You know scipio you are a very intelligent and articulate person who seems to be able to weigh things up logically. For that reason I am really surprised that you could maske such a naive statement as that? Eepecially after you have seen some of the guilter wackos here and the absolutely unjust accusation towards Jackie? It is statements like this that still throw me in doubt of your honesty and truthfulness. That a man who knows the law could be part of a lynch mob? Sorry scipio but I stand in doubt of you and therefore do not trust you. It is not your obvious debating abilities that throw me in doubt, but it is you yourself and of your character, which cries out to me, "Unjust and prejudiced". 
1) I explained why the logical assumption is either a wacko Jeremy supporter is behind the letter or Harrison/someone involved with Harrison did it as a publicity stunt.
2) I laid out how the article states the letter came a mere week after he went to Jackie's employer and she was rebuked and hanging on to her job by a thread and thus implies Jackie did it as retribution.
3) I pointed out that while the article didn't mention it, we know Jackie is a Jeremy zealot and know of the altercation between Jackie and Harrison that happened on this board. That altercation can indeed be interpreted in combination with being rebuked as a motive to potentially write such a letter. Thus I can see how some here would think such.
4) I mentioned others know Jackie better, including people who said she stalked them. They have abetter basis than me to know if she would do something so stupid. I reserved judgment as to whether she did so or not because I don't know her well enough to make an informed decision as to whether she would do something like that or not.
To try to hide from the article's implications would be pointless. It implies Jackie did it not NGB.
The way the article tossed NGB in is bizarre because it is an aside. Writers do that all the time too. The article doesn't discuss how he is relevant beyond claiming the letter says something about him being a protector. It is a classic case of why I hate news articles.
The article should have directly quoted from the letter if it was going to mention NGB so we could see the full context. Did it mention others being his protector as well? What was the full upshot in relation to the threat? Did it suggest NGB would be one of the agents carrying out the threat? Probably not because if so then the journalist would have quoted the letter. If not I don't even understand why to mention NGB in the article except to try making it look like a bigger mystery than is likely the case.
