Author Topic: the forum  (Read 5569 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

andrea

  • Guest
the forum
« on: March 20, 2011, 10:44:PM »
is it me or has this forum quietened down alot these past few days?

its quiet tonight, hardly any posts compared to how it used to be!!!

Hartley

  • Guest
Re: the forum
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2011, 11:57:PM »
Yeah I think it's become a popular subject because of the application to the CCRC, it'll quiet down a bit until they make a final decision, then it'll go crazy again.

I have to say though this forum is the first time I've seen considered opinions and discussion of this type before. It's good stuff for the most part.

andrea

  • Guest
Re: the forum
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2011, 11:59:PM »
yeah i like it on here

chochokeira

  • Guest
Re: the forum
« Reply #3 on: March 21, 2011, 12:15:AM »

andrea

  • Guest
Re: the forum
« Reply #4 on: March 21, 2011, 01:05:AM »
like hartley said, things will liven up soon  :D

andrea

  • Guest
Re: the forum
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2011, 01:15:AM »
hello anybody out there?

Offline Pete0001

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 280
Re: the forum
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2011, 10:02:AM »
I like it hear but have found it hard to keep track of alot of things posted.

When I started posting on here a couple of months back there was only really Kaldin, Mike, Me and a few others posting regularly so it was alot easier to keep up to date :)

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: the forum
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2011, 10:04:AM »
I like it hear but have found it hard to keep track of alot of things posted.

When I started posting on here a couple of months back there was only really Kaldin, Mike, Me and a few others posting regularly so it was alot easier to keep up to date :)

Yes, it was like that back then. I think it's pretty busy now considering it's a very topical forum. Nobody seems to have run out of things to say yet.  ;D

clifford

  • Guest
Re: the forum
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2011, 10:50:AM »
Just been reading the statement that AE made. In it she said she was told by the police that JB, and SC were found on the bed with the rifle between them. Later on she said that when she wernt to whf she mentionedf the sugar on the floor. It was explained to her it was spilt when the police forced entry. If this was the case then it follows that SC would not have had sugar on her feet.
Sorry if this has already been covered. I am an undecided, but leaning towards not guilty

andrea

  • Guest
Re: the forum
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2011, 11:38:AM »
hi cliff  :)

theres been speculation as to wether sheila was found on the bed, mike says he saw apic of june and sheila on the bed, he saw this in bambers former solicitors office, but yo my knowledge i dont know of anyone else who has seen such a pic.

regarding the sugar, yes i know which part you mean about the tfg knocking over the sugar when they stormed whf.

and like you, im pretty much undecided, i lean one way then the other!!

clifford

  • Guest
Re: the forum
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2011, 03:56:PM »
Thanks Andrea. Seems to me that we need to talk about this. After all the police are saying one thing, and AE is saying another.
It seems to me that the police are pinning a lot on the fact that SC had no sugar on her feet.
Perhaps Mike can help.

Offline Kaldin

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6961
Re: the forum
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2011, 04:01:PM »
Thanks Andrea. Seems to me that we need to talk about this. After all the police are saying one thing, and AE is saying another.
It seems to me that the police are pinning a lot on the fact that SC had no sugar on her feet.
Perhaps Mike can help.

This issue was brought up at the appeal of 2002. The judges concluded that it wasn't very signficant anyway, and that the real issue was the lack of blood on Sheila's feet.

chelmsey

  • Guest
Re: the forum
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2011, 04:25:PM »
Thanks Andrea. Seems to me that we need to talk about this. After all the police are saying one thing, and AE is saying another.
It seems to me that the police are pinning a lot on the fact that SC had no sugar on her feet.
Perhaps Mike can help.

Hi Clifford.The sugar issue was yet another nail in JBs coffin that was used by the prosecution at trial.But at a later appeal it was admitted that the sugar bowl and upturned chairs in the kitchen were caused by the TFU when storming the house.They admitted that the sugar was original contained to a small area under the kitchen table and obviously got spread around as police moved around the kitchen and moved furniture etc.

Hartley

  • Guest
Re: the forum
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2011, 04:49:PM »
Thanks Andrea. Seems to me that we need to talk about this. After all the police are saying one thing, and AE is saying another.
It seems to me that the police are pinning a lot on the fact that SC had no sugar on her feet.
Perhaps Mike can help.

Hi Clifford.The sugar issue was yet another nail in JBs coffin that was used by the prosecution at trial.But at a later appeal it was admitted that the sugar bowl and upturned chairs in the kitchen were caused by the TFU when storming the house.They admitted that the sugar was original contained to a small area under the kitchen table and obviously got spread around as police moved around the kitchen and moved furniture etc.

No it wasn't admitted. The 2002 judgement said that there is no evidence to suggest that police officers knocked over the sugar bowl, it then went on to say that it would make no difference even if they did, as Kaldin has said, the lack of blood on Sheila's feet was the real issue.

The whole sugar thing can be forgotten about.

chelmsey

  • Guest
Re: the forum
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2011, 04:59:PM »
Thanks Andrea. Seems to me that we need to talk about this. After all the police are saying one thing, and AE is saying another.
It seems to me that the police are pinning a lot on the fact that SC had no sugar on her feet.
Perhaps Mike can help.

Hi Clifford.The sugar issue was yet another nail in JBs coffin that was used by the prosecution at trial.But at a later appeal it was admitted that the sugar bowl and upturned chairs in the kitchen were caused by the TFU when storming the house.They admitted that the sugar was original contained to a small area under the kitchen table and obviously got spread around as police moved around the kitchen and moved furniture etc.

No it wasn't admitted. The 2002 judgement said that there is no evidence to suggest that police officers knocked over the sugar bowl, it then went on to say that it would make no difference even if they did, as Kaldin has said, the lack of blood on Sheila's feet was the real issue.

The whole sugar thing can be forgotten about.

You are absolutely correct Hartley, my mistake sorry. It wasnt admitted at a later appeal.It was admitted by D.I.COOK at the 1991 COLP investigation.