A Call To Essex Police From Neville? - The poll

[lookout]

Well, that's your prerogative Lookout but it wasn't Neville who gave the description of the guns, it was Jeremy.

As you say,it's your prerogative.

[Caroline]

As you say,it's your prerogative.

OK, I'll prove it to you! Watch this space! 

[Jan]

To be fair on lookout this has been posted on this forum so I am sure there is no deliberate intention to deceive .

[Caroline]

To be fair on lookout this has been posted on this forum so I am sure there is no deliberate intention to deceive .

Yes, I know and I wouldn't suggest that Lookout is trying to deceive anyone but it just shows you how things can get confused. The OS is deceptive whether intentional or not.

[Jan]

Yes, I know and I wouldn't suggest that Lookout is trying to deceive anyone but it just shows you how things can get confused. The OS is deceptive whether intentional or not.

That is fair enough - it just shows how certain things stick in peoples minds.

[scipio_usmc]

To be fair on lookout this has been posted on this forum so I am sure there is no deliberate intention to deceive .

If lookout were new to this only saw the claims you posted and decided to just believe them without making any effort to validate the claims then she is just guilty of not making an effort to investigate the claims and just believe them without question.

But Lookout has intentionally decided to believe such despite being exposed to a great deal of evidence that proves such claims to be false.

Lookout participated in a debate over the issue of the shotguns only days ago. Reader was swearing up and down that Jeremy told West about the shotguns but the other part of Bonnett's log came from Nevill.   The language about the shotguns was quoted and even a snippet posted showing that it said Jeremy told him Nevill had a collection of shotguns.

Lookout has also commented on threads that posted the actual logs in question and debated the logs.

So either lookout doesn't read or attempt to understnad anything she comments on or she intentionally chose to disregard the facts and believe the chart you listed anyway.

That chart is inaccurate in so many ways starting with it asserts the caller on Bonnett's log was listed as Nevill though it was listed as West.  Nevill's name and address is not listed as the caller.  That alone should clue Lookout to a problem.

Lookout, like many Jeremy supporters, intentionally closes her eyes to the facts and just regurgitates claims she witnessed being taken apart on this this very forum.  She said momement ago she chooses to believe what the campaign team and other propagandists post over what she reads here. 

When you intentionally choose to believe something that was refuted because of bias there is little defense possible. 

Saying well in their defense they are choosing to believe lies posted by others even though such lies were proven to be lies, isn't really a defense at all.  It is merely an explanation.

[Mr. Gee]

His book was a biased propaganda piece. He thoroughly distorted a great number of things.  Part of what he distorted were the facts of the case.  He took liberty to revise the testimony of people to suit his interests.  What Lookout raised was a perfect example.  He isrepresented that she went shooting in Scotland and Boutflour taught her how to shoot while there thouh there was no testimony at all to that effect by anyone. Boutflour said she might have gone with them on one vacation but if she did so she certainly didn't shoot a gun and said nothing at all about teaching her how to use a gun.

He also grossly misrepresented on the legal issues of what proof was necessary to convict Bamber.  He distorted to try to pretend they failed to meet their burden of proving Jeremy entered the house.  He insisted they had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which window or door he used to enter and leave through.  That is a whopper of a lie though.  he told this whopper because he decided to argue in his book that the prosecution failed to prove Jeremy guilty.  He tried to suggest Jeremy was innocent but had little fodder to work with, not even his distortions could help much in that regard, so spent most of the book arguing they didn't have enough evidence against Jeremy as opposed to establish Jeremy was innocent.

Only someone staunchly pro-Jeremy would find his work to be fair and balanced.

I will ask him where he got the information from concerning Sheila, David Boutflour and guns.

[Caroline]

If lookout were new to this only saw the claims you posted and decided to just believe them without making any effort to validate the claims then she is just guilty of not making an effort to investigate the claims and just believe them without question.

But Lookout has intentionally decided to believe such despite being exposed to a great deal of evidence that proves such claims to be false.

Lookout participated in a debate over the issue of the shotguns only days ago. Reader was swearing up and down that Jeremy told West about the shotguns but the other part of Bonnett's log came from Nevill.   The language about the shotguns was quoted and even a snippet posted showing that it said Jeremy told him Nevill had a collection of shotguns.

Lookout has also commented on threads that posted the actual logs in question and debated the logs.

So either lookout doesn't read or attempt to understnad anything she comments on or she intentionally chose to disregard the facts and believe the chart you listed anyway.

That chart is inaccurate in so many ways starting with it asserts the caller on Bonnett's log was listed as Nevill though it was listed as West.  Nevill's name and address is not listed as the caller.  That alone should clue Lookout to a problem.

Lookout, like many Jeremy supporters, intentionally closes her eyes to the facts and just regurgitates claims she witnessed being taken apart on this this very forum.  She said momement ago she chooses to believe what the campaign team and other propagandists post over what she reads here. 

When you intentionally choose to believe something that was refuted because of bias there is little defense possible. 

Saying well in their defense they are choosing to believe lies posted by others even though such lies were proven to be lies, isn't really a defense at all.  It is merely an explanation.

Having known Lookout for over 2 years now, I don't think she would be intentionally deceptive. If your are pro Jeremy, it can be easy to get drawn to some of the claims from the OS. But if anyone is confused about which log was shown to the jury then this video explains it. Reader thought the OS made a mistake - I think this clears up that notion. It also contains some twaddle about Neville calling but I'm sure you'll all see through that    :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu6L4Kvql9s#t=120

[Mr. Gee]

Having known Lookout for over 2 years now, I don't think she would be intentionally deceptive. If your are pro Jeremy, it can be easy to get drawn to some of the claims from the OS. But if anyone is confused about which log was shown to the jury then this video explains it. Reader thought the OS made a mistake - I think this clears up that notion. It also contains some twaddle about Neville calling but I'm sure you'll all see through that    :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wu6L4Kvql9s#t=120

Yes I do not believe that lookout is deceptive or dishonest in any way. I also have seen discrepances on the official website. The problem is they don't seem to take criticism very well?

[guest154]

So with Caroline's video & Scipios explanation.  This should be the last times those involved bring this up, right? Because I have a feeling next week these sames mistruths will be posted.

[Caroline]

Yes I do not believe that lookout is deceptive or dishonest in any way. I also have seen discrepances on the official website. The problem is they don't seem to take criticism very well?

I did complain about something over a year ago and they removed it - but can't remember what it was. However, they are running with Neville's call and they are really on a highway to nowhere.

[Caroline]

So with Caroline's video & Scipios explanation.  This should be the last times those involved bring this up, right? Because I have a feeling next week these sames mistruths will be posted.

People have always thought that it was the log with Neville's details that was rediscovered (neither of them were ever lost) but it wasn't. They don't make this clear enough (IMO).

[Jane]

If lookout were new to this only saw the claims you posted and decided to just believe them without making any effort to validate the claims then she is just guilty of not making an effort to investigate the claims and just believe them without question.

But Lookout has intentionally decided to believe such despite being exposed to a great deal of evidence that proves such claims to be false.

Lookout participated in a debate over the issue of the shotguns only days ago. Reader was swearing up and down that Jeremy told West about the shotguns but the other part of Bonnett's log came from Nevill.   The language about the shotguns was quoted and even a snippet posted showing that it said Jeremy told him Nevill had a collection of shotguns.

Lookout has also commented on threads that posted the actual logs in question and debated the logs.

So either lookout doesn't read or attempt to understnad anything she comments on or she intentionally chose to disregard the facts and believe the chart you listed anyway.

That chart is inaccurate in so many ways starting with it asserts the caller on Bonnett's log was listed as Nevill though it was listed as West.  Nevill's name and address is not listed as the caller.  That alone should clue Lookout to a problem.

Lookout, like many Jeremy supporters, intentionally closes her eyes to the facts and just regurgitates claims she witnessed being taken apart on this this very forum.  She said momement ago she chooses to believe what the campaign team and other propagandists post over what she reads here. 

When you intentionally choose to believe something that was refuted because of bias there is little defense possible. 

Saying well in their defense they are choosing to believe lies posted by others even though such lies were proven to be lies, isn't really a defense at all.  It is merely an explanation.

Scipio, I sometimes find myself wondering how much hair you have. You frequently come over as being so stressed and wound up that I feel you might spend a long time pulling it out. Do you perhaps feel that it's your mission in life to "cure" those who believe Jeremy innocent OR perhaps it's that, MUCH as you love to argue, you hate being disagreed with. I'm not sure that you can exercise one without inviting the other.

Lookout has made her choice. Having you hurling accusations at her ISN'T going to change that. YOU may see Lookout as a "sad character" -I see her as a very tough and determined lady. Sure, her beliefs irritate me from time to time and I'd quite like for her to see things my way, but she doesn't and for the most part, I'm cool with it. C'est la vie. Just one more thing, though Scipio. If I was in ANY kind of jam, I'd feel a HELL of a lot better knowing she was on MY side, believing in ME, rather than  the evidence, coz there's always the chance that the evidence is going to be wrong.

[susan]

Mr Gee/Caroline lookout is one of the most honest posters on this forum and would never deliberately tell lies she could get mixed up as we all do from time to time but lies NO.

[Jan]

Personally I think Scipio should post  some new threads

these threads should cover - ONE ITEM at a time that PROVES that JEREMY is guilty.

The THREAD should not cover any other  subject and we can then when we see both sides of the argument  decide what we think.

We can all agree to be civil if he is .

I would like him to start with the ammunition that was left out and why he thinks it is so obvious that it PROVES Jeremys guilt