Video re photographs non-disclosure

[Caroline]

Jon is one of the most articulate posters on this forum. Your personal remarks and personal insults are unacceptable. You continue to be an embarrassment. What a sad angry women you are.

 

[David1819]

I have found DC Bird mentioned in Essex Police magazine dated 1979 and 1983. Does this help?

 

[gringo]

I have found DC Bird mentioned in Essex Police magazine dated 1979 and 1983. Does this help?

  What does it say, David?

[gringo]

Get some help gringo. I haven't read any of your post - except the last line - try eating your own pie because you need a lesson in humble. Not sure why Bamber attracts people like you but it takes all sorts!

   How convenient.It is more likely that you have read the full post but cannot answer satisfactorily why you have made demonstrably false claims so pretend to have not read it.
     You can dish it out but are incredibly thin skinned when you get called out for your inaccurate and dishonest claims.

[Caroline]

   How convenient.It is more likely that you have read the full post but cannot answer satisfactorily why you have made demonstrably false claims so pretend to have not read it.
     You can dish it out but are incredibly thin skinned when you get called out for your inaccurate and dishonest claims.

No, seriously, I didn't read it. Reason being that it would just encourage you to carry on with this silly obsession and it's a fruitless exercise that encourages other creatures to crawl ut of the woodpile and join in.

This case isn't about you or me. It isn't about my comprehensions skils etc. When points are made it is sensible to look at both sides of the argument, question what is being put forward and not hammer away at anything that doesn't suit. With that in mind, I have written to CAL's publisher to ask for clarification on the Bird interview. I am sure any reply won't be accepted by your closed mind but other members who aren't so intent on having Bamber innocent at ANY and ALL costs and EP knowingly framing an innocent man -  may be.

[JackieD]

No, seriously, I didn't read it. Reason being that it would just encourage you to carry on with this silly obsession and it's a fruitless exercise that encourages other creatures to crawl ut of the woodpile and join in.

This case isn't about you or me. It isn't about my comprehensions skils etc. When points are made it is sensible to look at both sides of the argument, question what is being put forward and not hammer away at anything that doesn't suit. With that in mind, I have written to CAL's publisher to ask for clarification on the Bird interview. I am sure any reply won't be accepted by your closed mind but other members who aren't so intent on having Bamber innocent at ANY and ALL costs and EP knowingly framing an innocent man -  may be.

Skills ??

[gringo]

No, seriously, I didn't read it. Reason being that it would just encourage you to carry on with this silly obsession and it's a fruitless exercise that encourages other creatures to crawl ut of the woodpile and join in.

This case isn't about you or me. It isn't about my comprehensions skils etc. When points are made it is sensible to look at both sides of the argument, question what is being put forward and not hammer away at anything that doesn't suit. With that in mind, I have written to CAL's publisher to ask for clarification on the Bird interview. I am sure any reply won't be accepted by your closed mind but other members who aren't so intent on having Bamber innocent at ANY and ALL costs and EP knowingly framing an innocent man -  may be.

    You have no plausible explanation for your misrepresentations. The reason that the discussion was distracted to Bird's standing was because you introduced a number of out of context quotes and outright fabrications. When you attempt to infer meaning from evidence and then pass off your own interpretations rather than the actual evidence then it is about comprehension skills and honesty.
    What have you asked CAL's publishers? If it isn't about comprehension skills then you could tell us now exactly what you have asked them? We don't want your spin on it, just your answer and their reply, verbatim. There is no need to be so shy with your questions to them.
    I suspect that you have written a rather loaded question based on your track record and your misunderstanding of hearsay but you can disabuse me of this notion by posting it in full.
    To claim that any reply would not be accepted by my "closed mind" isn't even supported by posts in this thread. You claimed to have "read the interview" in CAL's book. I asked you to post the full verbatim script so that we could discuss it. It turns out that you had read CAL saying that she had interviewed Bird and a couple of quotes from CAL where she makes claims about what Bird said to her. This is not the same as reading the interview. It is also apparent through this exchange that I invited discussion of an interview where I had no idea what had been said. That kind of defines open minded doesn't it?
     Have you asked CAL's publishers for a verbatim script of this interview? Nothing less is worth discussing. If you have asked them to confirm your spin then this is worse than hearsay. It is hearsay of hearsay. CAL's publishers, to my knowledge, have never spoken to Bird and it is unlikely in the extreme that CAL even discussed the specific interview with whomever it is you have written to so your questions to them is relevant. Are you prepared to post it?
     
     
     
   
   
     

[Caroline]

Skills ??

Yes Jackie, 'skills' - It doesn't surprise me that you don't know what it means but always here to help!

skill
sk?l/Submit
noun
1.
the ability to do something well; expertise.
"difficult work, taking great skill"
synonyms:   expertise, skilfulness, expertness, adeptness, adroitness, deftness, dexterity, ability, prowess, mastery, competence, competency, capability, efficiency, aptitude, artistry, art, finesse, flair, virtuosity, experience, professionalism, talent, cleverness, smartness, ingenuity, versatility, knack, readiness, handiness; informalknow-how
"once again, he demonstrated his skill as a politician"

[Caroline]

    You have no plausible explanation for your misrepresentations. The reason that the discussion was distracted to Bird's standing was because you introduced a number of out of context quotes and outright fabrications. When you attempt to infer meaning from evidence and then pass off your own interpretations rather than the actual evidence then it is about comprehension skills and honesty.
    What have you asked CAL's publishers? If it isn't about comprehension skills then you could tell us now exactly what you have asked them? We don't want your spin on it, just your answer and their reply, verbatim. There is no need to be so shy with your questions to them.
    I suspect that you have written a rather loaded question based on your track record and your misunderstanding of hearsay but you can disabuse me of this notion by posting it in full.
    To claim that any reply would not be accepted by my "closed mind" isn't even supported by posts in this thread. You claimed to have "read the interview" in CAL's book. I asked you to post the full verbatim script so that we could discuss it. It turns out that you had read CAL saying that she had interviewed Bird and a couple of quotes from CAL where she makes claims about what Bird said to her. This is not the same as reading the interview. It is also apparent through this exchange that I invited discussion of an interview where I had no idea what had been said. That kind of defines open minded doesn't it?
     Have you asked CAL's publishers for a verbatim script of this interview? Nothing less is worth discussing. If you have asked them to confirm your spin then this is worse than hearsay. It is hearsay of hearsay. CAL's publishers, to my knowledge, have never spoken to Bird and it is unlikely in the extreme that CAL even discussed the specific interview with whomever it is you have written to so your questions to them is relevant. Are you prepared to post it?
     
     
     
   
   
   

It was distracted because yu claimed the COLP statement said Bird was a specialist - it didn't. Then you went off on one!
Yes, I will post it, even if it proves me wrong - I KNOW you wouldn't do the same!

You have had ample opportunity to research this yourself, instead you have sat guarding over this thread like a spider waiting for prey. I am NOT your prey but a couple of flies did turn up - not to support you, not really, they simply found a way to have a go at me. So suck up your half arsed compliments from the forum jerks and hold tight! I will post a the response if/when I receive one - I have already gad an acknowledgement.

I hope you will have the good grace to apologise if it turns out I was right and you wee wrong!

[gringo]

It was distracted because yu claimed the COLP statement said Bird was a specialist - it didn't. Then you went off on one!
Yes, I will post it, even if it proves me wrong - I KNOW you wouldn't do the same!

You have had ample opportunity to research this yourself, instead you have sat guarding over this thread like a spider waiting for prey. I am NOT your prey but a couple of flies did turn up - not to support you, not really, they simply found a way to have a go at me. So suck up your half arsed compliments from the forum jerks and hold tight! I will post a the response if/when I receive one - I have already gad an acknowledgement.

I hope you will have the good grace to apologise if it turns out I was right and you wee wrong!

   So post what you have asked CAL's publishers then. It isn't a difficult question. What is it, exactly, that you have asked CAL's publishers?

[Caroline]

   So post what you have asked CAL's publishers then. It isn't a difficult question. What is it, exactly, that you have asked CAL's publishers?

Wait!

[gringo]

Wait!

   I have no faith in your dubious paraphrased interpretations. If the question is a secret then there is already a lack of openness. With this in mind I have written to the publishers myself, no contact details being available for Carol Ann Lee herself. PC Bird is the one who could clear this up but contacting him directly is more difficult. Here in full is what I have asked them ( it isn't a secret ):

    Hi,  I am hoping that you can clear up an ambiguity in the Carol Ann Lee book published through yourselves titled, "The Murders at Whitehouse Farm"

    From interviews with DC Bird we are told the following, "...Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments, as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment."
      The qualifying statement at the end of this sentence is the cause of the uncertainty.
      Could you confirm how many times Bird had acted as photographer for Essex police prior to the Whitehouse Farm case but without the caveat mentioned above.
      It would be helpful if you could provide the part of the interview alluding to this so it can be established what Bird's experience and credentials were. As written the sentence could be interpreted as meaning that this was only Bird's second job ever or alternatively that he had performed the role previously, just not while engaged on the lab treatment. Hope you can clear up this ambiguity

        Regards Andy 

   I will post, verbatim, the reply.
   It is doubtful that the publishers can clear up this matter satisfactorily. They are much more likely to offer confirmation that CAL's words are accurate or some other non answer but I stand to be corrected.
If you are genuinely seeking the truth you would have no problem posting what you have asked. Your secrecy is in itself revealing.

[JackieD]

Yes Jackie, 'skills' - It doesn't surprise me that you don't know what it means but always here to help!

skill
sk?l/Submit
noun
1.
the ability to do something well; expertise.
"difficult work, taking great skill"
synonyms:   expertise, skilfulness, expertness, adeptness, adroitness, deftness, dexterity, ability, prowess, mastery, competence, competency, capability, efficiency, aptitude, artistry, art, finesse, flair, virtuosity, experience, professionalism, talent, cleverness, smartness, ingenuity, versatility, knack, readiness, handiness; informalknow-how
"once again, he demonstrated his skill as a politician"

But I have never seen any of these skills from you
Just a very angry female keyboard warrior who lives on forums abusing people

Why are you even here if you really believe Jeremy is guilty and locked up for live

What a sad existance

[guest154]

But I have never seen any of these skills from you
Just a very angry female keyboard warrior who lives on forums abusing people

Why are you even here if you really believe Jeremy is guilty and locked up for live

What a sad existance

 There was a point this entire forum was saying the same to you.

[Caroline]

   I have no faith in your dubious paraphrased interpretations. If the question is a secret then there is already a lack of openness. With this in mind I have written to the publishers myself, no contact details being available for Carol Ann Lee herself. PC Bird is the one who could clear this up but contacting him directly is more difficult. Here in full is what I have asked them ( it isn't a secret ):

    Hi,  I am hoping that you can clear up an ambiguity in the Carol Ann Lee book published through yourselves titled, "The Murders at Whitehouse Farm"

    From interviews with DC Bird we are told the following, "...Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable Bird, who joined the force in 1976, working on murder photography and chemical treatments, as part of a crime scene investigation course. The Bamber case was his second as photographer while he was engaged on the lab treatment."
      The qualifying statement at the end of this sentence is the cause of the uncertainty.
      Could you confirm how many times Bird had acted as photographer for Essex police prior to the Whitehouse Farm case but without the caveat mentioned above.
      It would be helpful if you could provide the part of the interview alluding to this so it can be established what Bird's experience and credentials were. As written the sentence could be interpreted as meaning that this was only Bird's second job ever or alternatively that he had performed the role previously, just not while engaged on the lab treatment. Hope you can clear up this ambiguity

        Regards Andy 

   I will post, verbatim, the reply.
   It is doubtful that the publishers can clear up this matter satisfactorily. They are much more likely to offer confirmation that CAL's words are accurate or some other non answer but I stand to be corrected.
If you are genuinely seeking the truth you would have no problem posting what you have asked. Your secrecy is in itself revealing.

You could have just done that in the first place!