Kitchen telephone

[Roch]

You know, Roch. There's a saying -isn't there always!!? - we can't change the behaviour of others. All we can do is change the way in which we react to their behaviour. We're not responsible for fulfilling the needs of others. You so rightly say of the forum "It is what it is". It will never become more serious/intellectual because whilst there are those here who like nothing more than creating friction -which can certainly trigger some sort of dialogue!!!- there are also those here who can't cope with it and will say something inane/jokey to divert.

I'm thinking of trying something.  I'm going to try and stay on-topic as much as possible to the thread title. It wont be easy.  But I will give it a try - I think some posters appreciate it (I think TomG alluded to it recently and I know it's cropped up before). 

[guest7363]

I find his posts stimulating and different, breath of fresh air on here.  Think we can sink into lethargy at times and need waking up and shaking up.

Trust me that's all I want, I accept what your saying BUT I will not be had no more and watch posters be taken in.  I get slated for making fun and asking for Bill to clarify himself yet, a poster can accuse a family member and her father of being the ringleaders in what she calls a miscarriage of Justice, without one shred of evidence. Bill keeps coming on every now and then with his stories, accusing his colleagues of a cover up, we haven't had one shred of evidence from him about this to back it up. I have been on here longer than any other poster other than Mike, I want it to be a MOJ I really do, it's these silly nonsense stories that have turned my dedication into humour I'm afraid and we have returning posters telling me how to behave and swallow this crap all over again.

[Adam]

Trust me that's all I want, I accept what your saying BUT I will not be had no more and watch posters be taken in.  I get slated for making jokes and asking for Bill to clarify himself yet, a poster can accuse a family member and her father of being the ringleaders in what she calls a miscarriage of Justice, without one shred of evidence. Bill keeps coming on every now and then with his stories, accusing his colleagues of a cover up, we haven't had one shred of evidence from him about this to back it up. I have been on here longer than any other poster other than Mike, I want it to be a MOJ I really do, it's these silly nonsense stories that have turned my dedication into humour I'm afraid and we have returning posters telling me how to behave and swallow this crap all over again.

What jokes ?

[guest7363]

What jokes ?

Sorry Adam I have modified my post

[JackieD]

Trust me that's all I want, I accept what your saying BUT I will not be had no more and watch posters be taken in.  I get slated for making fun and asking for Bill to clarify himself yet, a poster can accuse a family member and her father of being the ringleaders in what she calls a miscarriage of Justice, without one shred of evidence. Bill keeps coming on every now and then with his stories, accusing his colleagues of a cover up, we haven't had one shred of evidence from him about this to back it up. I have been on here longer than any other poster other than Mike, I want it to be a MOJ I really do, it's these silly nonsense stories that have turned my dedication into humour I'm afraid and we have returning posters telling me how to behave and swallow this crap all over again.

It's because of your attitude I would never pm you as requested yesterday
Never ever
I have learnt by now never to trust anyone but a handful of people. You seem angry because I do not want to interact with you. Roch has said the same about the relatives yet you have jumped on my post.

You are proud to say you have met the relatives (who have spent all the money they inherited on Jeremy's conviction) but you have not met Jeremy? It might help if you kept an open mind

It stands to reason if there is evidence Sheila carried out the murders then you look at anyone who had a motive to frame Jeremy

[Roch]

Trust me that's all I want, I accept what your saying BUT I will not be had no more and watch posters be taken in.  I get slated for making fun and asking for Bill to clarify himself yet, a poster can accuse a family member and her father of being the ringleaders in what she calls a miscarriage of Justice, without one shred of evidence. Bill keeps coming on every now and then with his stories, accusing his colleagues of a cover up, we haven't had one shred of evidence from him about this to back it up. I have been on here longer than any other poster other than Mike, I want it to be a MOJ I really do, it's these silly nonsense stories that have turned my dedication into humour I'm afraid and we have returning posters telling me how to behave and swallow this crap all over again.

Nobody attacked you for asking Bill a question on the case.  I pointed out that you seemed to be asking for him to validate him self.  And I pointed out that he had not asked anybody on here to validate their own backgrounds. 

Regarding their being no shred of evidence of wrong-doing.  If we look at the report about the calls and forgeries - I suppose it comes down to whether what is in the report arouses members' suspicions or not.  There's 36 pages with end-notes, arguments and images for comparison. 

I suspect some will be intrigued while others dismissive. 

[guest7363]

It's because of your attitude I would never pm you as requested yesterday
Never ever
I have learnt by now never to trust anyone but a handful of people. You seem angry because I do not want to interact with you. Roch has said the same about the relatives yet you have jumped on my post.

You are proud to say you have met the relatives (who have spent all the money they inherited on Jeremy's conviction) but you have not met Jeremy? It might help if you kept an open mind

It stands to reason if there is evidence Sheila carried out the murders then you look at anyone who had a motive to frame Jeremy

Ok I will say it,  Roch is as bad as you.  I wanted to interact with you to tell you to be careful what you say and how you say it, its very fine and dandy with me that you don't want to, you have interacted with me before and told me you wasn't sure of Jeremy's innocence, I cannot prove this because I no longer have the pm, unless someone could unlock my previous user name?  I try to avoid Roch because of his language, I have met the relatives but not to talk about the case, I was proud of the position I gained and my role and it was a honour to mingle not only with the relatives but other holiday park owners from the East of England.  Your right again I have not met Jeremy, but and this is what I would have discussed I have met the psychiatrist who worked with him, she also worked with other high profile murders/criminals, I have told other posters snippets but  never revealed fully what she told me, she also has a partner who was the Chaplin at the same prison, I have spoke to NGB and other posters about this but I cannot reveal fully what she said, I don't think she would mind but I don't have her permission.  Your right, I like you don't trust many now, it's a shame but that won't change and I think that's why I stepped back with a pm to you.

[JackieD]

Ok I will say it,  Roch is as bad as you.  I wanted to interact with you to tell you to be careful what you say and how you say it, its very fine and dandy with me that you don't want to, you have interacted with me before and told me you wasn't sure of Jeremy's innocence, I cannot prove this because I no longer have the pm, unless someone could unlock my previous user name?  I try to avoid Roch because of his language, I have met the relatives but not to talk about the case, I was proud of the position I gained and my role and it was a honour to mingle not only with the relatives but other holiday park owners from the East of England.  Your right again I have not met Jeremy, but and this is what I would have discussed I have met the psychiatrist who worked with him, she also worked with other high profile murders/criminals, I have told other posters snippets but  never revealed fully what she told me, she also has a partner who was the Chaplin at the same prison, I have spoke to NGB and other posters about this but I cannot reveal fully what she said, I don't think she would mind but I don't have her permission.  Your right, I like you don't trust many now, it's a shame but that won't change and I think that's why I stepped back with a pm to you.

So you have changed user name
Great I think I know who you are and I still have the PM messages
Are you warning me because of what a senior police officer might have said to me??
I have only recently said I am absolutely sure Jeremy is 100% innocent because of what I was told
I only interested in a documentary series being aired at the moment because there have been so many cover ups
Everyone will have there chance to say there piece then
There has not been a single documentary on TV about this case that shows everything that went on starting with Sheila's illness

[guest7363]

Nobody attacked you for asking Bill a question on the case.  I pointed out that you seemed to be asking for him to validate him self.  And I pointed out that he had not asked anybody on here to validate their own backgrounds. 

Regarding their being no shred of evidence of wrong-doing.  If we look at the report about the calls and forgeries - I suppose it comes down to whether what is in the report arouses members' suspicions or not.  There's 36 pages with end-notes, arguments and images for comparison. 

I suspect some will be intrigued while others dismissive.

Roch, I will say it again I don't believe Bill is real, not only me thinks this but other posters, I don't mind anyone taking on a different profile or being two people, it sometimes helps things when it's flagging, but to take on the role of being ex police and saying his colleagues have done this and that etc, carries a lot of weight with some posters giving false hope.  Bill was on this morning but again had to rush, I don't for one minute think  any police officer with any knowledge of mis giving over this case would converse on here.  You and others might want to be taken in, I don't, I'm sorry.  If I'm wrong and other posters are I will say sorry, I was giving Bill the opportunity to prove me wrong.  This is how the forum has become Roch and it's not my FAULT, I have never lied but I have been very angry for being taken as a mug. 

[Roch]

Roch, I will say it again I don't believe Bill is real, not only me thinks this but other posters, I don't mind anyone taking on a different profile or being two people, it sometimes helps things when it's flagging, but to take on the role of being ex police and saying his colleagues have done this and that etc, carries a lot of weight with some posters giving false hope.  Bill was on this morning but again had to rush, I don't for one minute think  any police officer with any knowledge of mis giving over this case would converse on here.  You and others might want to be taken in, I don't, I'm sorry.  If I'm wrong and other posters are I will say sorry, I was giving Bill the opportunity to prove me wrong.  This is how the forum has become Roch and it's not my FAULT, I have never lied but I have been very angry for being taken as a mug.

Justice, to be fair, he's not been a prolific poster on here.  He came on here in 2014 and disappeared after a relatively short while. I think he probably stopped posting because he personally didn't feel it was the right type of arena to be part of.  So he concentrated efforts elsewhere - you know what they say about time being precious etc.

He only reappeared back on the forum in late 2016, when David happened to mention him in a post - which he just happened to read and decided to respond to.  Prior to that he just lurked from time to time as a non-poster  He's not been a profligate poster in that sense (to borrow a term from Tom G).  I'm certain he is correct in stating that he had to learn about the case and he chose to study the first two hours - the communications etc - because he felt there was a rat away somewhere.

I regard him as completely bona fide and I think there is a certain level of quality in his work.  But those are just my opinions and others are free to make their own decisions / form their own opinions.

He is not Mike Tesko.  He doesn't agree that Cracknell and Norcup will have drawn arms from Force Amoury.  Mike recently posted this in response to having read Bill's report on the calls. 

[guest7363]

Justice, to be fair, he's not been a prolific poster on here.  He came on here in 2014 and disappeared after a relatively short while. I think he probably stopped posting because he personally didn't feel it was the right type of arena to be part of.  So he concentrated efforts elsewhere - you know what they say about time being precious etc.

He only reappeared back on the forum in late 2016, when David happened to mention him in a post - which he just happened to read and decided to respond to.  Prior to that he just lurked from time to time as a non-poster  He's not been a profligate poster in that sense (to borrow a term from Tom G).  I'm certain he is correct in stating that he had to learn about the case and he chose to study the first two hours - the communications etc - because he felt there was a rat away somewhere.

I regard him as completely bona fide and I think there is a certain level of quality in his work.  But those are just my opinions and others are free to make their own decisions / form their own opinions.

He is not Mike Tesko.  He doesn't agree that Cracknell and Norcup will have drawn arms from Force Amoury.  Mike recently posted this in response to having read Bill's report on the calls.

Roch if he is real I will say sorry, surely you cannot blame me for having doubts.  I have studied over the last two days his writing and other people's writing and I will leave it at that.  I don't want to put other posters off, there is nothing I would like more Than for it to be a MOJ, that's why I came here in the first place, there was only Mike posting at the time, not another poster, I joined and was intrigued with what  Mike was saying, I never posted and I have told you this before two people changed my view and my look on the case Hartley being one and Kaldin the other. I have never pm Hartley or Kaldin to discuss anything in the seven years I've been here.  I know I get up people's back and I know I'm close to my termination maybe I have come to the end of the road, but I'm always drawn back because I want some meat on the bone and not fed crap.  I want to be able to say to the psychiatrist you got that one wrong (although I won't see her again but that's another story)

[mike tesko]

Everybody is overlooking something of immense significance -

[mike tesko]

Everybody is overlooking something of immense significance -

Nobody ever asked PC West, or Malcom Bonnett, of PC Cracknell, or PC Norcup, whether Neville Bamber made a phone call to the police at around 3.20am / 3.26am, on that particular morning!

[guest7363]

So you have changed user name
Great I think I know who you are and I still have the PM messages
Are you warning me because of what a senior police officer might have said to me??
I have only recently said I am absolutely sure Jeremy is 100% innocent because of what I was told
I only interested in a documentary series being aired at the moment because there have been so many cover ups
Everyone will have there chance to say there piece then
There has not been a single documentary on TV about this case that shows everything that went on starting with Sheila's illness

Jackie, I'm not warning you I was trying to help you.  If you still have my messages you will see how I praised you then, the very first time Susan appeared on this forum I helped her and praised you to Susan and told her how I felt sorry you had been let down by Bamber, Susan will not remember this probably.  I do so admire your fight and what you have given, not a single person can take that away from you.  You have been on here as long as me and seen the crap we have been drip fed at times you cannot blame me for being suspicious when I see the same pattern over and over again, maybe I am thick and missing the reason for it?

[Roch]

Roch if he is real I will say sorry, surely you cannot blame me for having doubts.  I have studied over the last two days his writing and other people's writing and I will leave it at that.  I don't want to put other posters off, there is nothing I would like more Than for it to be a MOJ, that's why I came here in the first place, there was only Mike posting at the time, not another poster, I joined and was intrigued with what  Mike was saying, I never posted and I have told you this before two people changed my view and my look on the case Hartley being one and Kaldin the other. I have never pm Hartley or Kaldin to discuss anything in the seven years I've been here.  I know I get up people's back and I know I'm close to my termination maybe I have come to the end of the road, but I'm always drawn back because I want some meat on the bone and not fed crap.  I want to be able to say to the psychiatrist you got that one wrong (although I won't see her again but that's another story)

Don't worry about it.  I didn't set out to get other members backs up on here when I had my outburst. I'm sorry that I have got other member's backs up.  But sometimes members do flip, including me.  It escalates and turns things sour.

I've flipped wiith Adam recently as well.  And accused him of being some kind of police presence etc. Luckily he has a thick skin.  He just didn't seem bothered.

I think Kaldin was essentially a 50/50 poster and he would take Mike to task for making certain claims - though I think he kind of admired what Mike was trying to do and was also dubious about the prosecution case.  If Mike reads my posts - he will know that I have nver agreed with his rationale, that if it was ok for the proecution to bend evidence to suit their case - then it's ok for him to do similar in reverse.  A kind of tase of their own medicine.  But I think it's counter-productive.