Video re photographs non-disclosure

[Jane]

According to AE in Taff's notes she told him that " neither Jeremy nor Sheila knew very much about firearms and didn't think Sheila was capable of carrying out the crimes ". So in view of what AE told Taff why did she blame Jeremy in favour of Sheila ?

Kind of ridiculous, wouldn't you think, that a farmer's son "knew (not) very much about firearms" but Ann clearly knew little of his accomplishments at school, however, was she not present when Jeremy asked her husband about getting him an all singing, all dancing, definitely all shooting, gun? And didn't Peter explain that such would be inappropriate? Perhaps his lack of academic gun knowledge was what Ann was referring to. That wouldn't effect his practical skill, though.

[lookout]

Kind of ridiculous, wouldn't you think, that a farmer's son "knew (not) very much about firearms" but Ann clearly knew little of his accomplishments at school, however, was she not present when Jeremy asked her husband about getting him an all singing, all dancing, definitely all shooting, gun? And didn't Peter explain that such would be inappropriate? Perhaps his lack of academic gun knowledge was what Ann was referring to. That wouldn't effect his practical skill, though.

My question is----why did she say it ??

[Jane]

My question is----why did she say it ??

Why do you say the things you say?

[lookout]

Why do you say the things you say?

I'm not talking about ME I'm asking why AE told that to Taff !

[Jane]

I'm not talking about ME I'm asking why AE told that to Taff !

That's a fatuous question to put to anyone, let alone me! You make enough complaints about me not giving  -what you call- straight/definitive answers, yet you ask me something which can't possibly have one.

[gringo]

When you learn the difference between experienced and inexperienced then you might be more qualified to post about it - until then ...........

   So how was Bird inexperienced then? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you still relying on an interview in which you have no idea what was asked or indeed what the the answers were to the unknown questions?
    Is your claim backed by evidence or is it just hearsay?
    Earlier you claimed to have read CAL's interview with Bird.
    All you actually read was CAL saying that she had interviewed Bird followed by an ambiguously worded claim. Is that really the entirety of your evidence concerning Bird's experience?
    Do you consider that is reading the interview?
    What were Bird's duties before police photography?
    What year was Bird's first assignment as a police photographer?
   

[lookout]

Gringo on Bambertweets there's a new blog by Jeremy which states that there are 272 images of which neither he nor the defence team were ever allowed to see including all the guns as well as those belonging to AP , the telephone he was supposed to have hidden amongst magazines when it was on the shelf in the office. 


It makes for upsetting reading to which I feel heartily sorry for Jeremy that so much went on behind his back. It's truly dreadful.

[Caroline]

   So how was Bird inexperienced then? Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you still relying on an interview in which you have no idea what was asked or indeed what the the answers were to the unknown questions?
    Is your claim backed by evidence or is it just hearsay?
    Earlier you claimed to have read CAL's interview with Bird.
    All you actually read was CAL saying that she had interviewed Bird followed by an ambiguously worded claim. Is that really the entirety of your evidence concerning Bird's experience?
    Do you consider that is reading the interview?
    What were Bird's duties before police photography?
    What year was Bird's first assignment as a police photographer?
   

I have posted evidence just not evidence that a clown like you is willing to accept. You have made a complete knob of yourself this entire weekend. I’m not answering your disruptive inane bull crap anymore. Ignoring the facts and crying like a baby when they don’t suit your ‘conspiracy theories’ doesn’t help your position one bit.

[Caroline]

Gringo on Bambertweets there's a new blog by Jeremy which states that there are 272 images of which neither he nor the defence team were ever allowed to see including all the guns as well as those belonging to AP , the telephone he was supposed to have hidden amongst magazines when it was on the shelf in the office. 


It makes for upsetting reading to which I feel heartily sorry for Jeremy that so much went on behind his back. It's truly dreadful.

That’s what this whole thread has been about Lookout! 

[gringo]

Gringo on Bambertweets there's a new blog by Jeremy which states that there are 272 images of which neither he nor the defence team were ever allowed to see including all the guns as well as those belonging to AP , the telephone he was supposed to have hidden amongst magazines when it was on the shelf in the office. 


It makes for upsetting reading to which I feel heartily sorry for Jeremy that so much went on behind his back. It's truly dreadful.

  I will have a read thanks, Lookout.

[lookout]

That’s what this whole thread has been about Lookout! 

That's why I put up a reminder 

[gringo]

I have posted evidence just not evidence that a clown like you is willing to accept. You have made a complete knob of yourself this entire weekend. I’m not answering your disruptive inane bull crap anymore. Ignoring the facts and crying like a baby when they don’t suit your ‘conspiracy theories’ doesn’t help your position one bit.

   You have posted hearsay and the usual stream of invective that is your speciality when your arguments are picked apart.
    Hearsay isn't evidence, especially hearsay that is 30 years or so after the event.
    The "evidence" that you have posted wouldn't be accepted by clowns or non clowns, because you haven't posted any actual evidence.
    If it was evidence you would be able to tell me what CAL asked Bird. You would also be able to tell me the replies given by Bird. You can do neither because you literally have no idea.
     

[Caroline]

   You have posted hearsay and the usual stream of invective that is your speciality when your arguments are picked apart.
    Hearsay isn't evidence, especially hearsay that is 30 years or so after the event.
    The "evidence" that you have posted wouldn't be accepted by clowns or non clowns, because you haven't posted any actual evidence.
    If it was evidence you would be able to tell me what CAL asked Bird. You would also be able to tell me the replies given by Bird. You can do neither because you literally have no idea.
   

No, I haven't posted hearsay at all - she has written what HE TOLD her and you're simply unable to accept that you were wrong about him being a specialist. Silly man, you went too far and now you just don't have the bollocks to admit it.

The evidence can be substantiated by both CAL and Bird, and if I ever needed to call upon them to substantiate it, I could. So it's NOT hearsay - think you better improve you own comprehension.

[Steve_uk]

Can we just agree that there are photographs in this case which remain undisclosed and should be examined by an impartial observer..

[nugnug]

Can we just agree that there are photographs in this case which remain undisclosed and should be examined by an impartial observer..

yes no problem there.