A question for Jackie:

[Roch]

Please refer to the post which you have quoted, my position is quite clear.

Your position doesn't fool me.  We'll leave it there. 

[guest2181]

Your position doesn't fool me.  We'll leave it there. 

There's nothing to leave, I think you're just on a bit of a wind up and attempting to goad.

You're not fooling me I'm afraid. 

[Jane]

I'm 100% certain that you believe 100% - that it's a palm print. 

I can assure you - I have not been misled.  It's not that type of evidence.  The only way it would be possible to mislead regarding this evidence, would be to conceal it and tell lies about it.  That is what was achieved under DCS Michael Ainsley's stewardship - in order to prosecute Jeremy.  Without such concealment and lies, it would not have been possible to prosecute Jeremy.

You know it's a palm print but you wouldn't admit it as such - because that is not the official prosecution case.  I repeat - your downfall on here is, that you will not countenance any deviation from the prosecution case. 


Do you mean MWT  or Mark Higgs?  I've had no contact with MWT for years. Don't recall exchanging  much with of any note with Mark Higgs recently.  Though I do plan to ask him a few things if I get round to it.  I think his recent video was correct in terms of the political aspect - but not so sure regarding some of the other claims made in it.

Roch, with all due respect, I'm certain that you 100% believe what you say to be 100% true. Unfortunately, from where I sit, I'm aware only of a fervour which comes from the newly converted who has found a cause which supports their belief.

[Roch]

Roch, with all due respect, I'm certain that you 100% believe what you say to be 100% true. Unfortunately, from where I sit, I'm aware only of a fervour which comes from the newly converted who has found a cause which supports their belief.

Hi Jane.  I think I prefer the term recently vindicated to newly converted.  But I do understand what you mean. 

I'm afraid it really is a sad and tragic fact that Sheila's involvement was covered up. 

It's a sad and tragic fact that Robert and Ann's version of showing respect to the late Nevill and June, was to help frame their adopted son for multiple murder.  I'm sure Nevill and June were really grateful for this kind and noble act committed for them down on Earth.  I'm sure Daniel and Nicolas are really grateful that their uncle took the rap for their mother - so that various other relatives could divide the estate up and police could retire early.

Sad but true.

[Jane]

Hi Jane.  I think I prefer the term recently vindicated to newly converted.  But I do understand what you mean. 

I'm afraid it really is a sad and tragic fact that Sheila's involvement was covered up. 

It's a sad and tragic fact that Robert and Ann's version of showing respect to the late Nevill and June, was to help frame their adopted son for multiple murder.  I'm sure Nevill and June were really grateful for this kind and noble act committed for them down on Earth.  I'm sure Daniel and Nicolas are really grateful that their uncle took the rap for their mother - so that various other relatives could divide the estate up and police could retire early.

Sad but true.

Only if you believe it to be the case, Roch.

[lookout]

As it happens,I too believe Roch. I shall never falter from the way I feel about this case.

[JackieD]

I'm 100% certain that you believe 100% - that it's a palm print. 

I can assure you - I have not been misled.  It's not that type of evidence.  The only way it would be possible to mislead regarding this evidence, would be to conceal it and tell lies about it.  That is what was achieved under DCS Michael Ainsley's stewardship - in order to prosecute Jeremy.  Without such concealment and lies, it would not have been possible to prosecute Jeremy.

You know it's a palm print but you wouldn't admit it as such - because that is not the official prosecution case.  I repeat - your downfall on here is, that you will not countenance any deviation from the prosecution case. 


Do you mean MWT  or Mark Higgs?  I've had no contact with MWT for years. Don't recall exchanging  much with of any note with Mark Higgs recently.  Though I do plan to ask him a few things if I get round to it.  I think his recent video was correct in terms of the political aspect - but not so sure regarding some of the other claims made in it.

Sorry I thought it was Mark Higgs not MWT

[Caroline]

I'm 100% certain that you believe 100% - that it's a palm print. 

I can assure you - I have not been misled.  It's not that type of evidence. The only way it would be possible to mislead regarding this evidence, would be to conceal it and tell lies about it.  That is what was achieved under DCS Michael Ainsley's stewardship - in order to prosecute Jeremy.  Without such concealment and lies, it would not have been possible to prosecute Jeremy.

You know it's a palm print but you wouldn't admit it as such - because that is not the official prosecution case.  I repeat - your downfall on here is, that you will not countenance any deviation from the prosecution case. 


Do you mean MWT  or Mark Higgs?  I've had no contact with MWT for years. Don't recall exchanging  much with of any note with Mark Higgs recently.  Though I do plan to ask him a few things if I get round to it.  I think his recent video was correct in terms of the political aspect - but not so sure regarding some of the other claims made in it.

OK, I'm leaving this now, you can't debate on a subject where someone's argument is 'this is how it is but I can't tell you why'.  If you can't say why, then perhaps you shouldn't have said anything? I haven't changed my opinion by the claims made and unless I see some substance, I can't take it seriously.

[Caroline]

I don't adhere to anything Roch, I'm happy to consider skullduggery, just show me the evidence to support its existence.

The same is true regardless of the argument, I'm fairly measured and reasonable in dismissing claims both for or against if there isn't evidence to support them.

I agree - without the evidence it's just more empty claims and we have had far too many of those here.

[Roch]

And...like I said - all I was doing was giving members the heads-up. 

[Caroline]

And...like I said - all I was doing was giving members the heads-up.

But you haven''t.

[Roch]

But you haven''t.

Well I've tried.   

[JackieD]

And...like I said - all I was doing was giving members the heads-up.

Thank you. This case has always been simple without the interventions

A totally innocent person can only speculate what happened because they were not there

[Caroline]

Well I've tried.   

Yeah! 

[guest2181]

I agree - without the evidence it's just more empty claims and we have had far too many of those here.

Haven't we just.