New silencer tests set to cast serious doubt upon safety of convictions...

[mrstiggywinkle]

In a response to a post by Lookout's in which she said she couldn't think of an accomplice you posted "I can. Who found or directed someone to find the silencer?" I then said that David Boutflour found the silencer, to which you replied "Let's just suppose it was Jeremy and DB regardless of who pulled the trigger(s) and which gun(s) were used.

Jeremy would know full well that if he dobbed DB in, he himself would never get out.

As it is, if Jeremy maintains innocence and it is shown to be a completely unsafe conviction, then all those people that have grabbed WHF and the cash will have to get out and repay the inheritances.

That IMO is why they are in fear and dread Jeremy's release.

Fair enough, you did say 'suppose' but 'we' do need to be careful about accusations

Exactly, so please don't apparently keep trying to twist what I say. My profession involves many aspects, one of which is to ensure I don't libel or slander any person.

[mrstiggywinkle]

You're doing just fine in the pointing out stakes AND you're correct in saying that none of us know what happened. We don't even know if the evidence we have is correct. I suspect much of it isn't. Long held beliefs, be they credible or idiocy will be harder to shift for some, than others, but by all means, throw any amount of new thoughts into the mix and open out the debate.

I have thrown in new stuff and got criticised for doing so....and, I have even more or less got accused of libel. That isn't right.

[grahameb]

I have thrown in new stuff and got criticised for doing so....and, I have even more or less got accused of libel. That isn't right.

What new stuff is that?

[Caroline R]

I have thrown in new stuff and got criticised for doing so....and, I have even more or less got accused of libel. That isn't right.

I said ..... WE ..... as in ALL need to be careful and I said it for a reason.

[mrstiggywinkle]

I said ..... WE ..... as in ALL need to be careful and I said it for a reason.

If you want to try and split hairs, this is what you said, directed at me.

"You can say whatever you like 'within reason' there are certain laws which you need to abide by or the forum could be in trouble. Accusing or insinuating that David Boutflour was accomplice could get us all in trouble and then no one can debate anything"

You were saying that if I accuse someone of something (I will add, 'if I am wrong') I could get the whole forum into trouble and attempted to intimidate me by quoting 'certain laws'. Why you put 'within reason' in apostrophes is beyond my comprehension.

Now you are saying it wasn't directed at me, when it clearly was.

That is what I take offence to.

[mrstiggywinkle]

What new stuff is that?

I suggested that an extended family member may have been involved together with Jeremy if it was him.

Note 'May' and note 'If' before Caroline accuses me of libelling someone.

[Caroline R]

If you want to try and split hairs, this is what you said, directed at me.

"You can say whatever you like 'within reason' there are certain laws which you need to abide by or the forum could be in trouble. Accusing or insinuating that David Boutflour was accomplice could get us all in trouble and then no one can debate anything"

You were saying that if I accuse someone of something (I will add, 'if I am wrong') I could get the whole forum into trouble and attempted to intimidate me by quoting 'certain laws'.

Now you are saying it wasn't directed at me, when it clearly was.

That is what I take offence to.

Intimidate you? That's ridiculous!! Tell you what - you go ahead and mention who you like and accuse them of whatever you want and I won't say jack!! There is a reason why I am suggesting caution but never mind - you carry on!!

[Roch]

Mrs Tiggywinkle, there are people who would rather this forum wasn't here to facilitate some of the debate that it does. Maybe the horse has bolted for some of those who would rather be back in a position where the only info available is an actress playing Ann Eaton solving the case against all odds. But there are still some topics and theories where it's  better to err on the side of caution

[mrstiggywinkle]

Intimidate you? That's ridiculous!! Tell you what - you go ahead and mention who you like and accuse them of whatever you want and I won't say jack!! There is a reason why I am suggesting caution but never mind - you carry on!!

So your use of 'certain laws' wasn't to put me in my place?

Why use it then?

And which laws did you mean exactly?

[mrstiggywinkle]

Mrs Tiggywinkle, there are people who would rather this forum wasn't here to facilitate some of the debate that it does. Maybe the horse has bolted for some of those who would rather be back in a position where the only info available is an actress playing Ann Eaton solving the case against all odds. But there are still some topics and theories where it's  better to err on the side of caution

Frankly if you read my posts properly you have no reason to try and bring me to heel. The reason why this has developed is either because it seems people can't read properly or it appears they simply cannot stand the idea that I may have a different interpretation to theirs.

[Caroline R]

Mrs Tiggywinkle, there are people who would rather this forum wasn't here to facilitate some of the debate that it does. Maybe the horse has bolted for some of those who would rather be back in a position where the only info available is an actress playing Ann Eaton solving the case against all odds. But there are still some topics and theories where it's  better to err on the side of caution

Thanks Roch - I won't bother trying to forewarn next time. 

[mrstiggywinkle]

Thanks Roch - I won't bother trying to forewarn next time. 

If you had properly read what I have said, you wouldn't have need to try to forewarn.

Sorry if you felt you needed to, but all you had to do is ask me to explain if you didn't understand what I was saying.

However, I do take offence when people improperly quote me.

NB! There are probably plenty of potentially libellous posts on this forum without anything I may post.

[Roch]

Frankly if you read my posts properly you have no reason to try and bring me to heel. The reason why this has developed is either because it seems people can't read properly or it appears they simply cannot stand the idea that I may have a different interpretation to theirs.

I've got no problem with you having a different opinion. Mods have to try and take the edge off of some of the more unpalatable theories. And also be seen to do so. It's the nature of the beast. 

[Roch]

Thanks Roch - I won't bother trying to forewarn next time. 

You're doing a great job. Long may it continue.

[Roch]

There are probably plenty of potentially libellous posts on this forum without anything I may post.

I bet there's been a good few that sail close to the wind. Sometimes I think 'fuck 'em... They deserve it' (all things taken in to account).