An alibi from Neville is better than no alibi at all :

[campion]

Oh!! Dear, What CAN the matter be?

[Neil]

My dearest Adam I wont and don't want to go round in circles with you, but what you are suggesting is totally false and you do not appear to have a single shred of evidence or factual evidence to support your opinions or scenarios....A crime was committed and we are here to discuss openly many possibilities surrounding the case its self and I wont be drawn into any hearsay or self opinions or scenarios that are circumstantial and would never hold a conviction today based on these alone. Its purely unsafe.

Its not very often I have a go at any poster, but I find you don't debate and constantly repeat your scenarios all day long which is annoying.....I like to debate and love to challenge people but you do not answer questions or consider any alternative but your own.....

Hi Patti, reading this post of yours reminds me of why I thought you were such a good moderator.

I have just read through this entire thread and, quite frankly, it's cringeworthy.

[Jan]

I don't think that Jansus is unreasonable.

 

a lot of people say I am though.

[Adam]

Adam, enough is enough - this is another thread about phone calls, it will be merged with one of the other threads you have started. If yo come up with a new idea for a topic that 'doesn't' centre on 'phone calls' then fair enough. At the moment, you're simply flooding.

 

[Neil]

Hi Adam, one question for you. 

If Jeremy was to have his case heard today, armed with all the additional information not available at his original trial, do you HONESTLY think that he would be convicted?

You pose some interesting questions, ones which I've considered many times before. The debate which ensues each time you ask such questions, only goes to demonstrate how little evidence there actually is.

[campion]

Was it Sheila, the 'maid' locked up in the Lava tree?

Where are you Lookout when we need You? 

[campion]

......and Nobody knew She... was there!

Excepting a Latter day MAThew Hopkins (Witch Finder General)!

[Jan]

Hi Adam, one question for you. 

If Jeremy was to have his case heard today, armed with all the additional information not available at his original trial, do you HONESTLY think that he would be convicted?

You pose some interesting questions, ones which I've considered many times before. The debate which ensues each time you ask such questions, only goes to demonstrate how little evidence there actually is.

I agree which is why a lot of Adams "statements" are based on supposition , hearsay and opinions and we all have a lot of those. Which is why the thread goes round and round in circles. The problem is that Adam has made up his mind .So even if someone gives him an alternative to his scenario , he wont even think about it.

exactly

[susan]

Hi Neil  I agree with you about Patti's post to Adam.  She was an excellent Mod as are the ones we have and I think if we have another Mod appointed it should be Adam

[Caroline]

Adam, on the subject of calls, what do you make of the Matthew McDonald interview in which either Miller or Clark basically admit that they have evidence that a call was made from WHF to Goldhanger? We know that a Sceptre 100 was installed at WHF (in the office) and that it was working because it had been newly replaced! This model of phone holds 10 frequently used numbers (basically a speed dial function) but also registers the 'last call dialled'.

[No-Bits]

Adam, on the subject of calls, what do you make of the Matthew McDonald interview in which either Miller or Clark basically admit that they have evidence that a call was made from WHF to Goldhanger? We know that a Sceptre 100 was installed at WHF (in the office) and that it was working because it had been newly replaced! This model of phone holds 10 frequently used numbers (basically a speed dial function) but also registers the 'last call dialled'.

They could just be bluffing MM. Or if there was evidence, then it could be from JB's answer phone?

I suspect that it would only record the last number that was dialed from that particular phone, i.e. it would not record a number dialed from a different phone in the house even though it is the same line.

[Caroline]

They could just be bluffing MM. Or if there was evidence, then it could be from JB's answer phone?

I suspect that it would only record the last number that was dialed from that particular phone, i.e. it would not record a number dialed from a different phone in the house even though it is the same line.

Already said that. And yes, it would only record the number dialled from 'that' phone because it's the phone and not the line/exchange that stores the info.

[Caroline]

Nevertheless it is yet another aspect that should be considered/looked into and it was enough to bring you out of your igloo 

[lookout]

Nevertheless it is yet another aspect that should be considered/looked into and it was enough to bring you out of your igloo 

Oh,,I like that one.

[No-Bits]

................. it was enough to bring you out of your igloo 

 :D