Kitchen telephone

[lookout]

So what if he DID say that Nevill had said Sheila had gone mad and got hold of a gun? How does that make it true? As I said, everything Julie said was a reiteration of what Jeremy had told her.

Because JM hadn't disputed it being as she's supposed to have put a spin on everything.

[lookout]

The 999 call is on Mikes thread on the 30th of May----" Neville Bamber's 3.26 am exchange line call turned into a 999 call." The written document is there.
Not that it makes any difference to the guilters of course,I'm wasting my time there.

[Jane]

Because JM hadn't disputed it being as she's supposed to have put a spin on everything.

I'm not certain what you're saying. If Julie simply delivered a reiteration of Jeremy's words, why would one sentence out of many be disputed? Julie, to the best of my knowledge, wasn't in a position to say if any of what he said was true because she wasn't there. I don't know what you mean by "spin". As she was only repeating what she'd been told, there was no need for a slant. People could make up their own minds.

[Jane]

The 999 call is on Mikes thread on the 30th of May----" Neville Bamber's 3.26 am exchange line call turned into a 999 call." The written document is there.
Not that it makes any difference to the guilters of course,I'm wasting my time there.

I think we all have our own thoughts about some of the 'documents' Mike has produced.

[lookout]

I think we all have our own thoughts about some of the 'documents' Mike has produced.

Have you even bothered to look ? I might add that some of the guilters documents are dodgy too !

[lookout]

At least Mike's documents are "acquired" and not cobbled/doctored.

[Jane]

At least Mike's documents are "acquired" and not cobbled/doctored.

All documents are acquired from somewhere, Lookout. The question is WHERE.

[lookout]

All documents are acquired from somewhere, Lookout. The question is WHERE.

I think we know more of the source in Mike's case,do we not ? Seeing that he was once a McKenzie Friend for JB,so therefore his notes would have had to have been kosher. Solicitors,JB's requested notes from EP-----those would have been the sources,WHERE ELSE ?

[Jane]

I think we know more of the source in Mike's case,do we not ? Seeing that he was once a McKenzie Friend for JB,so therefore his notes would have had to have been kosher. Solicitors,JB's requested notes from EP-----those would have been the sources,WHERE ELSE ?

I feel certain that Mike must feel reassured by your devotion.

[lookout]

I feel certain that Mike must feel reassured by your devotion.

Whether he does or he doesn't,I came onto this forum KNOWING the truth as I know it,that JB hadn't committed those murders. It's immaterial to me what people think or feel.

[Jane]

Whether he does or he doesn't,I came onto this forum KNOWING the truth as I know it,that JB hadn't committed those murders. It's immaterial to me what people think or feel.

So is it also immaterial to you if false evidence -with the potential to destroy the reputation of others- is produced in order to make him appear innocent?

[lookout]

So is it also immaterial to you if false evidence -with the potential to destroy the reputation of others- is produced in order to make him appear innocent?

I didn't say that.

[Jane]

I didn't say that.

I didn't say you did. I just asked if you thought it immaterial that docs., possibly less than kosher, are used to alter what was originally said, to 'prove' that Jeremy is innocent.

[lookout]

I didn't say you did. I just asked if you thought it immaterial that docs., possibly less than kosher, are used to alter what was originally said, to 'prove' that Jeremy is innocent.

There's no getting away from the fact that you'd implied that's what I'd said.
However-----all the altering/editing reducing volume of certain statements ( probably by destruction ) was done by EP and those on the side of the prosecution.
Because of the sheer reduction of documents meant for the defence,I'd hardly imagine that any of those would have been altered in any way.

The prosecution only presented those documents which they'd cherry-picked to make the biggest impact------the silencer,which had been an afterthought and JM's ramblings which were written out of spite. What else was there when no evidence was found that connected JB to the murders ?

[Jane]

There's no getting away from the fact that you'd implied that's what I'd said.
However-----all the altering/editing reducing volume of certain statements ( probably by destruction ) was done by EP and those on the side of the prosecution.
Because of the sheer reduction of documents meant for the defence,I'd hardly imagine that any of those would have been altered in any way

The prosecution only presented those documents which they'd cherry-picked to make the biggest impact------the silencer,which had been an afterthought and JM's ramblings which were written out of spite. What else was there when no evidence was found that connected JB to the murders ?

I know what I said, Lookout. It was a straightforward question. I have no responsibility in how you choose to read it.

I'm perfectly certain that you believe EP responsible for reducing/destroying documents. It's said here on an almost daily basis and chanted like a mantra. The Bamber case is certainly not the only one in which a conviction has been given on mostly circumstantial evidence. I'm inclined to believe it's spite which causes some to say it was out of such that Julie gave her evidence.