Reason to believe cops shot Sheila, and how her blood ended up inside Silencer!

[lookout]

Sorry - not my intention to be rude.   

The time to worry,Roch,is when you start sounding like me.

I don't mean to be rude------------I just am !!! 

[Roch]

In the context of: Sutherst's evidence; Burn Evidence; All of the 2002 Appellant Grounds.

Many things are put forward with such commentary as that displayed by yourself above.
The outcome has always been the same.

So I put that evidence forward or I touted it 100% as being case breaking or whatever??  How do you know we have seen the last of such issues and that they will not be revisited in some form - for example at a future appeal?  To say I personally cry wolf on here is out of order.  I have asked you to retract it once and will not ask again.

[Jane]

The time to worry,Roch,is when you start sounding like me.

I don't mean to be rude------------I just am !!! 

It's highly likely that when you start off from an initial position of rudeness, you'll find it's reciprocated and there's no justification for accusing others of it.

[guest2181]

So I put that evidence forward or I touted it 100% as being case breaking or whatever??  How do you know we have seen the last of such issues and that they will not be revisited in some form - for example at a future appeal?  To say I personally cry wolf on here is out of order.  I have asked you to retract it once and will not ask again.

I meant Jeremy crying wolf.

Things may or may not get revisited, I'm not sure I see the relevance. My point is simply that one persons interpretation is not always the same as that of another, we have many examples of that in this case, from the CCRC, and the court at trial and appeal.

[maggie]

There must also be some thought given to a persons ability to interpret information correctly.

If Roch is not simply having a laugh (which is where my 50p bet goes) and has seen what he thinks is some sort of 'smoking gun evidence', then why should anybody have any faith that he has interpreted the 'evidence' correctly? Especially given the fact that many of us don't believe he has even interpreted information which actually is available correctly.

I'll reserve judgment until/if there is something to judge. In the meantime my gut tells me that the boy is crying wolf .......... again.

Think that's a bit harsh Harters, think Roch has every right to post his opinions etc.
I repeat my never ending, monotonous mantra .....  please attack the post and not the poster.   

[guest7363]

I meant Jeremy crying wolf.

Things may or may not get revisited, I'm not sure I see the relevance. My point is simply that one persons interpretation is not always the same as that of another, we have many examples of that in this case, from the CCRC, and the court at trial and appeal.

Thats how I read it Hartley, when you put the word  boy and crying wolf again.  Again meaning Bamber

[guest2181]

Think that's a bit harsh Harters, think Roch has every right to post his opinions etc.
I repeat my never ending, monotonous mantra .....  please attack the post and not the poster.   

I think you have simply misunderstood me Maggie.

[maggie]

I meant Jeremy crying wolf.

Things may or may not get revisited, I'm not sure I see the relevance. My point is simply that one persons interpretation is not always the same as that of another, we have many examples of that in this case, from the CCRC, and the court at trial and appeal.

I also misunderstood your reference  Harters thought you were accusing Roch of having a laugh and crying wolf.
Apologies.   

[maggie]

I think you have simply misunderstood me Maggie.

I did.   

[guest2181]

I also misunderstood your reference  Harters thought you were accusing Roch of having a laugh and crying wolf.
Apologies.   

No worries, I still think he may just be having a laugh, motivated and in response to a particular members constant rhetoric, but I could be wrong. 

[lookout]

It's highly likely that when you start off from an initial position of rudeness, you'll find it's reciprocated and there's no justification for accusing others of it.

Except that I'll admit to rudeness and know it,others, apart from Roch,don't,and don't know it !
I'd rather be in the state of knowing,wouldn't you ??

[Roch]

Fair enough Hartley - If i misunderstood then my apologies.

We'll be better able to judge who has been crying wolf over the past 32 years - when further case info comes to light.  Personally (and this is not a dig at anyone on here) - I think we will find in the end that the biggest 'wolf cryers' have been the relatives.  Which is why I implore people on here to hold them to account when they inevitably try and blame the police.

[Jane]

Except that I'll admit to rudeness and know it,others, apart from Roch,don't,and don't know it !
I'd rather be in the state of knowing,wouldn't you ??

How do you know that they're no simply responding with like for like, and why would you wear such a failing, you know you possess, like a badge of honour? I know it's posited that one can't teach an old dog new tricks, but there's also treating others in the way one would like to be treated. I don't believe we have the right to expect back that which we're not prepared to give.

[JackiePreece]

I've had no dealings with them.  I think they are in a very difficult position caught in-between the various agencies but I don't always condone the line they take on different things.  I recently criticised one of their videos - while praising another.

I think in the long run you will find that on several issues - you were maybe not so much led up the garden path as you think.  You have to try and understand that for the defence - solving the case is like piecing together a massive and partly damaged jigsaw with pieces missing. 

The very sad fact is that some people knew pretty much what the truth was from the very beginning (I'm not referring to Jeremy and Stan).

It will be a wonderful day when the truth is available for the public to see

[guest2181]

Fair enough Hartley - If i misunderstood then my apologies.

We'll be better able to judge who has been crying wolf over the past 32 years - when further case info comes to light.  Personally (and this is not a dig at anyone on here) - I think we will find in the end that the biggest 'wolf cryers' have been the relatives.  Which is why I implore people on here to hold them to account when they inevitably try and blame the police.

I think that if there was ever any such evidence then people would consider it and its implications accordingly.

However there is no such evidence available at this time (by your own admission) to forum members which they could use to substantiate such accusations. It is also at the 'very least', possible that no such evidence exists and your accusations are erroneous, via misjudgment or otherwise.

I would suggest that such accusation without evidence is inappropriate.

Indeed our forum guidelines (minimum baseline) includes the following:

.............
Please ensure that references to the victims in any case discussed on the forum are made in a respectful manner.  Please remember that victims may include those living as well as those deceased.
..............