Why is it not fair to point out people have no valid basis for their claims?

[susan]

nugnug neither did I until recently and I kinda knew then what his stance was I think

[Jane]

I imagine because she had no reason to believe he had changed his mind.

So are you saying that Jackie approached MD, offering her firm's resources, because she believed his forthcoming book supported Jeremy's innocence?

[Caroline]

So are you saying that Jackie approached MD, offering her firm's resources, because she believed his forthcoming book supported Jeremy's innocence?

That's exactly it April.

[Mr. Gee]

I think he was more than leaning towards innocence, as illustrates by the press report based upon what his publisher had put out.

I do not know whether the book will be published, but my hunch is that it will not.  Obviously I could be wrong about that.

He even said that some of his book was being used in Bamber's forthcoming application for appeal. So as far as I am concerned (and it WASN'T wishful thinking on my part) he has been deceiving the forum all along. If he said that he believed Bamber to be guilty I wouldn't have got the impression as some others have that he believed Bamber to be innocent. Anyway I think at the end he revealed his truth beliefs and I for one feel that I have been deceived, not only by him but by others on the forum who now defend him by saying that he never said that he thought Bamber to be innocent. I feel hurt and grieved to have been led up the garden path like this. I am exceedingly angry about the way people are defending the man now.

[Caroline]

I'm posting the link to Jackie's post again as it seems to be getting lost as the conversation has shifted to MD and I would like to know what Jackie meant when she said "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5802.msg258592.html#msg258592

She says she didn't contact JB to maliciously tell him of my change of opinion and yet the above seems to indicate that she knows something about it - or perhaps it's an unrelated innocent comment (although this seems unlikely given the nature of the discussion at the time), but we will never know unless she answers the question.

[nugnug]

He even said that some of his book was being used in Bamber's forthcoming application for appeal. So as far as I am concerned (and it WASN'T wishful thinking on my part) he has been deceiving the forum all along. If he said that he believed Bamber to be guilty I wouldn't have got the impression as some others have that he believed Bamber to be innocent. Anyway I think at the end he revealed his truth beliefs and I for one feel that I have been deceived, not only by him but by others on the forum who now defend him by saying that he never said that he thought Bamber to be innocent. I feel hurt and grieved to have been led up the garden path like this. I am exceedingly angry about the way people are defending the man now.

graham i can only coment on what have seen.

[Mr. Gee]

So are you saying that Jackie approached MD, offering her firm's resources, because she believed his forthcoming book supported Jeremy's innocence?

It appears so and she obviously thought he was a JB  supporter as well. He lied of course when he said he didn't know "who this woman is" knowing all the time that he did. So you can't put all the blame on Jackie for that incident for which he was rightfully banned. He is a deceiver in my eyes.

[susan]

Mr. Gee I firmly believe we should not judge a person until we know the full story and as far as Mason Doyle is concerned we don't I am sure in time all will be revealed.  Just my take on things.  I certainly have not been deceiving people at all.

[ngb1066]

So are you saying that Jackie approached MD, offering her firm's resources, because she believed his forthcoming book supported Jeremy's innocence?

I can't speak for Jackie.  I assume that to be the case.  He then responded to her in a friendly way, urging her to keep up the fight (or words to that effect) and invited her to email him.  It was a very strange response from him in the circumstances.

 

[Mr. Gee]

I'm posting the link to Jackie's post again as it seems to be getting lost as the conversation has shifted to MD and I would like to know what Jackie meant when she said "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5802.msg258592.html#msg258592

She says she didn't contact JB to maliciously tell him of my change of opinion and yet the above seems to indicate that she knows something about it - or perhaps it's an unrelated innocent comment (although this seems unlikely given the nature of the discussion at the time), but we will never know unless she answers the question.

Could I suggest that you pm her Caroline? Since the thread has progressed a bit now and also she can't ignore your question so much as it is not on open forum. I am also in the dark as to what she meant?

[Jane]

I'm posting the link to Jackie's post again as it seems to be getting lost as the conversation has shifted to MD and I would like to know what Jackie meant when she said "I can't wait for tomorrow I'm sure you will get an answer"

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5802.msg258592.html#msg258592

She says she didn't contact JB to maliciously tell him of my change of opinion and yet the above seems to indicate that she knows something about it - or perhaps it's an unrelated innocent comment (although this seems unlikely given the nature of the discussion at the time), but we will never know unless she answers the question.

Well, Caroline, MIGHT it be that she contacted him to CHEERFULLY tell him of your change of opinion. After all, she's made no bones as to the sort or regard she holds you in.

[JackiePreece]

Jeremy has spent a lifetime being let down by people, the relatives, the police, Ewen Smith, De Stefano, the CCRC but he still manages to pick himself up. He must get contacted by numerous authors so I don't think a change of stance by the latest jump on the bandwagon book writer will upset him too much.  Jeremy still has someone who knows the law inside out and tells him how it is to turn too when these very odd people appear.

[Caroline]

He even said that some of his book was being used in Bamber's forthcoming application for appeal. So as far as I am concerned (and it WASN'T wishful thinking on my part) he has been deceiving the forum all along. If he said that he believed Bamber to be guilty I wouldn't have got the impression as some others have that he believed Bamber to be innocent. Anyway I think at the end he revealed his truth beliefs and I for one feel that I have been deceived, not only by him but by others on the forum who now defend him by saying that he never said that he thought Bamber to be innocent. I feel hurt and grieved to have been led up the garden path like this. I am exceedingly angry about the way people are defending the man now.

Why? He isn't here to defend himself - why should you feel deceived? The man was writing a book to sell, if he told everyone what was in it - he wouldn't sell many copies. I don't know what is in the book and neither does anyone else. Perhaps 'waiting and seeing' is the best option and as he can't reply to any of these accusations it is completely unfair to discuss him.

[Caroline]

Could I suggest that you pm her Caroline? Since the thread has progressed a bit now and also she can't ignore your question so much as it is not on open forum. I am also in the dark as to what she meant?

No, I can't because I want everyone to see her response.

[Mr. Gee]

Mr. Gee I firmly believe we should not judge a person until we know the full story and as far as Mason Doyle is concerned we don't I am sure in time all will be revealed.  Just my take on things.  I certainly have not been deceiving people at all.

No I'm not referring to you Susan? But you did believe he was a supporter as also did Tyler and obviously Mat. So I'm not imagining things. He definitely gave that impression. In other words I can only just by the facts and the facts indicate that he has deceived the forum, otherwise he would have "definitely" said one way or the other. But he didn't, he left it all up to us who were guided by what he wrote and what he wrote indicated that he believed he was innocent. Just another xxxx.