The Threat.

[Mr. Gee]

Patti, surely you can't believe that the thoughts of a handful of people on a pro(?) Bamber forum is of ANY significance to a widely known -even if Grahame HAS'T previously heard of him- and respected author.
1. He probably couldn't care less
2. You're right. He wouldn't have liked it.
3. Anger was the appropriate response to it.
4. I imagine he was fighting his corner.
5. A professional hazard. We weren't his buddies. We'd served our purpose.
6. Ditto
7. Had one of those not misleadingly and knowingly implicated themself it wouldn't have been known.
8. It seems he was advised.
9. He turned something negative into a positive. Better for him psychologically.
10. Neil was mentioned. They didn't pull his name from a hat.
11. Basically, it's his local rag.
12. Why NOT make it work for him. Again better psychologically.
13. So why the rush to defend and exonerate a particular person? Thoughts you'd rather NOT have?
14. YES!!! Scary thought, that, isn't it?
15. OR it's someone who has a VERY deep grudge against PH because......................

I hope he takes this further, Patti and I can't believe you don't. The suggestion here, that an author of renown is going to MAKE UP a story of a poison pen letter -let alone one which implicates REAL people- to sell a book guaranteed, because of the genre, to sell, smacks of panic.

Hi April, I think that you have hit on something there? We had served our purpose. What was that? "Publicity that he needed". Thinking about it he was always cagey and guarded in what he said and didn't actually commit himself, but kept on about this new book that looked rather at the investigation side rather than at Bamber himself. He kept members attention. I also remember certain guilter members telling us he was a phoney and that there are no books coming out about Bamber. First it was being published in August of this year. Then there was a legal problem. Then the excuse was that some of his investigation was being used in an up and coming appeal. Now we read that it will be coming out NEXT August and so it goes on. He was definitely using this forum as a podium for his book and it was definitely aimed at interesting the Bamber supporters as he did capture out attention.

[Jane]

Hi April, I think that you have hit on something there? We had served our purpose. What was that? "Publicity that he needed". Thinking about it he was always cagey and guarded in what he said and didn't actually commit himself, but kept on about this new book that looked rather at the investigation side rather than at Bamber himself. He kept members attention. I also remember certain guilter members telling us he was a phoney and that there are no books coming out about Bamber. First it was being published in August of this year. Then there was a legal problem. Then the excuse was that some of his investigation was being used in an up and coming appeal. Now we read that it will be coming out NEXT August and so it goes on. He was definitely using this forum as a podium for his book and it was definitely aimed at interesting the Bamber supporters as he did capture out attention.

EUREKA!!! Grahame, now you realised that his relationship with us was NEVER personal, it may become clear that the letter he received -and you may rest assured that he did because no national publication will run a story like that without proof- was VERY personal. The book will eventually be published. OR not, as the case may be, but WE, and whatever small insights he may have gleaned from us really aren't important enough to have any significance to him and to imagine we are is, IMO, arrogant.

[ngb1066]

I wasn't aware that he is banned from the red forum, in fact I don't think I even remember him being a member there.

He is.  John posted about it.  Before he was banned he made a couple of posts, maybe even three or four.

[nugnug]

EUREKA!!! Grahame, now you realised that his relationship with us was NEVER personal, it may become clear that the letter he received -and you may rest assured that he did because no national publication will run a story like that without proof- was VERY personal. The book will eventually be published. OR not, as the case may be, but WE, and whatever small insights he may have gleaned from us really aren't important enough to have any significance to him and to imagine we are is, IMO, arrogant.

they wont run a story  without proof did you watch the leversion inquiry.

[Mr. Gee]

they wont run a story  without proof did you watch the leversion inquiry.

I think national papers run stories every day without proof. That is why they employ lawyers and have money set aside in case of libel. Their equipped for that kind of thing. The smaller newspaper are usually part of a grouo, but I'm not sure about how they handle things?

[lookout]

Although I try to help the police quite often through my work I nevertheless think they let us down on many occasions (I'm not an enemy og the police as some think) it frustrates me to see how incredibly stupid they sometimes can be and you will be surprised just how many moj's there are because of this. PH said afer 30 years he has some kind of sixth sense about the criminal mind I suggest that too many coppers trust in this "sixth sense" and that if there is no evidence they create some evidence? This together with this unbreakable comradeship and vow of silence when one of them is in trouble makes a dangerous mix. I don't say this idley either even PH said something similar himself.

I must admit myself using " gut instinct " in many areas,but if I was in the police force,I certainly wouldn't rely on that alone,although you get an " instant feel " about someone.
It's all about studying that individual,deeply,and getting into their minds,as well as all the other parts of an investigation.It's not all about " by the book " questioning either.It's how they answer,straight,to the point and remain focussed on the questionnaire,without fidgeting,touching their face,or looking away at certain intervals especially if the question proves uncomfortable. Eyes fixed
There's far more to committing someone than just questioning.
As you get older,and with lifes' experiences,you can tell whether a person is lying or not. Well I can.    
I would probably know in an instant whether Jeremy was guilty or not just by speaking to him face to face for a short while.
 Neither is it about the written word " guilty " by those who don't know. Only the few who have met Jeremy,can make their own personal judgement,it's impossible to tell from books/newspapers/journalists,,even his own extended family,who've only heard tales,without knowing the real person. A snap judgement,such as EP made,was bad policing,plus the fact that there was NO concrete evidence.

[lookout]

Only a crank with a grudge and an enormous chip on his shoulder would write something like that.
They've at least got to back up what's been written.

[nugnug]

I think national papers run stories every day without proof. That is why they employ lawyers and have money set aside in case of libel. Their equipped for that kind of thing. The smaller newspaper are usually part of a grouo, but I'm not sure about how they handle things?

if they had proof for every story they ran they would never get sued.

[Mr. Gee]

I must admit myself using " gut instinct " in many areas,but if I was in the police force,I certainly wouldn't rely on that alone,although you get an " instant feel " about someone.
It's all about studying that individual,deeply,and getting into their minds,as well as all the other parts of an investigation.It's not all about " by the book " questioning either.It's how they answer,straight,to the point and remain focussed on the questionnaire,without fidgeting,touching their face,or looking away at certain intervals especially if the question proves uncomfortable. Eyes fixed
There's far more to committing someone than just questioning.
As you get older,and with lifes' experiences,you can tell whether a person is lying or not. Well I can.    
I would probably know in an instant whether Jeremy was guilty or not just by speaking to him face to face for a short while.
 Neither is it about the written word " guilty " by those who don't know. Only the few who have met Jeremy,can make their own personal judgement,it's impossible to tell from books/newspapers/journalists,,even his own extended family,who've only heard tales,without knowing the real person. A snap judgement,such as EP made,was bad policing,plus the fact that there was NO concrete evidence.

Hi lookout, books and authors are really the same as us who write on the forum. They hopefully do their research, write their book or whatever, but at the end of the day they like us put their own slant on things. I would say that every author does this even if they try to be as neutral as they can. It's a bit like playing chess with yourself, you can't help favouring one side over the other whichever appeals to you.

[Jane]

I think national papers run stories every day without proof. That is why they employ lawyers and have money set aside in case of libel. Their equipped for that kind of thing. The smaller newspaper are usually part of a grouo, but I'm not sure about how they handle things?

Are you just making a point or saying that you think it's the case with the letter in question?

[Mr. Gee]

Are you just making a point or saying that you think it's the case with the letter in question?

No April I didn't have the newspaper article in mind at all. I was just making a general statement about national newspapers. I said I didn't know how local newspapers carry on?

[lookout]

Hi lookout, books and authors are really the same as us who write on the forum. They hopefully do their research, write their book or whatever, but at the end of the day they like us put their own slant on things. I would say that every author does this even if they try to be as neutral as they can. It's a bit like playing chess with yourself, you can't help favouring one side over the other whichever appeals to you.

That's right,Mr G. It's all,or mostly,history repeating itself when it's about the same crime. Personally,I don't see the sense,unless something came to light to alter the whole structure of the crime.
The books don't bring you any further on with the crime.

The idiot who pieced together that ( childish ) piece in the paper did a botched job of playing devils advocate,thinking everyone would be taken in by it. Some will do anything for a quick buck.
It's been written by someone with a very childish mind,and I would go as far as to say,not averse to some criminality themselves.

[Mr. Gee]

That's right,Mr G. It's all,or mostly,history repeating itself when it's about the same crime. Personally,I don't see the sense,unless something came to light to alter the whole structure of the crime.
The books don't bring you any further on with the crime.

The idiot who pieced together that ( childish ) piece in the paper did a botched job of playing devils advocate,thinking everyone would be taken in by it. Some will do anything for a quick buck.
It's been written by someone with a very childish mind,and I would go as far as to say,not averse to some criminality themselves.

Lookout I won't tell you who I think wrote the letter. I'd make even more enemies than I have now?

[lookout]

Lookout I won't tell you who I think wrote the letter. I'd make even more enemies than I have now?

I won't ask you Mr G. But have I been " warm " at any time ?

[Patti]

Patti, surely you can't believe that the thoughts of a handful of people on a pro(?) Bamber forum is of ANY significance to a widely known -even if Grahame HAS'T previously heard of him- and respected author.
1. He probably couldn't care less
2. You're right. He wouldn't have liked it.
3. Anger was the appropriate response to it.
4. I imagine he was fighting his corner.
5. A professional hazard. We weren't his buddies. We'd served our purpose.
6. Ditto
7. Had one of those not misleadingly and knowingly implicated themself it wouldn't have been known.
8. It seems he was advised.
9. He turned something negative into a positive. Better for him psychologically.
10. Neil was mentioned. They didn't pull his name from a hat.
11. Basically, it's his local rag.
12. Why NOT make it work for him. Again better psychologically.
13. So why the rush to defend and exonerate a particular person? Thoughts you'd rather NOT have?
14. YES!!! Scary thought, that, isn't it?
15. OR it's someone who has a VERY deep grudge against PH because......................

I hope he takes this further, Patti and I can't believe you don't. The suggestion here, that an author of renown is going to MAKE UP a story of a poison pen letter -let alone one which implicates REAL people- to sell a book guaranteed, because of the genre, to sell, smacks of panic.

But I do April. I have said so many times, I want him to. I cannot understand why after reading my posts that you think I don't. Maybe you have misunderstood me. 

If I can answer your point 15...

In a sense this could be correct. However, it does mention NGB who is a volunteer administrator of this forum. The whole article is directed at this forum. So therefore I believe there is a deliberate attempt to involve not only PH but others on this forum.

If the letter was solely directed to PH for writing his book about Bamber then yes I can fully agree that it could be someone with a deep grudge solely against PH. But, the letter mentions NGB and the only people that know of NGB and his real name are those that post/look and read the two forums. From that deduction  the letter not only has a grudge against PH but one has gone out there way to mention NGB and is aware of his real name. The letter does not say anything about a female member of this forum. PH throws that one in as a separate issue and by doing so PH himself has made implications that it might be someone connected to the forum that has sent the letter.  That is my deduction on it anyway.