The Threat.

[Patti]

In the review he said the reason he was writing the book was because he thought it was a moj. This is what the article said:

Yes it does Grahame.....I had forgotten about that. When was it dated, do you know?   

[Mr. Gee]

Yes it does Grahame.....I had forgotten about that. When was it dated, do you know?   

July 21st 2013

[Patti]

July 21st 2013

I wonder what he found that changed his mind? I suppose we will have to wait....

[nugnug]

maybe hes been shown some of the documents that have been held under wraps.


though i doubt it very much.

[nugnug]

or maybe he hasnt changed his mind maybe its cunning plan to get everyone talking about the book.

[Alias]

or maybe he hasnt changed his mind maybe its cunning plan to get everyone talking about the book.

I doubt it. He would have a better chance of selling the book if he claimed he had found evidence of JB´s innocense than of his guilt. He was found guilty almost thirty years ago, so who cares?

[nugnug]

i cant waite ethere

[nugnug]

well he couldent want for better publicity could he.

the other thing ive considred is weather he allways thought it and he was just stringing everybody along.

though i cant think why he would really.

[JackiePreece]

In that case why were you so desperate to help him promote the book?

Seems some posters only like people who agree with them. Once they doubt Bambers innocence steps are taken to try and discredit them.



I had no idea he had changed his stance, not until it was posted about on the board after his ban - even then I was unsure.

I'll buy his book because it seems some people don't want others to read the book - that in itself seems to say alot. 

I was never desperate get you facts straight when you use than tone

I did think there was a million to one chance he might have persuaded Julie Mugford to tell the truth

I am going to get MWT to look at everything that has gone on and give him details of the letter and I am going to write to the publisher

[JackiePreece]

I will be getting to th bottom of this letter and the 'numerous' 'threats'

[Alias]

I will be getting to th bottom of this letter and the 'numerous' 'threats'

What I find problematic with this whole thing is that PH and the newspaper basically get away with insinuating that JB is behind this and that you, Jackie, are the "disciple" who sent the letter -  and probably with the blessing of Jeremy´s "protector", NGB.
It is all in very poor taste at least!
NGB said here on the board that Jeremy didn´t have a "name" to protect, so he couldn´t do anything. Does that mean that I can make up a story about Jeremy, say, claim he is a pedophile and molested children before he went to prison and go to a newspaper with it - and Jeremy can´t do anything about it because he is in prison?
Surely even lifers have a right not to be unjustly defamed?

[nugnug]

yes it means you can make up anything you like.

[Alias]

yes it means you can make up anything you like.

That is just not right.

[nugnug]

and some wanker would come on here and insist it must be true because you said it.

[Mr. Gee]

I don't care if he's got glowing reports from the Dalai Lama himself, I for one do not trust him after reading that article. Sounds like someone who would sell his own grandmother for 30 pieces of silver?