Truth of the night before

[Caroline R]

No HM, that's not fair. I think I would be right in saying even Caroline would agree with that? I have rarely if ever interacted with SteveUk.

You may not agree with my opinions, but I think I've earnt a little more respect than your post suggests.

'Even' Caroline?  But yes, I would agree, I can't say that I see any similarities between your own and Steve's posts - other than you both favour a guilty stance. And you may not believe this but I don't roll my eyes quite as often when I read your posts - and that's as near a compliment as I will get 

[darcyanon]

For sure, but that's no excuse really. I think all on here agree the investigation was at least initially poor.

There seems to be confusion over what the police saw at the house when they first got there too? Lights on or off? Movement/figure/trick of the light, who saw it policeman/Jeremy etc

[No-Bits]

You asked me what I'd read? I asked you if I'd missed anything obviously pointing to Sheila's guilt? I understand that she was ill and I agree that didnt bode well, but I can't see any evidence that she actually pulled the trigger.

I must admit, I haven't read a single book on the case, how did you find Blood Relations, do you think it lead you towards either a guilty or innocent view, or was it quite fair leaving you to decide?

[Caroline R]

You asked me what I'd read? I asked you if I'd missed anything obviously pointing to Sheila's guilt? I understand that she was ill and I agree that didnt bode well, but I can't see any evidence that she actually pulled the trigger.

What evidence was there that Jeremy did?

[No-Bits]

There seems to be confusion over what the police saw at the house when they first got there too? Lights on or off? Movement/figure/trick of the light, who saw it policeman/Jeremy etc

I think differing accounts are the norm rather than indicative of something sinister. The defence and campaign team have attempted to use things to show something else occurred, but at best it's inconclusive and at its most likely it's pure fiction.

[No-Bits]

'Even' Caroline?  But yes, I would agree, I can't say that I see any similarities between your own and Steve's posts - other than you both favour a guilty stance. And you may not believe this but I don't roll my eyes quite as often when I read your posts - and that's as near a compliment as I will get 

Thank you, and apologies for the 'even' quip. 

[Alias]

Was that too much? 

Nono, keep it up! 

[No-Bits]

Nono, keep it up! 

Really? 

[darcyanon]

I must admit, I haven't read a single book on the case, how did you find Blood Relations, do you think it lead you towards either a guily or innocent view, or was it quite fair leaving you to decide?

A friend of mine is doing law at Essex and she was recommended the book and lent it to me. It's very unbiased. Interviews with bamber and Christine & David Boutflour (Eaton). Didnt decide me one way or other.

[HMEssex]

No HM, that's not fair. I think I would be right in saying even Caroline would agree with that? I have rarely if ever interacted with SteveUk.

You may not agree with my opinions, but I think I've earnt a little more respect than your post suggests.

I know you don't interact with Steve-Uk - how could you?!  It was just that he is of the guilty persuasion.
Good to know you have a friend who's joined the forum - you won't feel so lonely.

[Caroline R]

I must admit, I haven't read a single book on the case, how did you find Blood Relations, do you think it lead you towards either a guilty or innocent view, or was it quite fair leaving you to decide?

I read it and thought it was quite balanced - I actually preferred it to the Lomax book (although the latter had more recent info).

[darcyanon]

I think differing accounts are the norm rather than indicative of something sinister. The defence and campaign team have attempted to use things to show something else occurred, but at best it's inconclusive and at its most likely it's pure fiction.

But there are two versions of the window incident recorded on TV from the same policeman?

[No-Bits]

I know you don't interact with Steve-Uk - how could you?!  It was just that he is of the guilty persuasion.
Good to know you have a friend who's joined the forum - you won't feel so lonely.

It's a forum about a multiple murder, not a dating site, I'm not sure I've ever felt lonely and I certainly haven't come here to make friends. If you are referring to Darcyanon then check out my reply to her very first post accusing her of having multiple accounts.
Besides, unless you are all toying with me I thought I was getting along with most of you fairly amicably?

Why the sudden bitterness? 

[No-Bits]

I read it and thought it was quite balanced - I actually preferred it to the Lomax book (although the latter had more recent info).

Yes, I understand the Lomax book to lean in a certain way.

[Caroline R]

But there are two versions of the window incident recorded on TV from the same policeman?

And sometimes Cook suggest Jeremy mentioned the movement at the window and other times, he says it was Mayall but he ALWAYS looks 'shifty'