Video re photographs non-disclosure

[Caroline]

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

Please tell the forum why you have suddenly popped up? It clearly isn't to discuss the case. Then again, you know nothing at all about it!

Sad existence? I have great life! Of course if it makes you feel better to think it might be worse than the sad lot you're stuck with, who am I to spoil the one bright light you hold onto.

I don't live on forums but to be fair, neither do you, you've been banned from most of them! Ta ta!

[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.

My email is similar to yours and as you've posted yours (having finally got your finger out) I will do the same.

Hi.

I have recently read Carol Ann Lee's account of the White House Farm Murders. I am also part of a discussion group where this case is often a hot topic. I just have a question in respect to an interview she included with PC David Bird; from information gained she includes the following;


"The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David 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. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up:"

My question is simply - was this only the second time PC Bird had ever acted as a photographer or had he previously carried out the role before engaged in 'the lab treatment'?

Kind regards,

Caroline

[gringo]

You could have just done that in the first place!

   It is unlikely prove anything which is why I didn't. It is likely to be hearsay of hearsay as I have pointed out. That is why I requested that the relevant part of the interview be made available as only PC Bird's actual own words can prove this. However given your reticence to even be open about the question that you have asked, I have no faith in what your interpretation of any exchange will be; you do have form for selective quoting and making inferences that don't stand up to scrutiny. Hence I have written myself and posted it verbatim as I will any reply.
    Do you stand by your claim that I invented the second part of the sentence? If so what have you actually asked?

[gringo]

My email is similar to yours and as you've posted yours (having finally got your finger out) I will do the same.

Hi.

I have recently read Carol Ann Lee's account of the White House Farm Murders. I am also part of a discussion group where this case is often a hot topic. I just have a question in respect to an interview she included with PC David Bird; from information gained she includes the following;


"The last Scene of Crime officers arrived. Detective Inspector Ron Cook joined the police in 1958 and became a fingerprint officer in 1964. Seventeen years later he was promoted to Detective Inspector and was one of two deputies working at SOCO in Chelmsford under DCI Charles ‘Geordie’ Wright. Cook was accompanied by Detective Constable David 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. Along with Chris Bews and Taff Jones, Bird had recently worked on the Bull murder in Coggeshall. When told at headquarters to collect five post-mortem kits for White House Farm, he assumed it was a wind-up:"

My question is simply - was this only the second time PC Bird had ever acted as a photographer or had he previously carried out the role before engaged in 'the lab treatment'?

Kind regards,

Caroline

   Appreciated.

[Caroline]

   It is unlikely prove anything which is why I didn't. It is likely to be hearsay of hearsay as I have pointed out. That is why I requested that the relevant part of the interview be made available as only PC Bird's actual own words can prove this. However given your reticence to even be open about the question that you have asked, I have no faith in what your interpretation of any exchange will be; you do have form for selective quoting and making inferences that don't stand up to scrutiny. Hence I have written myself and posted it verbatim as I will any reply.
    Do you stand by your claim that I invented the second part of the sentence? If so what have you actually asked?

How can it be hearsay when she did a face to face interview? She acknowledges this and gives credit to him.

The testimonies of lead figures from the 1985–6 enquiry have helped shed new light on those involved as well as on the investigation itself. I thank especially Mike Ainsley, Ron Cook, Dave Bird, Neil Davidson, Chris Bews and Steve Myall. Sadly, several retired officers have passed away recently, including Bob Miller, whom I interviewed at length.


Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 419). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

[gringo]

How can it be hearsay when she did a face to face interview? She acknowledges this and gives credit to him.

The testimonies of lead figures from the 1985–6 enquiry have helped shed new light on those involved as well as on the investigation itself. I thank especially Mike Ainsley, Ron Cook, Dave Bird, Neil Davidson, Chris Bews and Steve Myall. Sadly, several retired officers have passed away recently, including Bob Miller, whom I interviewed at length.


Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 419). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

  Because CAL after doing the interview and witnessing the words of PC Bird then reported them.
   
    Hearsay: the reporting of another's words by a witness.

    So CAL interviews Bird, witnesses him talking and then reports what he said. Or hearsay as it's called.
I made the point earlier which is why I was specific in the questions asked. CAL's contact details are unavailable because the publisher's do not give out these details and being able to contact Bird himself is even less likely. Bird is by definition the only person who can confirm or deny this piece of hearsay.
    Given that the publishers haven't spoken to Bird himself then any information that they can impart is hearsay of hearsay. This is not disputable unless you misunderstand the meaning of words.
    As said, it is highly unlikely that the publishers will be able to provide anything other than confirming that CAL's recording of this is accurate or some other form of words which will tell us very little.
    The reason that I wrote to the publishers was because of your unwillingness to be open and your willingness to dissemble.
    I could predict, based on your track record, that you would partially quote any correspondence missing out important qualifying statements in order to give a false impression. It's what you do.
   

[Caroline]

  Because CAL after doing the interview and witnessing the words of PC Bird then reported them.
   
    Hearsay: the reporting of another's words by a witness.

    So CAL interviews Bird, witnesses him talking and then reports what he said. Or hearsay as it's called.
I made the point earlier which is why I was specific in the questions asked. CAL's contact details are unavailable because the publisher's do not give out these details and being able to contact Bird himself is even less likely. Bird is by definition the only person who can confirm or deny this piece of hearsay.
    Given that the publishers haven't spoken to Bird himself then any information that they can impart is hearsay of hearsay. This is not disputable unless you misunderstand the meaning of words.
    As said, it is highly unlikely that the publishers will be able to provide anything other than confirming that CAL's recording of this is accurate or some other form of words which will tell us very little.
    The reason that I wrote to the publishers was because of your unwillingness to be open and your willingness to dissemble.
    I could predict, based on your track record, that you would partially quote any correspondence missing out important qualifying statements in order to give a false impression. It's what you do.
 

Julie Mugford reported on the words of Jeremy Bamber - hearsay is not that simple or any conversation wouldn't be allowed as evidence. Perhaps NGB can clarify whether the interview with David Bird (given that it can be verified by him) is indeed 'hearsay'. What do you think a statement is? Is it not the reporting of another persons words? If it can be verified, it can't be hearsay. The publishers won't be supplying the answer but of course if it comes from them, it will give you the excuse not to accept it. There is little more to say in this respect.

Unless I can't understand the meaning? 
hearsay
NOUN
mass noun
1 Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hearsay

I will ignore yet another personal attack - this is just more propergander from an obsessed Bamber supporter and dedicated conspiracy theorist.

You're clearly wanting to carry this on and one and I think this is now hounding!

[gringo]

Julie Mugford reported on the words of Jeremy Bamber - hearsay is not that simple or any conversation wouldn't be allowed as evidence. Perhaps NGB can clarify whether the interview with David Bird (given that it can be verified by him) is indeed 'hearsay'. What do you think a statement is? Is it not the reporting of another persons words? If it can be verified, it can't be hearsay. The publishers won't be supplying the answer but of course if it comes from them, it will give you the excuse not to accept it. There is little more to say in this respect.

Unless I can't understand the meaning? 
hearsay
NOUN
mass noun
1 Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hearsay

I will ignore yet another personal attack - this is just more propergander from an obsessed Bamber supporter and dedicated conspiracy theorist.

You're clearly wanting to carry this on and one and I think this is now hounding!

   I am certain that NGB and anyone else with a reasonable command of English can confirm that it is hearsay. You admit it yourself in your own wording by inference.
    "Given that it can be confirmed by Bird".
     So until it is confirmed by Bird it is hearsay.
     You're not asking Bird to confirm it are you? And until he does so it is hearsay. Somebody else is reporting his words. The words that CAL uses are obviously not Bird's direct quote and are paraphrased and reported by CAL.
     

[Jane]

Julie Mugford reported on the words of Jeremy Bamber - hearsay is not that simple or any conversation wouldn't be allowed as evidence. Perhaps NGB can clarify whether the interview with David Bird (given that it can be verified by him) is indeed 'hearsay'. What do you think a statement is? Is it not the reporting of another persons words? If it can be verified, it can't be hearsay. The publishers won't be supplying the answer but of course if it comes from them, it will give you the excuse not to accept it. There is little more to say in this respect.

Unless I can't understand the meaning? 
hearsay
NOUN
mass noun
1 Information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hearsay

I will ignore yet another personal attack - this is just more propergander from an obsessed Bamber supporter and dedicated conspiracy theorist.

You're clearly wanting to carry this on and one and I think this is now hounding!

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Gringo has now rewritten the rules book according to his own tenets. This will, of course, mean that all reference book and every academic paper will have to be gone through with a fine tooth comb and every reference therein will have to be checked and rechecked to make sure that the author actually HEARD the original words -as opposed to just quoting them- just in case they put their own interpretation on the finished article. Thinking about it, surely it will render the writing of such impossible if it's accepted that quoting someone amounts to nothing more than hearsay? Will his puerile game of semantics NEVER end?

[Caroline]

   I am certain that NGB and anyone else with a reasonable command of English can confirm that it is hearsay. You admit it yourself in your own wording by inference.
    "Given that it can be confirmed by Bird".
     So until it is confirmed by Bird it is hearsay.
     You're not asking Bird to confirm it are you? And until he does so it is hearsay. Somebody else is reporting his words. The words that CAL uses are obviously not Bird's direct quote and are paraphrased and reported by CAL.
   

Getting your excuse in early are we? Why did you bother asking for clarification if you were never going to accept the reply? It’s only hearsay in your chip on the shoulder world. CAL referenced the source and acknowledged his personal contribution, that’s how books work! How do you know that anything in history happened? You only have someone else’s word for it! Then again in your world everything was and is fake news unless you experience it for yourself! You won’t accept any response from the publisher UNLESS it agrees with your interpretation - then of course, it won’t be hearsay! 

[gringo]

Getting your excuse in early are we? Why did you bother asking for clarification if you were never going to accept the reply? It’s only hearsay in your chip on the shoulder world. CAL referenced the source and acknowledged his personal contribution, that’s how books work! How do you know that anything in history happened? You only have someone else’s word for it! Then again in your world everything was and is fake news unless you experience it for yourself! You won’t accept any response from the publisher UNLESS it agrees with your interpretation - then of course, it won’t be hearsay! 

    Getting your excuse in early are we?
    No just making clear exactly what it is that is being clarified.
    Why did you bother asking for clarification if you were never going to accept the reply?
    I have made clear that I will post the reply, verbatim, as I have the request. You were unwilling to do so until your hand was forced.  However, as I have also made clear, your reputation of selectively quoting in order to dissemble is well known to any reader of this forum. Your interpretation of letter exchanges is, to say the least, dubious. This is why a verbatim exchange has been offered by me to preempt unsupported claims being made by you using partial quotes. You are that predictable.
    It's only hearsay in your chip on the shoulder world. CAL referenced the source and acknowledged his personal contribution, that's how books work! How do you know that anything in history happened? You only have someone else's word for it! Then again in your world everything is fake news unless you experience it for yourself!
    It is hearsay in anyone's world whether with chips or not. The rest of that is quite mad and irrelevant.
    You won't accept accept any response from the publisher UNLESS it agrees with your interpretation - then of course, it won't be hearsay!
    It will still be hearsay, self evidently. You admit it yourself when you ask,
    Perhaps NGB can clarify whether the interview with David Bird (given that it can be verified by him) is indeed 'hearsay'

    The bit that you placed in brackets is important. By inference you are admitting that until verified by Bird it is hearsay. You are not asking Bird to verify it? Therefore it is still hearsay.

    Perhaps now you could answer why you claimed that I invented the second part of the sentence "while he was engaged on the lab treatment"? It is included in your letter to the publishers so you agree that I didn't invent it. Is it perhaps because you made a mistake due to your inadequate comprehension skills? Writing opinions on something before you have read and properly digested the meaning is a demonstration of your poor comprehension.
    Whatever your answer or non answer to this is, it is a perfect example of why your interpretations are considered worthless by anyone with sense.
   For what it's worth I will give you an explanation why your interpretation is incorrect. The confusion you have is around the use of the word "can". In this instance the word can is used as a modal verb(google it) to show possibility. It does not mean "to be able to". Modal verbs are part of key stage 2 English (between 7 and 11 years). You are showing less understanding of English than a reasonably intelligent 11 year old.

[Jane]

To the best of MY knowledge, "can" doesn't stand alone as a modal verb. Others, off the top of my head, include "may" and "might", It's only your interpretation -or should that be insistence?- which compels it to mean "showing possibility" as opposed to "being able to".

[Caroline]

    Getting your excuse in early are we?
    No just making clear exactly what it is that is being clarified.
    Why did you bother asking for clarification if you were never going to accept the reply?
    I have made clear that I will post the reply, verbatim, as I have the request. You were unwilling to do so until your hand was forced.  However, as I have also made clear, your reputation of selectively quoting in order to dissemble is well known to any reader of this forum. Your interpretation of letter exchanges is, to say the least, dubious. This is why a verbatim exchange has been offered by me to preempt unsupported claims being made by you using partial quotes. You are that predictable.
    It's only hearsay in your chip on the shoulder world. CAL referenced the source and acknowledged his personal contribution, that's how books work! How do you know that anything in history happened? You only have someone else's word for it! Then again in your world everything is fake news unless you experience it for yourself!
    It is hearsay in anyone's world whether with chips or not. The rest of that is quite mad and irrelevant.
    You won't accept accept any response from the publisher UNLESS it agrees with your interpretation - then of course, it won't be hearsay!
    It will still be hearsay, self evidently. You admit it yourself when you ask,
    Perhaps NGB can clarify whether the interview with David Bird (given that it can be verified by him) is indeed 'hearsay'

    The bit that you placed in brackets is important. By inference you are admitting that until verified by Bird it is hearsay. You are not asking Bird to verify it? Therefore it is still hearsay.

    Perhaps now you could answer why you claimed that I invented the second part of the sentence "while he was engaged on the lab treatment"? It is included in your letter to the publishers so you agree that I didn't invent it. Is it perhaps because you made a mistake due to your inadequate comprehension skills? Writing opinions on something before you have read and properly digested the meaning is a demonstration of your poor comprehension.
    Whatever your answer or non answer to this is, it is a perfect example of why your interpretations are considered worthless by anyone with sense.
   For what it's worth I will give you an explanation why your interpretation is incorrect. The confusion you have is around the use of the word "can". In this instance the word can is used as a modal verb(google it) to show possibility. It does not mean "to be able to". Modal verbs are part of key stage 2 English (between 7 and 11 years). You are showing less understanding of English than a reasonably intelligent 11 year old.

It's not hearsay because it can be verified! What is it about that you can't grasp? Is it because gringo in gringo's world can't verify it? Then ALL non fiction to you is hearsay because you wouldn't be able to verify ANY of it!

Why do you imagine that books are referenced? So someone like you can look at it and know there is a sourceable means of clarification. If someone writes that they got the info from a guy down the pub then THAT would be hearsay!

Did Julie Mugford pass on word for word what Bamber told her? Of course not, but it was part of evidence anyway and not kicked out as hearsay! It simply her word against his!

[Caroline]

The term “hearsay” refers to an out-of-court statement made by someone other than the witness reporting it (CAL was the witness and she reported it). For example, while testifying in John’s murder trial, Anthony states that John’s best friend told him that John had killed the victim. Anthony did not hear John make the admission firsthand, (BUT CAL DID!) making testimony of this statement “hearsay.” To explore this concept, consider the following hearsay definition.

Definition of Hearsay
Noun
Testimony based on what a witness has heard from another person, of which he has no personal knowledge or experience.
Unverified information acquired from another person, which is not part of one’s own knowledge.
Origin

MEANING that if someone ELSE told CAL that bird had only acted as a photographer twice, THAT would be hearsay but as he told her in person (from the horse's mouth shall we say) it is NOT!


https://legaldictionary.net/hearsay-evidence/

[Jane]

The term “hearsay” refers to an out-of-court statement made by someone other than the witness reporting it (CAL was the witness and she reported it). For example, while testifying in John’s murder trial, Anthony states that John’s best friend told him that John had killed the victim. Anthony did not hear John make the admission firsthand, (BUT CAL DID!) making testimony of this statement “hearsay.” To explore this concept, consider the following hearsay definition.

Definition of Hearsay
Noun
Testimony based on what a witness has heard from another person, of which he has no personal knowledge or experience.
Unverified information acquired from another person, which is not part of one’s own knowledge.
Origin

MEANING that if someone told CAL that brid had only ascted as a photographer twice, THAT would be hearsay but as he told her in person (from the horses mouth shall me say) it is NOT!


https://legaldictionary.net/hearsay-evidence/

Will someone not rid us of this self-obsessed, truculent p(----)? Is there to be NO end to his puerile, interminable game of semantics?