Police V family

[Adam]

Don't be so rude Adam,

Don't be rude yourself.

I've had to look for a source in a book you have which you said you have read this month. And you never thanked me.

[Lucy522]

Don't be rude yourself. I've had to look for a source for a book you said you have read this month. And you never thanked me.

Adam I found Ann eaton statement about the wallet and you didn't thank me, I'm out this is pathetic

[Adam]

Anyway the question remains.

Did Mary Mugford lie in court. Meaning Bamber also lied in court when agreeing with her ?

Or did MM tell the truth, meaning Bamber also told the truth in court when agreeing ?

[Adam]

Bamber has never mentioned Mary Mugford since the trial. Although most other people involved in framing him either have there own Youtube video or chapter on the OS.

In my view MM's testimony will be quite influential to a jury.

[lookout]

Blimey,is anyone that bothered ?

[Adam]

Blimey,is anyone that bothered ?

About a testimony being influential to the jury ? Thought you would be.

[Adam]

Anyway I don't think I am going to get an answer to my question from several hours ago. 

Bamber in court agreeing with MM's testimony can only mean MM told the truth.

Her testimony  makes it certain that Bamber had no emotional attachment or warm feelings towards June. Just feelings of  resentment, blame & contempt. 
 

[Lucy522]

Anyway I don't think I am going to get an answer.

Bamber in court agreeing with MM's testimony can only mean MM told the truth.

Her testimony  makes it certain that Bamber had no emotional attachment or warm feelings towards June. Just feelings of  resentment & blame.

You haven't seen the trial transcript and neither have I so you can't make judgement on something you've only seem snippets of

[Adam]

You haven't seen the trial transcript and neither have I so you can't make judgement on something you've only seem snippets of

Are you saying information in books should not be used as a source ?

So why have you read three books ?

[Lucy522]

Are you saying information in books should not be used ? So why have you read three books ?

That's not what I said is it? We've seen a tiny bit of a weeks trial, anyone can take a few sentences of a conversation and twist it to fit

[Adam]

That's not what I said is it? We've seen a tiny bit of a weeks trial, anyone can take a few sentences of a conversation and twist it to fit

It's ten pages on Bamber's testimony.

Anyway you're not going to retract on not believing MM's court testimony. Or explain why Bamber agreed in court with MM.

[Adam]

It seems extracts from books can be used as a source. Sometimes.

Although there are no separate trial transcripts of most of the main people.

[lookout]

It seems extracts from books can be used as a source. Sometimes.

No.! Snippets can be open to questioning and also fabrication when you don't see the REAL document.

[Adam]

No.! Snippets can be open to questioning and also fabrication when you don't see the REAL document.

To be fair it's was a no win question for any supporter.

Either Bamber lied in court in agreeing with MM's lies.

Or Bamber told the truth in court in agreeing with MM's truthful & damning testimony.


So the only option is to say the 11 pages on MM's & Bambers testimonies in Wilkes's book is not a good enough source. Although the person I asked the question to considered the book worthy of reading.

[susan]

There are a few things I would like to look in to.  I never do, as I am either on here or playing Shogun Total War 2.

Reading the posts on here is fatal.  It just makes me want to dive in.   I think I might make a couple of final threads as a parting gesture 

Hi Roch please don't take a break many of us are really enjoying your posts and look forward daily to see your name on the forum you will miss us if you go and start listening to music  hehehe