Author Topic: The Threat.  (Read 103670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1395 on: November 02, 2014, 11:03:AM »
"Mr Harrison said he began researching the case suspecting there may have been a miscarriage of justice but has since come to the conclusion that the police got the right man.

The anonymous letter - written with a typewriter and posted in Essex last month - warns: "Jeremy is close to getting out now and he will not allow you to harm or deny him the opportunity to gain the freedom he deserves.

"He may still be inside but Mr super cop he's still a powerful man and ... he is influential with people outside who he will have destroy you and whatever claims you try to make in your book or anyone else that obstructs his path to freedom come to that.

"We will make sure he gets his way and do what it takes so back off, Jeremy's going to get you."

The Criminal Cases Review Commission - the justice watchdog for England, Wales and Northern Ireland - is considering a third bid for an appeal, based on new claims of contaminated evidence"




In view of the last comment on this section of the article which by the way clearly accuses JB of instigating the threat via a third person, then I hope that the writer has given his "proof " of guilt to the CCRC . Because it will save the tax payers a lot of money and the CCRC a lot of time. Because if he is correct, then  there is a matter of morals here as well as being an author of a book.

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1396 on: November 02, 2014, 11:04:AM »
I haven't seen anyone accuse Jackie of being the author of the letter PH received.
I am only commenting on the newspaper article, I wasn't privy to private messages sent on here or otherwise.
Well there are a lot who accused Jackie on this very thread if you care to trace back you will see them. They include mat and john from the red forum. Jogn is of course the owner of the red forum and mat I believe is a moderator. So you must have seen the accusaqtions and insinuations against her on both forums and not to be clued in that it is Jackie they are talking about, well?  ???
Quote from: mat
Yeah, that's a copy and paste. Read the whole thing if you get chance.

Letter sent from Essex. Putting two and two together it's obvious who has sent this letter to Paul. And she needs removing from this forum.

Not a supporter of Bamber at all, more damaging than anything else.
Quote from: mat
You may believe whatever Jackie tells you, Grahame - but those who have been stalked by her now that this is HER behaviour.

The letter was even postmarked from where she lives.
Quote from: mat
Who attacks people who say ANYTHING negative about Bamber?
Who often takes forum/internet matters into the real world?
Who had a spat with Paul Harrison?
Who lives in Essex?

You may know members that fit into one or more of those catergories - but there is only ONE person who fits into them all.

Frankly, I think your judgement is off on this.
But I see that john's posts have been deleted, so I can't post those.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 11:11:AM by Mr. Gee »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1397 on: November 02, 2014, 11:04:AM »
If you think about it lookout it is an Essex based crime and it is mostly Essex people who know about it. My friend who lived in Boston Lincs had never heard of Bamber. So logically it is not surprising that it had an Essex postmark. He is rather silly in publishing that really unless he was putting a bit of weight behind his insinuations.





It's a real cobbled-up affair Mr G and could have been written by a child. It's not a bit " adult-like ".
As I've said before,some people will do anything for attention.

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1398 on: November 02, 2014, 11:08:AM »
Well there are a lot who accused Jackie on this very thread if you care to trace back you will see them. They include mat and john from the red forum. Jogn is of course the owner of the red forum and mat I believe is a moderator. So you must have seen the accusaqtions and insinuations against her on both forums and not to be clued in that it is Jackie they are talking about, well?  ???

Grahame, I don't spend that much time on the forums to be honest, so if people are casting aspersions I have probably not seen them.
I'm sure there are a few people under suspicion regarding this threat that PH received.
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1399 on: November 02, 2014, 11:09:AM »
Grahame, I don't spend that much time on the forums to be honest, so if people are casting aspersions I have probably not seen them.
I'm sure there are a few people under suspicion regarding this threat that PH received.
Just modified my post Andrea.

Offline andrea

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1385
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1400 on: November 02, 2014, 11:11:AM »
Just modified my post Andrea.

Well, I cant speak for them.
As I said theres probably a few under suspicion.
On Ilkley Moor Baht'at.

guest7363

  • Guest
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1401 on: November 02, 2014, 11:11:AM »
Just a thought i don't know if it has been discussed, would PH have been within his rights to show the exchange of pms or emails in full in the article and then show names if it was a revenge attack?

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1402 on: November 02, 2014, 11:18:AM »
How is that Paul commenting on NGB? He says the LETTER mentions NGB. The second part of you quote "shocked by the fact he had been highlighted in this way" is NGB speaking. In fairness to you, Grahame, you're blinded by blinkers - friendship.

I doubt it. The creep went to the trouble of using a type writer, meaning they were nervous about their handwriting being matched/seen. They likely just stuck a stamp on it and put it in a post box.
I wonder what blinkers you are blinkered by? I am looking at this thing in a logical way and all I can see is Jackie being persecuted by some when in fact she is most probably innocent of these these accusations? Unfortunately your way of thinking of this was way too cack handed and you are twisting this so called "evidence" which is in fact nothing but presumption on your part in order to falsely accuse an innocewnt person. I am thoroughly amazed and disgusted by these unfounded prejudiced accusations on your part. Totally, totally biased.

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1403 on: November 02, 2014, 11:19:AM »
Well, I cant speak for them.
As I said theres probably a few under suspicion.
I was only answering you post Andrea. Nothing else.

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1404 on: November 02, 2014, 11:20:AM »
Just a thought i don't know if it has been discussed, would PH have been within his rights to show the exchange of pms or emails in full in the article and then show names if it was a revenge attack?
He didn't need to. As you can see insinuation is enough to cast suspicions and being a writer I am sure he is a master at insinuation?

Offline Patti

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13193
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1405 on: November 02, 2014, 11:21:AM »
Thanks Patti, by the way you asked me about bingo lol its had me puzzled?

Justice I mentioned bingo....please don't worry about it. My sense of humor evolves when I'm in tight corner...lol  ;D ;D ;D

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33775
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1406 on: November 02, 2014, 11:23:AM »
I wonder what blinkers you are blinkered by? I am looking at this thing in a logical way and all I can see is Jackie being persecuted by some when in fact she is most probably innocent of these these accusations? Unfortunately your way of thinking of this was way too cack handed and you are twisting this so called "evidence" which is in fact nothing but presumption on your part in order to falsely accuse an innocewnt person. I am thoroughly amazed and disgusted by these unfounded prejudiced accusations on your part. Totally, totally biased.


Forgive me for saying so Grahame, but where emotion is concerned, logic very often takes second place. Jackie is your friend. You, very loyally, are defending her. Most of us seem not to know that Jackie so our "logic" is likely to be somewhat different from yours, but it doesn't make it LESS logical.

Offline Patti

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13193
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1407 on: November 02, 2014, 11:26:AM »

Forgive me for saying so Grahame, but where emotion is concerned, logic very often takes second place. Jackie is your friend. You, very loyally, are defending her. Most of us seem not to know that Jackie so our "logic" is likely to be somewhat different from yours, but it doesn't make it LESS logical.

April are you saying that you believe Jackie might be guilty of writing the letter simply because she is not your friend?  Or am I guilty of not reading your post correctly?  :-\

guest7363

  • Guest
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1408 on: November 02, 2014, 11:30:AM »
He didn't need to. As you can see insinuation is enough to cast suspicions and being a writer I am sure he is a master at insinuation?
I know he did not need to. My question is could he if he wanted, would he have a right to publish names and full exchanges?

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The Threat.
« Reply #1409 on: November 02, 2014, 11:30:AM »

Forgive me for saying so Grahame, but where emotion is concerned, logic very often takes second place. Jackie is your friend. You, very loyally, are defending her. Most of us seem not to know that Jackie so our "logic" is likely to be somewhat different from yours, but it doesn't make it LESS logical.
No April. Jackie maybe my friend, but I am more the friend of truth and justice and logic should at least should tell you that to insinuate that Jackie wrote this alleged letter is entirely wrong. How can I get through to you people that if it were you yourself who was being accused I would still go down the same logical route. A person in this country is always presumed innocent until proved guilty and that is what I am doing. Indeed if we were to take up mat's way of reasoning then no doubt we would be back in the days of the witch trials where people were found guilty by insinuation.
But April you have unknowingly or knowingly just accused me of prejudice and judged mat as being the sound reasoner.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 11:33:AM by Mr. Gee »