Actor, Don Hawkins - Bambi rang me before massacre about hearing gods voice...

[tyler]

A newspaper that said what?  Did it print verbatim what she supposedly said to him and when it was supposedly said?  There is no need to even evaluate whether Hawkins was telling the truth if there were no quotes of any substance.

If you don't have proof he said something and moreove rhave proof of what he claimed ther eis nothign to evne debate- that is a fact for you.

Mike has stated at the beginning of the thread what Sheila was alleged to have said to Mr Hawkins,and it is the same words used from the article that I had previously read. Its hardly my fault that the newspaper is now defunct and no longer has a website from which I can copy and paste the article as proof,but if you dont want to take my word for it,then you could always contact The Sun,they may have some kind of archive from which they could retrieve it from for you.

[guest154]

I think that it's become creepy that people are now being traced to be questioned by Jackie Preece!!! This forum is becoming worrying the way that people off the forum are spoken about as is they have to answer questions or that an intrusion on their person life in 2014 is justified  because of something they (apparently) said to a newspaper years ago.

[nugnug]

Mike has stated at the beginning of the thread what Sheila was alleged to have said to Mr Hawkins,and it is the same words used from the article that I had previously read. Its hardly my fault that the newspaper is now defunct and no longer has a website from which I can copy and paste the article as proof,but if you dont want to take my word for it,then you could always contact The Sun,they may have some kind of archive from which they could retrieve it from for you.

i think a lot of people remember reading that artical.

[guest154]

I don't remember reading it, but if Tyler says she has I believe it exists.

[Alias]

mind you some people that ilsness hear voices every day so it might not mean much that she was hearing them that night.

by the way the reason im calling it that illness is i cant spell it.

Never mind the spelling, we understand what you say, that is what counts. 

Tyler, why does this guy look familiar?

[Alias]

Does kind of dispel the myth that Sheila had gone inward on herself and was not communicating with anyone that night though doesn't it?

I wonder if she called Colin too. He writes something in his book that made me wonder.

[susan]

Hello Mat I agree if tyler says she has read it she will have done she is a great honest girl and very well read.

[tyler]

Never mind the spelling, we understand what you say, that is what counts. 

Tyler, why does this guy look familiar?

Hi Alias,he was the original actor that played the son of Stan and Hilda Ogden in Coronation Street.

[scipio_usmc]

Mike has stated at the beginning of the thread what Sheila was alleged to have said to Mr Hawkins,and it is the same words used from the article that I had previously read. Its hardly my fault that the newspaper is now defunct and no longer has a website from which I can copy and paste the article as proof,but if you dont want to take my word for it,then you could always contact The Sun,they may have some kind of archive from which they could retrieve it from for you.

I did a search for Sheila telling him she was, "hearing voices from god, telling her to do things" but came up empty.  This is exactly what he claimed or you are not sure?  Equally as imprtant when did she supposedly tell him this and what was their relationship?  When people are dead it is easy for someone seeking fame to come out of the woodwork claiming to know the person and to have something relevant to say.   

[Jane]

..........................................  When people are dead it is easy for someone seeking fame to come out of the woodwork claiming to know the person and to have something relevant to say.

Hmm. That's dodgy because it also infers that with equal ease, what's said, post death, can be disregarded, even when/if it's the truth, if it fails to suit someone else's purpose.

[nugnug]

I did a search for Sheila telling him she was, "hearing voices from god, telling her to do things" but came up empty.  This is exactly what he claimed or you are not sure?  Equally as imprtant when did she supposedly tell him this and what was their relationship?  When people are dead it is easy for someone seeking fame to come out of the woodwork claiming to know the person and to have something relevant to say.

well thats true but that allso applys to people who said things about jeremy.

[lookout]

I wonder if she called Colin too. He writes something in his book that made me wonder.

That made me wonder too. The number,again,would have been on the billing,as well as the time.

[nugnug]

well it would be an easy cliam to prove or disprove wich is why im surprised nobody's done it before.

[lookout]

well it would be an easy cliam to prove or disprove wich is why im surprised nobody's done it before.

The thing is,if the subject hadn't come up ( the call was made on the night of the murders ) then nobody would have known about it anyway,although someone obviously knew that Sheila had phoned him. However,it's something that could very well have been overlooked and numbers on a telephone bill would mean nothing unless this guys' number was known.
It could possibly have been in Sheilas' diary ? Which we know nothing about.

[scipio_usmc]

Hmm. That's dodgy because it also infers that with equal ease, what's said, post death, can be disregarded, even when/if it's the truth, if it fails to suit someone else's purpose.

It is one of the reasons why Historians and legal investigators carefully scrutinize such claims.  Are there phone records to prove they talked at a time claimed, did they actually have a relationship that would warrant discussing things of such a nature and all the other things that go into evaluating claims. 

Since this claim never made it to court that alone means it is of little value and relevance even if truly alleged by Hawkins. 

The unreliability of claims of what people supposedly told them is also why hearsay is indamissible.  Admissibility of evidence hinges on reliability and relevance.  The former in a general principle of application.  The rules of evidence are formed with such in mind.  General rules regarding what could be deemed reliable.  The latter is actually specific to the case at hand and involves whether the exact issues of the case at hand are impacted by the evidence.

If evidence is of  anature generally reliable then it can be considered but tat that point the specifics are evaluated by the trier of fact to evaluate the veracity and what if any impact that has on the actual case.  Some things relevant still don't impact the overall decision. 

Courts just formally apply rules that are used by historians and others in everyday life.  The same exact issues a court looks at regarding reliability and accuracy are used in everyday life just less formalistic application of such.