Bullets fired and reloading

[JackieD]

Roch, this is dreadful rubbish. This advances the whole conspiracy to such an early start - that you're saying people lied when they had no reason to. V's reports were detailed. There is no reason he would have failed to list these wounds on Sheila - the reason he didn't is because they do not exist.

This all sounds like something that the despicable official campaign team would promote.

I've seen the clearer photos. They do not show anything that you alledge. I do not understand how anyone looking at them can see what you claim so am glad to see both sides mostly disagreeing with this.

I don't believe for a minute you have seen the clearer photos
Never
Not in a million years
You have been proven to tell numerous stories

[Jane]

It's not my work Jane (i.e. any fit-up of a suspect in this case...is not my work).  Therefore, I cannot provide you with the bonafide reasons.  Sorry but that is an honest and factual answer.  If another person does some wrongdoing - that person knows the motivation and reason behind the wrongdoing.

If you put a window through in your neighbourhood - I cannot explain why you did it.

Why does that sound to me like a cop out? If I thought you were being paid, it would cross my mind that you weren't being paid to think.

[Roch]

I may have used the wrong word there but as he says he has seen these photos and you say you haven't, how can you say Roch is wrong?  You haven't seen them therefore you haven't had the opportunity to make up your own mind therefore surely you don't know if he is right or wrong.

Thanks Maggie.

[guest7363]

I understand you are not calling me a liar.  Thanks for that.  I have got it right though.

Its a bit like the psychiatrist who worked with Bamber who confided in me, I can’t prove it so I had to let it drop.

[guest154]

Mat, with respect... you are are entitled to your opinions.  I would not waste my time arguing dreadful rubbish for six months.

Unless you have the original pm reports from Vaneziz.. submitted at the time police were dealing with the coroner, I suggest you rethink your remarks.

Are you saying that V's handwritten notes are different from an apparent original PM report? And that the PM report isn't the original PM report?
That is quite a large leap from "I see scratches."

You know that in order for them to be wounds, they would have to be documented as such - which has been pointed out by Kaldin, Caroline, David etc.

It seems in order to get around this - you're not saying there is an "original PM report."

I believe fully you've seen better quality photos - I do not in anyway believe you or anyone on the campaign team has seen an PM report by V that is different than his actual PM report or his handwritten notes.

[Roch]

Why does that sound to me like a cop out? If I thought you were being paid, it would cross my mind that you weren't being paid to think.

Hang on a second...

WAS I PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION AND TRIAL OF JEREMY BAMBER?

If the answer is no - then how can I have been privy to whatever machinations took place among those who were involved?

[Roch]

Are you saying that V's handwritten notes are different from an apparent original PM report? And that the PM report isn't the original PM report?
That is quite a large leap from "I see scratches."

You know that in order for them to be wounds, they would have to be documented as such - which has been pointed out by Kaldin, Caroline, David etc.

It seems in order to get around this - you're not saying there is an "original PM report."

I believe fully you've seen better quality photos - I do not in anyway believe you or anyone on the campaign team has seen an PM report by V that is different than his actual PM report or his handwritten notes.

I don't agree with your point that a wound is only a wound if it is documented as such.  You cannot undo a wound by omitting it from any later written record.

The original PM report when DCI Jones headed the investigation and the police were trying to push the matter through a Coroner's inquest, is not available.  The 'later' PM report will have been in line with the aims of Ainsley.  You know all this already - so I'm not sure why you are pretending you don't. 

[Roch]

Its a bit like the psychiatrist who worked with Bamber who confided in me, I can’t prove it so I had to let it drop.

I do understand your point.  Maybe I should drop it.  People would no doubt soon forget the claims etc.

[guest154]

I don't agree with your point that a wound is only a wound if it is documented as such.  You cannot undo a wound by omitting it from any later written record.

The original PM report when DCI Jones headed the investigation and the police were trying to push the matter through a Coroner's inquest, is not available.  The 'later' PM report will have been in line with the aims of Ainsley.  You know all this already - so I'm not sure why you are pretending you don't.

I'm not pretending anything. I just wish to understand your position. I was more shocked than anyone that you've now working with the OCT - I thought they were the enemy to both sides on here.

The wounds would have been documented - the other victims wounds were. I feel strongly about that.

I don't think there is an original PM report. You've just said it isn't available. What makes you think it exists?

Is it simply because you disagree with the PM report, that you think there must be an original, that would be a fair position I guess but just wondering what makes you think there is an original. Is it referred to anywhere?

It wouldn't bother me about being investigated because I've NOTHING to hide.
I can safely bet I'm the only one !!

Wouldn't bother me either. But would concern me as to what was going to happen with whatever personal details were obtained.

[Jane]

Hang on a second...

WAS I PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION AND TRIAL OF JEREMY BAMBER?

If the answer is no - then how can I have been privy to whatever machinations took place among those who were involved?

So how can you possibly know that there were any? It sounds like you've been told there were and you've accepted without question.....................Oh! Just to be clear, I don't think anyone from this forum was present, either, but it doesn't prevent us from having opinions.

[guest7363]

I do understand your point.  Maybe I should drop it.  People would no doubt soon forget the claims etc.

Its a good debating topic you have bought up, I genuinely feel you have and know more, I have been honest and would have liked to have said I could see them and believe they are there, up to now I’m sorry I don’t, I would have liked to have said more myself about the psychiatrist  I have a lot to offer from both of them, but it’s a bit like you mate you get hounded and it’s not worth the hassle.  Caroline found this out regarding the wallet as well.

[Roch]

So how can you possibly know that there were any? It sounds like you've been told there were and you've accepted without question.....................Oh! Just to be clear, I don't think anyone from this forum was present, either, but it doesn't prevent us from having opinions.

OK Jane.. whatever 

[Roch]

I'm not pretending anything. I just wish to understand your position. I was more shocked than anyone that you've now working with the OCT - I thought they were the enemy to both sides on here.

The wounds would have been documented - the other victims wounds were. I feel strongly about that.

I don't think there is an original PM report. You've just said it isn't available. What makes you think it exists?

Is it simply because you disagree with the PM report, that you think there must be an original, that would be a fair position I guess but just wondering what makes you think there is an original. Is it referred to anywhere?

I don't know whether you are trying to get a bite out of me - but I am not connected to the CT and do not work with them or alongside them or underneath them. 

The wounds are present.  Yes I do believe there was an original PM report when SC was the only suspect. It's not just Sheila who has wounds not disclosed - it's also June.   

[Roch]

Its a good debating topic you have bought up, I genuinely feel you have and know more, I have been honest and would have liked to have said I could see them and believe they are there, up to now I’m sorry I don’t, I would have liked to have said more myself about the psychiatrist  I have a lot to offer from both of them, but it’s a bit like you mate you get hounded and it’s not worth the hassle.  Caroline found this out regarding the wallet as well.

OK, a fair post.  I can see where you're coming from.  Though I think that the images put up for hand - the wounds were easy to spot.  A person either wanted to recognise them as wounds or didn't want to recognise them as wounds. 

[guest154]

I don't know whether you are trying to get a bite out of me - but I am not connected to the CT and do not work with them or alongside them or underneath them. 

The wounds are present.  Yes I do believe there was an original PM report when SC was the only suspect. It's not just Sheila who has wounds not disclosed - it's also June.

You're not connected to the CT? If you're not then I apologise.. But 

As for the original PM report. It's an important point I don't want it to get lost in the mess this topic is becoming.
Do you think that there must be because :
A) You believe 100% they are wounds on Sheila so there MUST be a report.
B) You're seen it reffered to elsewhere?
or C) another?