put in my perspective.

As is common with so many issues is this case, none of us know exactly what happened that night, who said what, who did what....... it is largely down to supposition.

I agree with both of your highlighted points.

Spk soon

[Jane]

A bit errelevant really though isn't it? I bet that there are many people who can't remember what time they went to bed on a certain day after a few weeks went by? And perhaps he didn't sit through the whole of the program? Tell you what though. If he did the murders he was pretty crap in setting up an alibi.

SUCH a valid point, Lugg. As I sit here watching the results of the American election, I'm willing to swear that this time next week(actually, tomorrow morning!!) I won't recall that I saw it. Why would I? Why would any of us recall insignificant details of our lives, in case something significant surrounding them happens at a later date.

[Jane]

Too late for me tonight. 

But with regards to timings, unless there is something to aid memory, then I'd suggest the most accurate time would be the first mentioned. I don't think a time given a month later, a year later or 27 years later would ever be more accurate.

It may be an innocent mistake, but it may also be an intentional reworking of the times to suit an argument. Obviously that applies regardless of the specific argument involved.

Pick it up tomorrow.

Yeltrah (sounds as if you've converted to Judeaism) I felt very inclined to see what you've said as an absolute BUT................we could move the situation as far from the Bamber case as is possible and the same variables must be applied. Ask anybody what time "it" happened, what was he/she wearing, how old were they, what sort of car were they driving. Many of them will give confident answers, but may later change their minds, some, by force of personality, will cause others to change theirs. None of them has deliberately lied, but how many have told the absolute truth?

[susan]

Morning Maggie/lookout

Both of you are my very good friends as you know.  With regard to vidvic if he is approached in a reasonable manner he is an out and out nice guy even if opinions are different he will treat you with respect but he is very passionate about his friends as are you about Jeremy and sometimes emotions run high.

[Jane]

Morning Maggie/lookout

Both of you are my very good friends as you know.  With regard to vidvic if he is approached in a reasonable manner he is an out and out nice guy even if opinions are different he will treat you with respect but he is very passionate about his friends as are you about Jeremy and sometimes emotions run high.

Morning Susan. I can second that. Despite being on opposite sides of the divide, Vidvic and I had a very jolly conversation on discovering that we may have people and places in common.

[Lugg]

Morning Susan. I can second that. Despite being on opposite sides of the divide, Vidvic and I had a very jolly conversation on discovering that we may have people and places in common.

He is an honest man and does not lie. That's all I have to say on the subject.

[susan]

April  I agree with one hundred percent vidvic is a top man

[-Harters-]

Yeltrah (sounds as if you've converted to Judeaism) I felt very inclined to see what you've said as an absolute BUT................we could move the situation as far from the Bamber case as is possible and the same variables must be applied. Ask anybody what time "it" happened, what was he/she wearing, how old were they, what sort of car were they driving. Many of them will give confident answers, but may later change their minds, some, by force of personality, will cause others to change theirs. None of them has deliberately lied, but how many have told the absolute truth?

I. haven't changed in any way April.  People tend to want to challenge me and argue without even realising that I haven't formed an argument.

I think even your own perception of me has dramatically altered since your early posts, of course I'm not immune to being mistaken at times.

[Jane]

I. haven't changed in any way April.  People tend to want to challenge me and argue without even realising that I haven't formed an argument.

I think even your own perception of me has dramatically altered since your early posts, of course I'm not immune to being mistaken at times.

Yeltrah. Ooooh, I love the way that name rolls off the tongue Perhaps my perception has altered along with your numerous name changes. I know from experience that constant name changes CAN have an effect on the psyche. On the other hand, it may be down to something much more subtle

[-Harters-]

Yeltrah. Ooooh, I love the way that name rolls off the tongue Perhaps my perception has altered along with your numerous name changes. I know from experience that constant name changes CAN have an effect on the psyche. On the other hand, it may be down to something much more subtle

Perhaps, although it seems to have an opposite effect on others, which amuses me just a little bit more than it should.   

[lookout]

Lookout. In October you said you had a trusted friend who told you that the Boutflours had a secret bit of information on Jeremy. This week you said it was the Eatons. You told us that you had a trusted friend who knew the family very well and they were nasty people. This is not my experience whatsoever. Which family actually is it that your friend knew?

You asked Mike if he knew what this secret was and then said that you'd try and find out from your trusted friend I presume? Would you not have asked anyway?

Just one minute,vidvic. Please listen to what I DID say,and not what you've cobbled up for effect,and also for the attention of your friends on here.

I did not say that there was a secret about the Boutflours.
I have got a trusted friend who'd said it was one of the Eatons who said " he/she had a secret ".
I did not say my friend knew the family very well.
I did not say that my friend said they were nasty people.
Now get your facts right before you start making defamatory remarks and making me out to be a liar.
This friend of mine knows them in a professional/business capacity.

Anyway,why do you think my friend would have been approached in such a way as to include the fact about a " secret " during a business meeting.?
Next time I'll know about this " secret ",but I'll be keeping it to myself.
Yes,I'd asked Mike,but on second thoughts,the family aren't going to approach a stranger with such a remark.

You seem to have a niggling problem with this.?

[lookout]

i remember well both vidvic and then hartley both one night ganged up on mike , they were both guilty of bullying mike, vidvic should not have to fight their corner by doing so tells me they might have something to defend, Lookout has done nothing wrong here.

Mertol,I thank you. You're right,I haven't done anything. The two bullying men ought to be ashamed of themselves. Worry not my friend,I can stand my ground,and am not afraid of anyone.x

[vidvic]

Just one minute,vidvic. Please listen to what I DID say,and not what you've cobbled up for effect,and also for the attention of your friends on here.

I did not say that there was a secret about the Boutflours.
I have got a trusted friend who'd said it was one of the Eatons who said " he/she had a secret ".
I did not say my friend knew the family very well.
I did not say that my friend said they were nasty people.
Now get your facts right before you start making defamatory remarks and making me out to be a liar.
This friend of mine knows them in a professional/business capacity.

Anyway,why do you think my friend would have been approached in such a way as to include the fact about a " secret " during a business meeting.?
Next time I'll know about this " secret ",but I'll be keeping it to myself.
Yes,I'd asked Mike,but on second thoughts,the family aren't going to approach a stranger with such a remark.

You seem to have a niggling problem with this.?

On October 4th you said this -

"Mike,,would you know anything about a " secret thing " that a member of the Boutflours has,that states will keep him inside for the rest of his life.?
This was told to me by someone who has indirect connections with the family. Can you find anything out about that remark.?"

[lookout]

On October 4th you said this -

"Mike,,would you know anything about a " secret thing " that a member of the Boutflours has,that states will keep him inside for the rest of his life.?
This was told to me by someone who has indirect connections with the family. Can you find anything out about that remark.?"

You see,vidvic,,nothing like what you accused me of saying. Except that I didn't even mention " that states will keep him inside for the rest of his life ",those are YOUR words.!