Author Topic: Video re photographs non-disclosure  (Read 94455 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #390 on: August 13, 2018, 05:19:AM »
Yes.

With regard to my 'ignore' remark, I simply meant Jeremy will not be released, no matter what evidence of wrongdoing comes to light.

In answer to your other question.  Also yes.  The case has been deliberately 'managed' by successive coming and going modern EP officers, who were / are not as familiar with the case complexities as say (for example) you, David, Gringo, Hartey, ngb, Bill etc.

EP will have cut from the negatives as per their knowledge developed, regarding pertinent issues that posed a risk.

As for Sutherst and McLeod et al.  While they may have been given pointers, I doubt they viewed the negatives as 'experts' on the case.  It was not their remit.  Hypothetically, If Jeremy Bamber had been allowed to view the negatives provided to McLeod, that would equate to a very risky situation for EP, as he would no doubt have very much represented a 'case expert' viewing a higher number of negatives.
   To expand on this line of thinking further, Roch, it should not be forgotten that when the photographs were first examined by John Macleod in 2002 and he viewed 429 negative images there were already 249 missing.
    Are EP seriously claiming that between 2001(when the strips were in uncut form) and 2002 when they were viewed by a defence expert, they cut the strips to remove 249 unexposed negatives but missed a further 23 unexposed negatives? We are also supposed to believe that 6 years later again, "coincidentally", just before another viewing by an expert for the defence that EP "found" a further 13 of these erm. cough cough "unexposed negatives".
    It is even more of a stretch to imagine that after all of this analysis by EP that there could have been any more "unexposed negatives" to be found. But in 2011, again and obviously by massive coincidence, just prior to a viewing by another defence expert, EP discovered that there were 10 more of these "unexposed negatives".
    EP have not given a "plausible innocent explanation".
    Is it credible, that rather than send the strips in full, as we know they were in 2001, that they assigned some officer or other the task of sifting through them to remove "unexposed negatives" to help the defence expert, by presumably saving him the miniscule amount of time that the expert would otherwise waste in determining this fact. Nobody can seriously believe the EP explanation. Why would EP waste the manpower of sifting and removing negatives and then assign this task again 6 years later, in case the first guy missed some presumably. Then again 3 years later, have another check, just in case they missed some "unexposed negatives" the first two times.
    Do the experts that viewed the negatives in 2002 and 2008 refer to any unexposed negatives in their reports? There ought to be some reference surely. When Macleod viewed the negatives in 2002, there would obviously have been 23 "unexposed negatives" in the 429 that he viewed. That is if EP are telling the truth. Also when Sutherst viewed the negatives in 2008, if EP are to be believed, there were still 10 "unexposed negatives" to be discovered. Does Sutherst in his report refer to 10 or any unexposed negatives?
    It is probable, in my view, that the initial 249 missing negatives are those that obviously blow a hole in the official narrative. Things like guns in view that officially weren't there amongst other things. By the time Sutherst viewed them in 2008, EP and the defence will have been aware of some of the discrepancies being looked for and sifted "as their knowledge developed", as you say.
   The contents of the reports may reveal more.
   

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3879
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #391 on: August 13, 2018, 10:03:AM »
   To expand on this line of thinking further, Roch, it should not be forgotten that when the photographs were first examined by John Macleod in 2002 and he viewed 429 negative images there were already 249 missing.
    Are EP seriously claiming that between 2001(when the strips were in uncut form) and 2002 when they were viewed by a defence expert, they cut the strips to remove 249 unexposed negatives but missed a further 23 unexposed negatives? We are also supposed to believe that 6 years later again, "coincidentally", just before another viewing by an expert for the defence that EP "found" a further 13 of these erm. cough cough "unexposed negatives".
    It is even more of a stretch to imagine that after all of this analysis by EP that there could have been any more "unexposed negatives" to be found. But in 2011, again and obviously by massive coincidence, just prior to a viewing by another defence expert, EP discovered that there were 10 more of these "unexposed negatives".
    EP have not given a "plausible innocent explanation".
    Is it credible, that rather than send the strips in full, as we know they were in 2001, that they assigned some officer or other the task of sifting through them to remove "unexposed negatives" to help the defence expert, by presumably saving him the miniscule amount of time that the expert would otherwise waste in determining this fact. Nobody can seriously believe the EP explanation. Why would EP waste the manpower of sifting and removing negatives and then assign this task again 6 years later, in case the first guy missed some presumably. Then again 3 years later, have another check, just in case they missed some "unexposed negatives" the first two times.
    Do the experts that viewed the negatives in 2002 and 2008 refer to any unexposed negatives in their reports? There ought to be some reference surely. When Macleod viewed the negatives in 2002, there would obviously have been 23 "unexposed negatives" in the 429 that he viewed. That is if EP are telling the truth. Also when Sutherst viewed the negatives in 2008, if EP are to be believed, there were still 10 "unexposed negatives" to be discovered. Does Sutherst in his report refer to 10 or any unexposed negatives?
    It is probable, in my view, that the initial 249 missing negatives are those that obviously blow a hole in the official narrative. Things like guns in view that officially weren't there amongst other things. By the time Sutherst viewed them in 2008, EP and the defence will have been aware of some of the discrepancies being looked for and sifted "as their knowledge developed", as you say.
   The contents of the reports may reveal more.
 

It beggars believe.  There is NO plausible explanation for the removal of these negatives
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #392 on: August 13, 2018, 10:47:AM »
   To expand on this line of thinking further, Roch, it should not be forgotten that when the photographs were first examined by John Macleod in 2002 and he viewed 429 negative images there were already 249 missing.
    Are EP seriously claiming that between 2001(when the strips were in uncut form) and 2002 when they were viewed by a defence expert, they cut the strips to remove 249 unexposed negatives but missed a further 23 unexposed negatives? We are also supposed to believe that 6 years later again, "coincidentally", just before another viewing by an expert for the defence that EP "found" a further 13 of these erm. cough cough "unexposed negatives".
    It is even more of a stretch to imagine that after all of this analysis by EP that there could have been any more "unexposed negatives" to be found. But in 2011, again and obviously by massive coincidence, just prior to a viewing by another defence expert, EP discovered that there were 10 more of these "unexposed negatives".
    EP have not given a "plausible innocent explanation".
    Is it credible, that rather than send the strips in full, as we know they were in 2001, that they assigned some officer or other the task of sifting through them to remove "unexposed negatives" to help the defence expert, by presumably saving him the miniscule amount of time that the expert would otherwise waste in determining this fact. Nobody can seriously believe the EP explanation. Why would EP waste the manpower of sifting and removing negatives and then assign this task again 6 years later, in case the first guy missed some presumably. Then again 3 years later, have another check, just in case they missed some "unexposed negatives" the first two times.
    Do the experts that viewed the negatives in 2002 and 2008 refer to any unexposed negatives in their reports? There ought to be some reference surely. When Macleod viewed the negatives in 2002, there would obviously have been 23 "unexposed negatives" in the 429 that he viewed. That is if EP are telling the truth. Also when Sutherst viewed the negatives in 2008, if EP are to be believed, there were still 10 "unexposed negatives" to be discovered. Does Sutherst in his report refer to 10 or any unexposed negatives?
    It is probable, in my view, that the initial 249 missing negatives are those that obviously blow a hole in the official narrative. Things like guns in view that officially weren't there amongst other things. By the time Sutherst viewed them in 2008, EP and the defence will have been aware of some of the discrepancies being looked for and sifted "as their knowledge developed", as you say.
   The contents of the reports may reveal more.
 
Makes perfect sense imo. Excellent reasoning gringo.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 11:10:AM by maggie »

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13780
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #393 on: August 13, 2018, 09:23:PM »
Here is my breakdown of the crime scene photos from 7th of August.

each hash sign represents a photo in a film strip.

Black = not missing.
Red = missing and looking fishy
Green = possibly missing but nothing fishy

############ Kitchen + Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Landing + Twins Room
############ Twins Room
############ Upstairs rooms
############ Living Room
############ CloakRoom + BackDoor
############ Kitchen + Backdoor
############ Gun Cupboard and Office 
############ Gun Cupboard and Office
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Stairs + Bedrooms
############ Sheila's room + Stairs
############ Exterior Windows 
############ Exterior Windows
############ Exterior House
############ Exterior House
############ Missing
############ Farmland
############ Cars
############ Farmland
############ Garden and Settee + 2X PM


PS: Don't assume this is accurate or reliable.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21081
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #394 on: August 13, 2018, 09:56:PM »
What does the red hash line and "missing" represent?

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44292
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #395 on: August 14, 2018, 02:21:AM »
Here is my breakdown of the crime scene photos from 7th of August.

each hash sign represents a photo in a film strip.

Black = not missing.
Red = missing and looking fishy
Green = possibly missing but nothing fishy

############ Kitchen + Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Main Bedroom
############ Landing + Twins Room
############ Twins Room
############ Upstairs rooms
############ Living Room
############ CloakRoom + BackDoor
############ Kitchen + Backdoor
############ Gun Cupboard and Office 
############ Gun Cupboard and Office
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Windows
############ Stairs + Bedrooms
############ Sheila's room + Stairs
############ Exterior Windows 
############ Exterior Windows
############ Exterior House
############ Exterior House
############ Missing
############ Farmland
############ Cars
############ Farmland
############ Garden and Settee + 2X PM


PS: Don't assume this is accurate or reliable.

I will try not to assume your red, green & black hash signs are accurrate.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #396 on: August 14, 2018, 09:39:PM »
The problem that Essex police had, was that prior to and including the trial in October 1986, the cops were making out that all the crime scene photographs which had been taken at the scene on the 7th and 8th August 1985, had been taken solely by PC David Bird (SOCO) who had supposedly started taking photographs inside the farmhouse from about 10 O'clock onwards, he not having arrived at the scene until 9.20am, in the company of Detective Inspector Ron Cook, who we are told was put in charge of the farmhouse soon after his arrival. However, this narrative that Essex police pinned it's case on wasn't true at all. This is because DCI Harris, Chief Inspector Gibbons, DCI Clarke and DCI Jones were in total control of the various scenes inside the farmhouse, and had been in charge of the same since before Ron Cook and his side kick PC David Bird had even arrived at the scene (9.20am). Also in attendance inside the farmhouse prior to the arrival of Ron Cook and PC David Bird at 9.20am, were police Inspector Ivor Montgomery, and PS Woodcock, together with two CID officers from headquarters SOCO (DC Henderson and DC Oakey)..

It was DC Henderson and DC Oakey who had already started taking photographs of the bodies of victims, insitu at just after 8.44am when the police surgeon Dr Craig had ceremoniously pronounced everyone as being dead by that time!

Henderson and Oakey were the first SOCO team to take photographs of the victims bodies, upstairs in the two bedrooms, and downstairs in the kitchen. For the avoidance of doubt it should be noted that at 8.44am Sheila Caffell's body was laid on the far side of the bed! I know people have tried to twist the truth by claiming that Sheila's body was on the bedroom floor by that stage! But, all I shall say is that when Stan Jones and Mick Clark arrived in the main bedroom soon after 9.05am, they saw Sheila Caffell's body laying on top of the bed, next to the body of her mother, June Bamber! Jones and Clark recounted what they saw when later that same morning whilst they were at Jeremy Bambers cottage taking a witness statement from him, they told Ann Eaton and other relatives gathered there, that there was a rifle resting on the bed in-between the two bodies, and that Sheila had got a Bible resting on her chest! Ann Eaton was told on this occasion, that Sheila had been shot once in the neck, and they were told by Jones and Clark that this single shot had killed her!

What is known, is that Sheila Caffell's body was never resting on top of the bed at any stage after Ron Cook or PC David Bird arrived at the scene, and they duly arrived there at 9.20am...

With this in mind, PC Bird could not have taken any photographs of Sheila Caffell's body and June Bambers body laid on top of the bed!

By 9.30am, the Coroner's officer, PC Wright arrived at the scene and went to the main bedroom at that time and he viewed the bodies of Sheila Caffell and June Bamber, laid on different parts of the bedroom floor! He states that the rifle had been removed from the body by that stage, and that Sheila had two bullet entry wounds to her neck when he first saw her body (9.30am) - PC David Bird had not yet even entered the farmhouse by that stage and he would not do so for another half an hour or so at 10.00am...

What we now know, but of course the court which tried the case did not, is that between 9.00am and 10.00am Senior Officers performed a training exercise known as 'informatives', which involved them moving the bodies of victims about, moving weapons about, and moving furniture around! Whilst this was going on Henderson and Oakey took photographs and video footage capturing the fact that it was the police themselves who had staged the death scenes of the three adult victims, namely the death of Neville Bamber downstairs in the kitchen, with his head inside the steel rim of the coal bucket! Upstairs at the entrance to the main bedroom, they left June Bambers badly injured body partly propped up against the bedroom door! Sheila's body was laid on the floor on the opposite side of the bedroom in possession of the anshuzt rifle!

Once Harris, Gibbons, Clarke, Miller and Jones were satisfied with how they had set the scene, only then was the second team of SOCO permitted to enter the premises at which point PC David Bird started to take his photographs, showing the bodies of victims insitu as left by the Senior Officers without knowing that the bodies in question had been found differently, and that in Sheila Caffell's case, there had been three different locations where her body had been including the scene set by the police by around 10 0'clock (the kitchen, laid on top of the bed, and laid on the bedroom floor). PC Bird only photographed Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, and he photographed June's body propped up against and slumped by the bedroom door! He also photographed Neville Bamber with his head in the coal bucket downstairs in the kitchen!

Of course, we now know that the first team of SOCO (Henderson and Oakey) captured the Senior Officers whilst they were engaged in practising 'informatives', which involved repositioning the bodies of victims, moving the rifle about from place to place, and with it ending up in the possession of Sheila Caffell, etc, etc, etc...

Make no bones about it, it was the police who staged Sheila Caffell's death on the bedroom floor, and this is despite the fact that there had been two shouts (police radio messages timed at 7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am and 7.45am) earlier on during the police Operation that Sheila had died downstairs in the kitchen, her death at that stage, being talked about as a suicide! Later on once her body arrived in the parents bedroom, she had collapsed onto her parents bed, and was once again referred to as being dead, by Dr Craig (8.44am), at a time when she only had one bullet entry wound to her neck! Remember also, that by the time Stan Jones and Mick Clark visited the main bedroom, they saw Sheila's body laid on top of the bed, June Bambers body was laid next to Sheila's body on top of the same bed, Sheila had been shot once in the neck, there was a rifle laid on the bed in-between the two bodies, and Sheila had a Bible on her chest!
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 10:11:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #397 on: August 14, 2018, 10:30:PM »
The claim that missing negatives were / are all blanks is absolute nonsense - Essex police have removed all the damning photographs that were taken by the first group of SOCO (Henderson and Oakey), which captured the bodies of victims in different position be in the kitchen (Neville Bamber) and upstairs in the main bedroom, which captured Sheila's body laid on top of the bed!

I know this to be true because I have seen two photographs of Sheila's body laid on top of the bed, and she was only shot once by that stage! By a reliance upon the testimony of the Coroners officer PC Wright, we know that by 9.30am that the cops had moved Sheila's body into the bedroom floor, and that she had received the second shot to her neck in-between that time (9.30am), and the occasion when Stan Jones and  Mick Clark had seen Sheila's body laid on the bed with one shot, and they arrived inside the bedroom at about 9.10am...

How did the anshuzt rifle which was resting against a first floor box room window at around 7.15am, end up on the bed in-between the bodies of Sheila and June by about 9.10am?

How did Sheila shoot herself with the rifle at the first floor box room window when she was present downstairs in the kitchen and was shot when the internal kitchen door was forced open?

Essex police are responsible for shooting dead Sheila Caffell, in somewhat bizarre circumstances, she was shot once downstairs in the kitchen and mistakenly presumed to be dead, after which once she made a brief recovery she made her way upstairs and upon reaching the main bedroom she collapsed again onto the bed, hence why the police surgeon, Dr Craig was able to pronounce her as being dead at 8.44am, despite she having only been shot once in the neck!

She had still only got one bullet entry wound to her neck when Stan Jones and Mick Clark viewed Sheila's body that was still laid on top of the bed at about 9.10am...

But, she had been shot a second time by 9.30am, according to the Coroner's officer PC Wright, her body then being upon the bedroom floor minus the weapon that had been used to fire the second shot!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline IndigoJ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #398 on: August 16, 2018, 09:05:AM »
The problem that Essex police had, was that prior to and including the trial in October 1986, the cops were making out that all the crime scene photographs which had been taken at the scene on the 7th and 8th August 1985, had been taken solely by PC David Bird (SOCO) who had supposedly started taking photographs inside the farmhouse from about 10 O'clock onwards, he not having arrived at the scene until 9.20am, in the company of Detective Inspector Ron Cook, who we are told was put in charge of the farmhouse soon after his arrival. However, this narrative that Essex police pinned it's case on wasn't true at all. This is because DCI Harris, Chief Inspector Gibbons, DCI Clarke and DCI Jones were in total control of the various scenes inside the farmhouse, and had been in charge of the same since before Ron Cook and his side kick PC David Bird had even arrived at the scene (9.20am). Also in attendance inside the farmhouse prior to the arrival of Ron Cook and PC David Bird at 9.20am, were police Inspector Ivor Montgomery, and PS Woodcock, together with two CID officers from headquarters SOCO (DC Henderson and DC Oakey)..

It was DC Henderson and DC Oakey who had already started taking photographs of the bodies of victims, insitu at just after 8.44am when the police surgeon Dr Craig had ceremoniously pronounced everyone as being dead by that time!

Henderson and Oakey were the first SOCO team to take photographs of the victims bodies, upstairs in the two bedrooms, and downstairs in the kitchen. For the avoidance of doubt it should be noted that at 8.44am Sheila Caffell's body was laid on the far side of the bed! I know people have tried to twist the truth by claiming that Sheila's body was on the bedroom floor by that stage! But, all I shall say is that when Stan Jones and Mick Clark arrived in the main bedroom soon after 9.05am, they saw Sheila Caffell's body laying on top of the bed, next to the body of her mother, June Bamber! Jones and Clark recounted what they saw when later that same morning whilst they were at Jeremy Bambers cottage taking a witness statement from him, they told Ann Eaton and other relatives gathered there, that there was a rifle resting on the bed in-between the two bodies, and that Sheila had got a Bible resting on her chest! Ann Eaton was told on this occasion, that Sheila had been shot once in the neck, and they were told by Jones and Clark that this single shot had killed her!

What is known, is that Sheila Caffell's body was never resting on top of the bed at any stage after Ron Cook or PC David Bird arrived at the scene, and they duly arrived there at 9.20am...

With this in mind, PC Bird could not have taken any photographs of Sheila Caffell's body and June Bambers body laid on top of the bed!

By 9.30am, the Coroner's officer, PC Wright arrived at the scene and went to the main bedroom at that time and he viewed the bodies of Sheila Caffell and June Bamber, laid on different parts of the bedroom floor! He states that the rifle had been removed from the body by that stage, and that Sheila had two bullet entry wounds to her neck when he first saw her body (9.30am) - PC David Bird had not yet even entered the farmhouse by that stage and he would not do so for another half an hour or so at 10.00am...

What we now know, but of course the court which tried the case did not, is that between 9.00am and 10.00am Senior Officers performed a training exercise known as 'informatives', which involved them moving the bodies of victims about, moving weapons about, and moving furniture around! Whilst this was going on Henderson and Oakey took photographs and video footage capturing the fact that it was the police themselves who had staged the death scenes of the three adult victims, namely the death of Neville Bamber downstairs in the kitchen, with his head inside the steel rim of the coal bucket! Upstairs at the entrance to the main bedroom, they left June Bambers badly injured body partly propped up against the bedroom door! Sheila's body was laid on the floor on the opposite side of the bedroom in possession of the anshuzt rifle!

Once Harris, Gibbons, Clarke, Miller and Jones were satisfied with how they had set the scene, only then was the second team of SOCO permitted to enter the premises at which point PC David Bird started to take his photographs, showing the bodies of victims insitu as left by the Senior Officers without knowing that the bodies in question had been found differently, and that in Sheila Caffell's case, there had been three different locations where her body had been including the scene set by the police by around 10 0'clock (the kitchen, laid on top of the bed, and laid on the bedroom floor). PC Bird only photographed Sheila's body on the bedroom floor, and he photographed June's body propped up against and slumped by the bedroom door! He also photographed Neville Bamber with his head in the coal bucket downstairs in the kitchen!

Of course, we now know that the first team of SOCO (Henderson and Oakey) captured the Senior Officers whilst they were engaged in practising 'informatives', which involved repositioning the bodies of victims, moving the rifle about from place to place, and with it ending up in the possession of Sheila Caffell, etc, etc, etc...

Make no bones about it, it was the police who staged Sheila Caffell's death on the bedroom floor, and this is despite the fact that there had been two shouts (police radio messages timed at 7.35am, 7.37am, 7.38am, 7.42am and 7.45am) earlier on during the police Operation that Sheila had died downstairs in the kitchen, her death at that stage, being talked about as a suicide! Later on once her body arrived in the parents bedroom, she had collapsed onto her parents bed, and was once again referred to as being dead, by Dr Craig (8.44am), at a time when she only had one bullet entry wound to her neck! Remember also, that by the time Stan Jones and Mick Clark visited the main bedroom, they saw Sheila's body laid on top of the bed, June Bambers body was laid next to Sheila's body on top of the same bed, Sheila had been shot once in the neck, there was a rifle laid on the bed in-between the two bodies, and Sheila had a Bible on her chest!

where is your evidence for this practising "informatives" ?  why would any police force do that to a crime scene that they had just encountered? I have never heard of the police ever doing such a thing

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33771
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #399 on: August 16, 2018, 09:27:AM »
where is your evidence for this practising "informatives" ?  why would any police force do that to a crime scene that they had just encountered? I have never heard of the police ever doing such a thing


Ha! You may WELL ask. Many of us previously have ;) ;D

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21081
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #400 on: August 16, 2018, 09:41:AM »
where is your evidence for this practising "informatives" ?  why would any police force do that to a crime scene that they had just encountered? I have never heard of the police ever doing such a thing
It is often difficult to arrive at the unadulterated truth, which Jane hints at in her post. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-bamber-police-used-my-familys-107641
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 09:43:AM by Steve_uk »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #401 on: August 16, 2018, 09:48:AM »
In my book " informants/informatives, usually ex-cops and criminals are never always a means of  finding the truth in any case. I always reflect back on " Nicholls ?" who was an informer in the Essex/Rettendon case, a rogue !
Worse than unfrocked vicars-------and we've seen enough of those !
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 09:49:AM by lookout »

Offline IndigoJ

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 215
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #402 on: August 16, 2018, 11:18:AM »

Ha! You may WELL ask. Many of us previously have ;) ;D

the clock's ticking,,, i will be waiting  ;D

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #403 on: August 16, 2018, 11:27:AM »
the clock's ticking,,, i will be waiting  ;D

Make sure you don't hold your breath  :-\
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Video re photographs non-disclosure
« Reply #404 on: August 16, 2018, 11:47:AM »
Wouldn't you agree that due to the enormity of the case that you'd have questioned the ability of those concerned in it ?