Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: lookout on October 21, 2014, 01:35:PM
-
I've only just come across news in the Sunday Express of the 19th,which states that a threat was sent to Paul Harrison ( author ) who is blaming Jeremy for influencing a pro-Bamber supporter.
At the beginning,this author was a supporter of Jeremys' innocence,but has changed his stance and says that Bamber is where he should be.
Paul Harrison was sent an anonymous letter,type-written,to his Orkney home,threatening him. The letter,posted in Essex last month,contained the paragraph,I quote," Jeremy is close to getting out now and he will not allow you to harm or deny him the opportunity to gain the freedom he deserves,unquote "
Paul Harrison believes that Jeremy is at the back of this and is manipulating his supporters.
Blimey,it's a dreadful read and will set Jeremy right back because of this interfering old bint,whoever it is. How brave to hide behind anonymity ! Cowardly and utterly pathetic.
-
Things like this are only going towards damaging any chances that Jeremy has of freedom. Whoever writes these things,as there've been a few,must be as thick as two short planks and sick too !!
-
It also speaks about Jackie.
"Mr Harrison was also contacted by a woman who works for an Essex-based firm which publishes magazines for the public sector, including one called Counter-Terror Business aimed at the police, the military and the intelligence services.
She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments"
-
Another line in this insane letter is,quote " you dodged one bullet,now keep looking over your shoulder,Jeremy is still watching you and is waiting,unquote "
-
NGB comments.
The letter names barrister Neil Bellis as one of Jeremy's "protectors" but last night he said he was shocked by the fact that he had been highlighted in this way.
He said: "All I am is a volunteer administrator on the Jeremy Bamber forum, I've had some contact with Jeremy but I'm not on the campaign team and I've never acted for him in a legal capacity.
"It is a ridiculous letter to have sent. The problem is the case does attract some people who can be quite fanatical and somebody has taken it personally and decided to have a go at him.
"I would say that Paul Harrison has done his research and it has led him in a particular direction and everybody ought to wait to read his book."
-
Jackie's boss.
"Clive Beer, business development director of PSI Ltd, added that the employee who offered to give Mr Harrison 100,000 public sector email addresses had been "severely rebuked" and was "hanging on to her job by a thread".
He said: "She was trying to help him along and became slightly overzealous. She is a sales agent and has no access to any of our database information. All of the emails are in the public domain."
-
It also speaks about Jackie.
"Mr Harrison was also contacted by a woman who works for an Essex-based firm which publishes magazines for the public sector, including one called Counter-Terror Business aimed at the police, the military and the intelligence services.
She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments"
Jeeze,I didn't read it all. Honestly ?
-
Jeeze,I didn't read it all. Honestly ?
Anyway,I still think it's sick to go to those lengths. I don't believe it.
That is damned dangerous,stupid bint.
-
Yeah, that's a copy and paste. Read the whole thing if you get chance.
Letter sent from Essex. Putting two and two together it's obvious who has sent this letter to Paul. And she needs removing from this forum.
Not a supporter of Bamber at all, more damaging than anything else.
-
I don't know about her not being a Bamber supporter,she's not a full shilling either for acting like that,as reading between the lines,there's one Hell of a lot of uncertainty in deciding whether he is guilty or not,or why write like that ?
-
So the book will be out in August next year ? The 30th anniversary of Jeremys' imprisonment.
I was NEVER under any illusions how he felt about the case and which way his final decision would go.
-
Maybe should post a link to the article, so people know what we're reading. :)
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524489/Mass-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-s-threat-to-Scots-author-Harrison
-
Maybe should post a link to the article, so people know what we're reading. :)
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524489/Mass-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-s-threat-to-Scots-author-Harrison
Thanks Mat. I can't get over it.
-
Paul Harrison is completely wrong about ngb and in my opinion is a very dangerous and
Paul Harrison doesn't talk about NGB, the letter mentions NGB. NGB confirms in the article he has nothing to do with the letter, and of course I believe him - he isn't stupid. Who ALWAYS mentions NGB on the forum to back up their posts?
You may believe whatever Jackie tells you, Grahame - but those who have been stalked by her now that this is HER behaviour.
The letter was even postmarked from where she lives.
-
This Harrisonson article also speaks about Bamber being at the back of all these "death threats" and has power from within prison to influence his "disciples". Sorry but U must really laugh at this as this man claims to have been in contact with Bamber for about 3 years. If that is true then he will know that Bamber is a category "A" prisoner and that everything he does, every visitor, every phone call and every letter is vetted and that he cannot possibly run a mafia type gang fron inside.
I'm afraid this tells me much more about Robertson than it does about Bamber. It tells me that he certainly has a vivid imagination. I also challenge him to publish the actual letter for us all to see and examine for ourselves.
This man far from being in danger himself has in fact put people's lives and careers in danger. May I also remind members here that he sent Jackie a pm asking her to contact him by email and that he tells her to "keep up the good work for Bamber".
Now you may or may not believe me? That is up to every individual. I have no control over that. But please keep in mind that death threats are a criminal offence and of this letter is real then he should go to the police about it. I stongly encourage him to do so. That way this matter can be investigated by the proper authorities so that lies and accusations may not be flying around hurting innocent people. I implore everyone to take into consideration an old saying, "A lie is half way round the world before truth has even started out".
-
Paul Harrison doesn't talk about NGB, the letter mentions NGB. NGB confirms in the article he has nothing to do with the letter, and of course I believe him - he isn't stupid. Who ALWAYS mentions NGB on the forum to back up their posts?
You may believe whatever Jackie tells you, Grahame - but those who have been stalked by her now that this is HER behaviour.
The letter was even postmarked from where she lives.
How do you know the letter was postmarked were Jackie lives? All it says is that it has an Essex post mark. Mat I imlore you do not go down this route of false accusation.
-
well they will soon trace it and then we will know.
bloody stupid thing to do who ever did it.
-
Paul Harrison doesn't talk about NGB, the letter mentions NGB. NGB confirms in the article he has nothing to do with the letter, and of course I believe him - he isn't stupid. Who ALWAYS mentions NGB on the forum to back up their posts?
You may believe whatever Jackie tells you, Grahame - but those who have been stalked by her now that this is HER behaviour.
The letter was even postmarked from where she lives.
He certainly does. This is the shockingly false statement that he makes, "The letter names barrister Neil Bellis as one of Jeremy's "protectors" but last night he said he was shocked by the fact that he had been highlighted in this way."
Paul Harrison should know better especially if he has allegedly been in contact with Bamber for 3 years. If he had then he would have known the truth about ngb.
But of course I might have expected you to come up with all these false accusations about people just because you don't like them. Where is your sense of fairness and justice in all this. Please desist from making false accusations about someone without any proof whatsoever.
-
He certainly does. This is the shockingly false statement that he makes, "The letter names barrister Neil Bellis as one of Jeremy's "protectors" but last night he said he was shocked by the fact that he had been highlighted in this way."
How is that Paul commenting on NGB? He says the LETTER mentions NGB. The second part of you quote "shocked by the fact he had been highlighted in this way" is NGB speaking. In fairness to you, Grahame, you're blinded by blinkers - friendship.
well they will soon trace it and then we will know.
I doubt it. The creep went to the trouble of using a type writer, meaning they were nervous about their handwriting being matched/seen. They likely just stuck a stamp on it and put it in a post box.
-
when the licked ghe stamp that would of left there dna on it.
there fingerprins will probebly be on it as well.
-
This is a dreadful letter and it is something which in my opinion should be thoroughly investigated by the police. I note that Paul Harrison has decided not to pursue this through the police, which I find surprising. At face value this amounts to a threat to kill or at least cause serious physical harm to Paul Harrison.
Obviously since I am named in this article I was aware of it. The journalist contacted me for comment. He read me the parts of the letter which referred to me and I gave my reaction to it. The journalist has fairly summarised my comments, so I make no objection to that. However, the main thrust of the article is Paul Harrison's view that Jeremy Bamber himself was behind this threat. I am absolutely convinced that he had no knowledge of it whatsoever and that he will be appalled that it was sent. My reasons for that view are as follows.
First, Jeremy Bamber has nothing to gain from making threats to Paul Harrison, and a lot to lose. He mail is censored and his phone calls are monitored and recorded. Any suggestion that he encouraged this would have serious consequences for him in prison.
Second, a letter written at the instigation of Jeremy Bamber or someone close to him would not refer to me, and would certainly not portray me in the way in which the letter did. In summary it suggested that I would be the barrister who would secure his freedom. As anyone who had been a member of this forum for a while will know, I am a non practising barrister, not having been in practice for nearly 20 years. Even if I were asked, which I have not been, I would not be in a position to accept instructions. As I have described here, my involvement in the case has been limited. At the request of Jeremy Bamber and Simon McKay I provided some assistance in relation to the last final submissions to the CCRC. I subsequently had some very limited input into the Judicial Review application. This was all on an informal basis. Since then I have had no involvement whatsoever. I have had no input into the latest submissions and do not even know what they contain. As has been posted here Simon McKay is no longer acting for Jeremy Bamber. I do not even know who are in the new legal team.
Third, the letter contains a reference to "using the public sector" which is clearly a reference to the publisher referred to in the article. The employee concerned was not named, I imagine for legal reasons. That employee has to the best of my knowledge had no contact with Jeremy Bamber or his campaign team for over two years.
For these reasons it is clear that Jeremy Bamber was not behind this letter. The question therefore is, who sent it and why? The clear inference from the article is that the letter was linked to the employee of the publishing company. I have to admit that when first told of this I had the same thought, although I did not express any view on it to the journalist. However, when I read the article and realised what it contained apart from the references to me I changed my view. If the employee, who had come within a hair's breadth of losing her job, had written this letter I believe the last thing she would have done would be to include a reference in it to "using the public sector", thus directly linking to her employer.
I doubt if we will ever know who sent this letter. My firm view is that it was sent with the intention of harming Jeremy Bamber, me and the employee of the publishing company.
-
It MIGHT occur to me, had its' author's employer and certain other "facts" not been mentioned, that the letter may NOT have been written by a Jeremy supporter, but by someone who wishes him to be seem in a bad -sorry WORSE- light, possibly because they think he's guilty OR seeking revenge for some real or perceived sleight from him.......................on the other hand, if the author of the letter is to be believed, Jeremy may well be heading Mafia England or even MI's 5/6 from the confines of his cell.
-
Yeah, that's a copy and paste. Read the whole thing if you get chance.
Letter sent from Essex. Putting two and two together it's obvious who has sent this letter to Paul. And she needs removing from this forum.
Not a supporter of Bamber at all, more damaging than anything else.
Essex is a big county. It is obvious what it is intended should be believed about the identity of the peson who sent the letter, but that does not mean that it was in fact sent by her.
-
Hello Mr. Gee I am lost who is Robertson?
-
Well if you can't see the accusation of Robertson by calling ngb a jeremy Bamber "protector" then I'm not going to argue with you about it. But it will of course show other members of the forum your unjust accusations of Jackie without any proof whatsoever. It certainly opens up a window into your heart and the vindictive ways in which you think. Very sad that you cannot see it yourself.
The article says the letter called NGB a protector, Grahame. Not Robertson. Keep up.
when the licked ghe stamp that would of left there dna on it.
you don't lick stamps anymore, they are sticky.
The clear inference from the article is that the letter was linked to the employee of the publishing company. I have to admit that when first told of this I had the same thought, although I did not express any view on it to the journalist. However, when I read the article and realised what it contained apart from the references to me I changed my view. If the employee, who had come within a hair's breadth of losing her job, had written this letter I believe the last thing she would have done would be to include a reference in it to "using the public sector", thus directly linking to her employer.
I agree with you, Bamber will of had absolutely no knowledge of the letter - far too much to lose. But you have to be.... crazy, not to know who it was Neil.
Who attacks people who say ANYTHING negative about Bamber?
Who often takes forum/internet matters into the real world?
Who had a spat with Paul Harrison?
Who lives in Essex?
You may know members that fit into one or more of those catergories - but there is only ONE person who fits into them all.
Frankly, I think your judgement is off on this.
-
This is a dreadful letter and it is something which in my opinion should be thoroughly investigated by the police. I note that Paul Harrison has decided not to pursue this through the police, which I find surprising. At face value this amounts to a threat to kill or at least cause serious physical harm to Paul Harrison.
Obviously since I am named in this article I was aware of it. The journalist contacted me for comment. He read me the parts of the letter which referred to me and I gave my reaction to it. The journalist has fairly summarised my comments, so I make no objection to that. However, the main thrust of the article is Paul Harrison's view that Jeremy Bamber himself was behind this threat. I am absolutely convinced that he had no knowledge of it whatsoever and that he will be appalled that it was sent. My reasons for that view are as follows.
First, Jeremy Bamber has nothing to gain from making threats to Paul Harrison, and a lot to lose. He mail is censored and his phone calls are monitored and recorded. Any suggestion that he encouraged this would have serious consequences for him in prison.
Second, a letter written at the instigation of Jeremy Bamber or someone close to him would not refer to me, and would certainly not portray me in the way in which the letter did. In summary it suggested that I would be the barrister who would secure his freedom. As anyone who had been a member of this forum for a while will know, I am a non practising barrister, not having been in practice for nearly 20 years. Even if I were asked, which I have not been, I would not be in a position to accept instructions. As I have described here, my involvement in the case has been limited. At the request of Jeremy Bamber and Simon McKay I provided some assistance in relation to the last final submissions to the CCRC. I subsequently had some very limited input into the Judicial Review application. This was all on an informal basis. Since then I have had no involvement whatsoever. I have had no input into the latest submissions and do not even know what they contain. As has been posted here Simon McKay is no longer acting for Jeremy Bamber. I do not even know who are in the new legal team.
Third, the letter contains a reference to "using the public sector" which is clearly a reference to the publisher referred to in the article. The employee concerned was not named, I imagine for legal reasons. That employee has the best of my knowledge had no contact with Jeremy Bamber or his campaign team for over two years.
For these reasons it is clear that Jeremy Bamber was not behind this letter. The question therefore is, who sent it and why? The clear inference from the article is that the letter was linked to the employee of the publishing company. I have to admit that when first told of this I had the same thought, although I did not express any view on it to the journalist. However, when I read the article and realised what it contained apart from the references to me I changed my view. If the employee, who had come within a hair's breadth of losing her job, had written this letter I believe the last thing she would have done would be to include a reference in it to "using the public sector", thus directly linking to her employer.
I doubt if we will ever know who sent this letter. My firm view is that it was sent with the intention of harming Jeremy Bamber, me and the employee of the publishing company.
thats certanly my view as well.
it also strikes me that writer of the letter wanted paul harrison to think they were jackie.
the fact they mention nggb in the letter suggests they have some sort of grudge agianst him.
-
Hello Mr. Gee I am lost who is Robertson?
Sorry Susan I meant "Harrison" not Robertson. I am trying to do 101 things today I may have had Robertons Jam this morning. ;D
-
This Robertson article also speaks about Bamber being at the back of all these "death threats" and has power from within prison to influence his "disciples". Sorry but U must really laugh at this as this man claims to have been in contact with Bamber for about 3 years. If that is true then he will know that Bamber is a category "A" prisoner and that everything he does, every visitor, every phone call and every letter is vetted and that he cannot possibly run a mafia type gang fron inside.
I'm afraid this tells me much more about Robertson than it does about Bamber. It tells me that he certainly has a vivid imagination. I also challenge him to publish the actual letter for us all to see and examine for ourselves.
This man far from being in danger himself has in fact put people's lives and careers in danger. May I also remind members here that he sent Jackie a pm asking her to contact him by email and that he tells her to "keep up the good work for Bamber".
Now you may or may not believe me? That is up to every individual. I have no control over that. But please keep in mind that death threats are a criminal offence and of this letter is real then he should go to the police about it. I stongly encourage him to do so. That way this matter can be investigated by the proper authorities so that lies and accusations may not be flying around hurting innocent people. I implore everyone to take into consideration an old saying, "A lie is half way round the world before truth has even started out".
Wrong, Grahame. Jackie lied about that - but I am sure Caroline will be along shortly to correct you.
Sorry Susan I meant "Harrison" not Robertson. I am trying to do 101 things today I may have had Robertons Jam this morning. ;D
You've got me caling him Robertson too now ;D Roberston, Doyle, Harrison. ;D
-
well jackie dident start the online roumours he was dead.
-
Mr Gee just logged on and was trying to pick up on the story and was confused by Robertson :'( it is an excellent jam especially the strawberry ;D
-
well jackie dident start the online roumours he was dead.
Quite right. It was posted on here by John. I contacted Paul Harrison immediately and posted that he was in sound health. I do not know where that rumour originated - perhaps John will tell us?
-
im suprised he hasnt made a formal compliant to the police.
-
HaHaHa I know people who still lick sticky stamps and sticky envelopes then on the 102 one they realise they are self sealing :'( not me promise.
-
The article says the letter called NGB a protector, Grahame. Not Robertson. Keep up.
you don't lick stamps anymore, they are sticky.
I agree with you, Bamber will of had absolutely no knowledge of the letter - far too much to lose. But you have to be.... crazy, not to know who it was Neil.
Who attacks people who say ANYTHING negative about Bamber?
Who often takes forum/internet matters into the real world?
Who had a spat with Paul Harrison?
Who lives in Essex?
You may know members that fit into one or more of those catergories - but there is only ONE person who fits into them all.
Frankly, I think your judgement is off on this.
I believe that you are on very dangerous ground by accusing Jackie mat. But of course you don't name her do you. It is moe of an insinuation which in my book is very underhanded and cowardly. Why cowardly? Because you haven't enough faith in yourself to stand by your accusation and know that if you did mention her by name you could be in a position to be sued for libel. But we all know that you are following your general rule of mud slinging, so that you will not be seen as the first person to accuse her. But your posts of course show quite clearly that this accusation of Jackie does originate from you. I believe that Jackie had nothing whatsoever to do with the writing of this alleged letter.
I repeat my call tp Paul Hrrison to take the matter up with police so that they can prperly investigate this death threat that he has allegedly received. I have seen for myself that he has the capacity to be xxxx. I can see you in those old western movies in a lynch mob myself.
-
Quite right. It was posted on here by John. I contacted Paul Harrison immediately and posted that he was in sound health. I do not know where that rumour originated - perhaps John will tell us?
im pretty certan its a member or former member of this forum though the fact they make a refrence to you niel.
im mean of the off the forum how many people know who you aare or that your involved with the case.
-
im suprised he hasnt made a formal compliant to the police.
So am I Nugs and the fact he isn't going to pursue this speaks volumes.
If I was to receive a death threat and was told I had missed one bullet I would be petrified and want to get the matter resolved quiet quickly. The police take things like that very seriously indeed.
I don't think it was ****** that sent such a letter for several reasons. She is and always has been a avid supporter of Jeremy Bamber. Two she would not be so stupid as to indicate herself as being the writer. Three, she would not wish Jeremy Bamber to implicated and forth she would not implicate Neil.
One has to question whether the letter is genuine and not a publicity stunt. One also has to ask the question who has the most grudge against Jackie, Neil, Bamber and this forum? Of course the answer to that could lay with a certain member being banned.
I think the sender meant to implicate the above for one reason only.....
-
im pretty certan its a member or former member of this forum though the fact they make a refrence to you niel.
im mean of the off the forum how many people know who you aare or that your involved with the case.
I agree with you Nugnug. It must be a member or former member of this forum.
-
So am I Nugs and the fact he isn't going to pursue this speaks volumes.
If I was to receive a death threat and was told I had missed one bullet I would be petrified and want to get the matter resolved quiet quickly. The police take things like that very seriously indeed.
I don't think it was Jackie that sent such a letter for several reasons. She is and always has been a avid supporter of Jeremy Bamber. Two she would not be so stupid as to indicate herself as being the writer. Three, she would not wish Jeremy Bamber to implicated and forth she would not implicate Neil.
One has to question whether the letter is genuine and not a publicity stunt. One also has to ask the question who has the most grudge against Jackie, Neil, Bamber and this forum? Of course the answer to that could lay with a certain member being banned.
I think the sender meant to implicate the above for one reason only.....
clearly they were trying to implicate jackie and niel but who would want to that.
-
This does not surprise me in the least!
For years I was targeted by his bamberettes and their friends, believing the lies. These people sent the nastiest if emails to me - set up a false FB account in my name and from that account more disgusting emails were sent to Jeremy's supporters. The online attacks I received included my address being posted, pictures of what I would look like if I continued to speak with Jeremy and in addition online threats, including one from xxxx off this forum threatening to send the drug squad to my house and to watch my back. (Yes, I still have these emails and threats). Throughout the whole episode I refused to react publicly. I did however go to the police (twice) as I had a very good idea who was behind this whole episode, sadly, nothing could be proved and tbh I don't think police where that interested. This same person, in addition. Once having a host of supporters believing her lies then had them write to Jeremy telling him if the terrible emails they had each received (from me). So many people wasted his time whilst he was preparing his Appeal, he became distracted, distressed and at the same time chose to believe his (new) supporters rather than myself. Due to the added stress he was put under I chose, after 18 yrs of being his sole confidant, who visited almost weekly at times..... To remove myself from his company and his band of supporters. I warned him almost 5 yrs ago of their behaviour, the lengths they were prepared to go and he refused to listen to me. My time had come to leave him.
Hi, AA.
Always struck me as disturbing the amount of grief you were dished out by Bamber supporters (since you are one yourself) some of the emails you showed me were just evil.
Good to see you btw. :)
-
clearly they were trying to implicate jackie and niel but who would want to that.
I haven't the foggiest nugnug?
-
So am I Nugs and the fact he isn't going to pursue this speaks volumes.
If I was to receive a death threat and was told I had missed one bullet I would be petrified and want to get the matter resolved quiet quickly. The police take things like that very seriously indeed.
I don't think it was ****** that sent such a letter for several reasons. She is and always has been a avid supporter of Jeremy Bamber. Two she would not be so stupid as to indicate herself as being the writer. Three, she would not wish Jeremy Bamber to implicated and forth she would not implicate Neil.
One has to question whether the letter is genuine and not a publicity stunt. One also has to ask the question who has the most grudge against Jackie, Neil, Bamber and this forum? Of course the answer to that could lay with a certain member being banned.
I think the sender meant to implicate the above for one reason only.....
I think the person who sent this letter needs to thank their lucky stars that he chose not to take things further and people who are speculating will perhaps make things worse and make him think twice.
-
of course as jackie and niel are mentioned in the letter they could make a compliant to the police then it could investigated and the auther traced.
it woud be very easy for the authur to be traced.
-
I think the person who sent this letter needs to thank their lucky stars that he chose not to take things further and people who are speculating will perhaps make things worse and make him think twice.
we want him to think twice we want the auther traced.
-
I think the person who sent this letter needs to thank their lucky stars that he chose not to take things further and people who are speculating will perhaps make things worse and make him think twice.
Well I hope he does think twice, because if I were in his shoes I would want the matter dealt with., The last thing I would do is contact the press and plug my new book at the same time.
Why isn't he taking things further? Why go to the press? Just askin! :-\
-
Well I hope he does think twice, because if I were in his shoes I would want the matter dealt with., The last thing I would do is contact the press and plug my new book at the same time.
Why isn't he taking things further? Why go to the press? Just askin! :-\
To make an example of them - obviously.
-
So am I Nugs and the fact he isn't going to pursue this speaks volumes.
If I was to receive a death threat and was told I had missed one bullet I would be petrified and want to get the matter resolved quiet quickly. The police take things like that very seriously indeed.
I don't think it was ****** that sent such a letter for several reasons. She is and always has been a avid supporter of Jeremy Bamber. Two she would not be so stupid as to indicate herself as being the writer. Three, she would not wish Jeremy Bamber to implicated and forth she would not implicate Neil.
One has to question whether the letter is genuine and not a publicity stunt. One also has to ask the question who has the most grudge against Jackie, Neil, Bamber and this forum? Of course the answer to that could lay with a certain member being banned.
I think the sender meant to implicate the above for one reason only.....
Hopefully he will reconsider and go to the police, to clear his name if nothing else.
-
Well I hope he does think twice, because if I were in his shoes I would want the matter dealt with., The last thing I would do is contact the press and plug my new book at the same time.
Why isn't he taking things further? Why go to the press? Just askin! :-\
Why indeed? Remember what publicity he will get. "Ex police officer writing a book proving without doubt Jeremy Bamber's guilt receives death threats." People will rush out to buy his book. Simples.
-
To make an example of them - obviously.
he could do that better by involving the police.
-
Hello AA I know you had a hard time as you confided in me and I thought it very sad after the way you supported him and think his Campaign Team has much to answer.
-
To make an example of them - obviously.
He would make a better example going to the police don't you think. I don't think he had a letter.
-
He would make a better example going to the police don't you think. I don't think he had a letter.
Careful, Patti. :-\
-
He would make a better example going to the police don't you think. I don't think he had a letter.
how many people on this forum would know his address.
-
Hi AA
Nice to see you. :) Albeit it at a bad time. To be honest I would not know what to do or what to think If I had any threats made against me. I would certainly go to long lengths to catch the person who had sent them. :)
-
Careful, Patti. :-\
Why? You accused Jackie without any proof. What's the difference about doubting Harrison ever had a letter?
-
He would make a better example going to the police don't you think. I don't think he had a letter.
So you're saying he's lying? I think you are VERY wrong and I would certainly urge him to take things further. However, I don't think Jeremy would have initiated this.
-
Why? You accused Jackie without any proof. What's the difference about doubting Harrison ever had a letter?
i dont think its the sort of thing he would make up but there is the qustion of how they knew his address.
-
We all know who probably sent that letter and whats more damning is she hasn't seen fit to deny it.
-
We all know who probably sent that letter and whats more damning is she hasn't denied it.
John - the article mentions that it was claimed MD/PH was dead - so you remember where this came from as I think the topic was yours?
-
We all know who probably sent that letter and whats more damning is she hasn't seen fit to deny it.
She has not been online.
-
I would urge MD to take this further -if not for his own sake for the sake of others- it's one thing, although not a pleasant one, to call someone names, it's QUITE another to issue death threats, which, by the way, I DON'T believe had ANYTHING to do with Jeremy but to have his name associated with this person can only do him harm.
-
She has not been online.
According to the forum registry she was on at 1.32pm just as lookout made the op.
-
The article states that he has spoken with Scottish police - I imagine that they asked to see a copy of the letter. I am seeing people here of late in a VERY different light and don't like what I see. It's one thing to have light banter over a forum but when you start to affect the lives of people you converse with in this manner, you seriously need to take stock!! This is wrong!!
People will believe what they want I guess. :-\ It's strange that he is being accused of there being no letter when.
1) as you say he has spoken to the police.
2) NGB says that the reporter read out the parts of the letter that pertained to him.
-
According to the forum registry she was on at 1.32pm just as lookout made the op.
so where did hear this roumour he was dead john who told you that.
-
According to the forum registry she was on at 1.32pm just as lookout made the op.
Be fair John she may not have seen the post and in any event the accusation against her was several posts after.
-
Be fair John she may not have seen the post and in any event the accusation against her was several posts after.
I think people have been more than fair, this just keeps going!
-
I really am upset about this thread and the abusers that it has encouraged. Anfd there's me thinking that an apology would work wonders. I'm very said at this moment and exceedingly disappointed with those I had faith in. But all I can see is trollish behaviour here and accusations flying around without any proof whatsoever. And all this from those who profess to base everything they know on "TRUTH". Very sad indeed.
-
I think people have been more than fair, this just keeps going!
Did she sign the letter Caroline or just implicate herself, or don't you know?
Its a serious offence nonetheless.
-
I think people have been more than fair, this just keeps going!
You surprise me Caroline. And you who appear to be one of the most well balanced of people on the forum. Very sad. :(
-
shes clearly not the autheter of that letter in my opinion why would she send it anonymously then make references witch would clearly imply she was the author.
how would she know paul harrisons adress.
-
I think people have been more than fair, this just keeps going!
It is not fair to suggest that a person is admitted guilt for something as serious as this by reason of not yet having denied it here, when that person has not been not online. You know that as well as I do. I am sure John is able to answer my post for himself if he wishes.
-
I really am upset about this thread and the abusers that it has encouraged. Anfd there's me thinking that an apology would work wonders. I'm very said at this moment and exceedingly disappointed with those I had faith in. But all I can see is trollish behaviour here and accusations flying around without any proof whatsoever. And all this from those who profess to base everything they know on "TRUTH". Very sad indeed.
Threads have been removed Grahame and other posts censored. Sometimes it is difficult for the mod team to keep up with posts.
-
Did she sign the letter Caroline or just implicate herself, or don't you know?
Its a serious offence nonetheless.
Who? How the hell would I know, I haven't see the letter but the police obviously have!!!!! And obviously it's a serious offence!!
-
You surprise me Caroline. And you who appear to be one of the most well balanced of people on the forum. Very sad. :(
Surprised you about what? I'm not even talking about you!!
-
I think the person who sent this letter needs to thank their lucky stars that he chose not to take things further and people who are speculating will perhaps make things worse and make him think twice.
I think he should take it further. This is serious and it should be investigated. I would like to know who sent the letter. I am extremely angry about it.
-
John - the article mentions that it was claimed MD/PH was dead - so you remember where this came from as I think the topic was yours?
Someone calling himself John Scott sent an e-mail to a moderator. We had no reason to believe it to be a fake, after all, what sort of a person would make up such malicious gossip?
-
It is not fair to suggest that a person is admitted guilt for something as serious as this by reason of not yet having denied it here, when that person has not been not online. You know that as well as I do. I am sure John is able to answer my post for himself if he wishes.
Neil this is both a silly and childish thing to do. Just because someone doesn't answer an accusation it means that they are guilty? How wicked can a person get just in order to carry on this farce of accusation to someone who is by law completely innocent. Now do you see why I lose patience with some here? What an aweful trait this is in human nature. It is probably one of the lowest of human traits.
-
I think he should take it further. This is serious and it should be investigated. I would like to know who sent the letter. I am extremely angry about it.
I totally agree Neil, this sort of thing should be pursued.
-
It is not fair to suggest that a person is admitted guilt for something as serious as this by reason of not yet having denied it here, when that person has not been not online. You know that as well as I do. I am sure John is able to answer my post for himself if he wishes.
Eh? we're not talking about the same thing here - my point is that you're all clambering to have a go at MD who can't even answer for himself and he's the victim - unbelievable!!
-
I totally agree Neil, this sort of thing should be pursued.
I'll third that!!
-
Eh? we're not talking about the same thing here - my point is that you're all clambering to have a go at MD who can't even answer for himself and he's the victim - unbelievable!!
Where have I had a go at MD? There is more than one victim in this!
-
Surprised you about what? I'm not even talking about you!!
You probably had Jackie in mind when you said people on here had had a lot of patience. I suggest that there is so much insinuation about people they don't like about being responsible for death threats and abusive letters etc, where in actual fact no one knows except the person who sent these things.
-
Someone calling himself John Scott sent an e-mail to a moderator. We had no reason to believe it to be a fake, after all, what sort of a person would make up such malicious gossip?
A malicious one,John !
Now let me think--------------who is it that keeps slating NGB and Jackie ??
Find that answer and you've found the culprit !!
-
Where have I had a go at MD? There is more than one victim in this!
I'm not talking about you and who are the other victims? Who else's life was threatened?
-
A reminder if one was necessary, PH was banned from both forums.
-
Someone calling himself John Scott sent an e-mail to a moderator. We had no reason to believe it to be a fake, after all, what sort of a person would make up such malicious gossip?
Ah, I see, thanks John. It was a pointless and nasty piece of gossip but also very useless because surely they should of known that as soon as it was posted on the board MD ro someone who can contact him would deny it.
Bit pointless.
-
I'm not talking about you and who are the other victims? Who else's life was threatened?
Not their lives by they have been abused and falsely accused on this forum as a result of MD's article. Disgusting behaviour for so called adults if you ask me. The abuse still hasn't stopped has it. >:(
-
I'm not talking about you and who are the other victims? Who else's life was threatened?
You were talking about me. You responded to me "you all...." That obviously includes me. Other victims are Jeremy Bamber, wrongly accused of having instigated this, and me.
-
Where have I had a go at MD? There is more than one victim in this!
as your mentenioned in the letter you could make a formall compliant to the police couldent you.
-
You were talking about me. You responded to me "you all...." That obviously includes me. Other victims are Jeremy Bamber, wrongly accused of instigated this, and me.
NGB is there any way that you could report this? Or Jeremy? Or is it solely down to Harrison as he was in receipt of the letter?
-
Hello lookout where did you find this link about Paul Harrison.
-
Ah, I see, thanks John. It was a pointless and nasty piece of gossip but also very useless because surely they should of known that as soon as it was posted on the board MD ro someone who can contact him would deny it.
Bit pointless.
You are disgusting by your continual insinuations that Jackie is responsible for all this.
-
Hello lookout where did you find this link about Paul Harrison.
Its in the Scottish Express. I wish she hadn't posted it to be frank.
-
You were talking about me. You responded to me "you all...." That obviously includes me. Other victims are Jeremy Bamber, wrongly accused of instigated this, and me.
Don't tell me what I mean - I know what I mean better than you do. You didn't receive a death threat and were only brought into it because you run the forum. You should be anoyned with the letter writer instead of having a go at me!
-
You are disgusting by your continual insinuations that Jackie is responsible for all this.
Huh? I don't think that Jackie is responsible for the rumour he was dead. That was before she contacted him and fell out with him.
-
as your mentenioned in the letter you could make a formall compliant to the police couldent you.
I very much doubt if they would act on a complaint from me as I was not threatened, only referred to. This needs a formal complaint from Paul Harrison and I would then give every assistance to the enquiry. I believe the police would have to follow up something as serious as this.
-
NGB is there any way that you could report this? Or Jeremy? Or is it solely down to Harrison as he was in receipt of the letter?
I think it has to be Paul Harrison upon the basis of being the victim of a death threat. I suspect it would be difficult for the police to find the culprit, but it might be possible.
-
I think it has to be Paul Harrison upon the basis of being the victim of a death threat. I suspect it would be difficult for the police to find the culprit, but it might be possible.
I think it would be practically impossible too sadly, they used a type writer - they were obviously weary. Stamp. Random post box. Only concrete thing to go off is the postmark on the letter.
what I find VERY disturbing is the choice of words. Bamber, in prison for shooting his family.. and the author of the letter uses the phrase to Paul "You've already dodged one bullet" :-\
-
Mr Gee does lookout read the Scottish Sunday Express don't think it will be very much on sale in England not like it is in Scotland.
-
Its in the Scottish Express. I wish she hadn't posted it to be frank.
im glad she did we need to get to the bottom of this.
-
Don't tell me what I mean - I know what I mean better than you do. You didn't receive a death threat and were only brought into it because you run the forum. You should be anoyned with the letter writer instead of having a go at me!
I will tell you what you said, thank you. I was not only brought in because I am a forum administrator, I was brought in becauise I was named in the letter (and the only one named) as a protector of Jeremy Bamber. The implication from the wording was that I might be part of the danger to Paul Harrison. That was potentially very serious for me. I am furious with the writer of the letter, as I have made clear.
I am really surprised that you should have a dig at me over this.
-
Hello lookout where did you find this link about Paul Harrison.
Sunday Express,Susan. Online.
-
I think it would be practically impossible too sadly, they used a type writer - they were obviously weary. Stamp. Random post box. Only concrete thing to go off is the postmark on the letter.
what I find VERY disturbing is the choice of words. Bamber, in prison for shooting his family.. and the author of the letter uses the phrase to Paul "You've already dodged one bullet" :-\
I agree, that is chilling. It makes it clear it is intended as a death threat.
-
I will tell you what you said, thank you. I was not only brought in because I am a forum administrator, I was brought in becauise I was named in the letter (and the only one named) as a protector of Jeremy Bamber. The implication from the wording was that I might be part of the danger to Paul Harrison. That was potentially very serious for me. I am furious with the writer of the letter, as I have made clear.
I am really surprised that you should have a dig at me over this.
Because YOU were having a dig at me! And YES it is VERY chilling and VERY sick. This is all becoming very toxic
-
lookout did you get a tip off ;D or do you usually read the Scottish Sunday Express ;D
-
I think it would be practically impossible too sadly, they used a type writer - they were obviously weary. Stamp. Random post box. Only concrete thing to go off is the postmark on the letter.
what I find VERY disturbing is the choice of words. Bamber, in prison for shooting his family.. and the author of the letter uses the phrase to Paul "You've already dodged one bullet" :-\
typing a letter instead dosent stop it being traced they can trace the typewriter that was used.
when licked the stamp there dna would be on it.
assuming they dident use gloves the fingerprints are probely on the letter they would be very easy to to trace.
-
Its in the Scottish Express. I wish she hadn't posted it to be frank.
Mr G,if I hadn't mentioned it,somebody else would have done. It's all down to my " excellent ! research. All I did was to google if there was any further news on the Jeremy Bamber case----------and got all this. ;D I didn't set out to cause all this kerfuffle.
-
lookout did you get a tip off ;D or do you usually read the Scottish Sunday Express ;D
No tip-off. As I explained to Mr G,I innocently googled to see if there was any up to date news on Jeremys' case,as I do,periodically,and this lot came up.
If I hadn't have said anything,then as sure as eggs are eggs,someone else would have done and probably would have twisted it into non-recognition.
-
lookout I can't find it by doing that but I am lucky I have the paper ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
A malicious one,John !
Now let me think--------------who is it that keeps slating NGB and Jackie ??
Find that answer and you've found the culprit !!
exactly.
-
lookout I can't find it by doing that but I am lucky I have the paper ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I thought you read the Sunday Times Susan ;D ;D
-
No tip-off. As I explained to Mr G,I innocently googled to see if there was any up to date news on Jeremys' case,as I do,periodically,and this lot came up.
If I hadn't have said anything,then as sure as eggs are eggs,someone else would have done and probably would have twisted it into non-recognition.
You are quite right lookout. I am surprised a link was not posted earlier.
-
i wonder what they ment by you have allready dodged one bullet.
-
Let's face it,the only one who'll be worried,is the a******e that typed it.
-
Let's face it,the only one who'll be worried,is the a******e that typed it.
True.
-
I think he should take it further. This is serious and it should be investigated. I would like to know who sent the letter. I am extremely angry about it.
I agree - he should report it to the police .
This surely can not have been a Jeremy supporter as it would do a huge amount of harm.
I would say it is the opposite and to accuse Jeremy of getting someone to send it, in the press, without having proof is not a very professional thing to do either.
Whether or not they can do something with it or not is for them to decide - it is a threat and it has now involved other persons probably not even connected with that threat.
I am totally shocked to be honest.
-
This Robertson article also speaks about Bamber being at the back of all these "death threats" and has power from within prison to influence his "disciples". Sorry but U must really laugh at this as this man claims to have been in contact with Bamber for about 3 years. If that is true then he will know that Bamber is a category "A" prisoner and that everything he does, every visitor, every phone call and every letter is vetted and that he cannot possibly run a mafia type gang fron inside.
I'm afraid this tells me much more about Robertson than it does about Bamber. It tells me that he certainly has a vivid imagination. I also challenge him to publish the actual letter for us all to see and examine for ourselves.
This man far from being in danger himself has in fact put people's lives and careers in danger. May I also remind members here that he sent Jackie a pm asking her to contact him by email and that he tells her to "keep up the good work for Bamber".
Now you may or may not believe me? That is up to every individual. I have no control over that. But please keep in mind that death threats are a criminal offence and of this letter is real then he should go to the police about it. I stongly encourage him to do so. That way this matter can be investigated by the proper authorities so that lies and accusations may not be flying around hurting innocent people. I implore everyone to take into consideration an old saying, "A lie is half way round the world before truth has even started out".
Being able to get a supporter to send a threat is not that difficult even given his status.
The reason to doubt Jeremy is behind it is because making such an overt threat is stupid.
A supporter with the mentality of a moron sent this threat on their own.
-
ngb I never expected a link to be posted as not many people google the Scottish Sunday Express and to get the story up you have to google Jeremy Bamber - Paul Harrison strange that lookout found it so easy but now it is out it will get discussed then we wlll move on. Lookout you must have the magic touch ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
typing a letter instead dosent stop it being traced they can trace the typewriter that was used.
when licked the stamp there dna would be on it.
assuming they dident use gloves the fingerprints are probely on the letter they would be very easy to to trace.
lets hope they posted it at a main post office - lots of cameras about!
-
ngb I don't read any papers my husband reads the Times and when I went to Tesco to purchase it the story jumped out at me as it was front page so as this was a special occasion I bought two papers really pushed the boat out ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
True.
well I guess the same sentences that apply to trolls who make threats apply - so Jail if they get caught.
-
lookout did you get a tip off ;D or do you usually read the Scottish Sunday Express ;D
Ngb showed me the article, but I didn't post it on the forum because I foresaw all this which is going on now.
-
i wonder what they ment by you have allready dodged one bullet.
I think the only person who could answer that one nugnug is Paul Harrison?
-
Is it not libel or slander by printing the article in a paper without having proof that Jeremy is behind it?
Because if it is actually a Jeremy hater stirring things up then surely he has played right into their hands ?
Of is it not possible to be libelled or slandered when you are already in prison?
Neil - do you think your name would have been mentioned if you had not been invited to comment?
-
what beats me is that somone could take objection to a book before they have even had a chance to read it.
and that makes me think there objection isnt genuine.
-
what beats me is that somone could take objection to a book before they have even had a chance to read it.
and that makes me think there objection isnt genuine.
That's true , and he may think he has found the true answer - but he may not have - or it could purely be his gut feeling - not proof but as you say no one will know until the book comes out.
-
Is it not libel or slander by printing the article in a paper without having proof that Jeremy is behind it?
Because if it is actually a Jeremy hater stirring things up then surely he has played right into their hands ?
Of is it not possible to be libelled or slandered when you are already in prison?
Neil - do you think your name would have been mentioned if you had not been invited to comment?
It is technically libellous of Jeremy, but the problem he faces is that as someone convicted of mass murder he is deemed not to have a character to defame. He would therefore not get anywhere.
I think the journalist was obliged to invite me to comment if he intended to use my name in the article. He clearly intended to use my name as it featured prominently in the letter and I can understand that he needed to find out what my views were. To say I was shocked is an understatement.
-
what beats me is that somone could take objection to a book before they have even had a chance to read it.
and that makes me think there objection isnt genuine.
Well, Nugs, it COULD be someone who can't read and feels embarrassed by it OR it COULD be someone who took exception to what they THOUGHT the book might have to say.
-
It is technically libellous of Jeremy, but the problem he faces is that as someone convicted of mass murder he is deemed not to have a character to defame. He would therefore not get anywhere.
I think the journalist was obliged to invite me to comment if he intended to use my name in the article. He clearly intended to use my name as it featured prominently in the letter and I can understand that he needed to find out what my views were. To say I was shocked is an understatement.
I can see why . I think it is disgusting that you have been dragged into and associated with what is a criminal act.
-
this was clearly the intention of the writter.
-
this was clearly the intention of the writter.
Yes, I agree it was.
-
I can see why . I think it is disgusting that you have been dragged into and associated with what is a criminal act.
But at least Neil can defend him self, which is more than Jeremy can do. Despite I think he's guilty, not for a moment do I believe he's involved in this. As a Cat A prisoner, all his outgoing and incoming mail will be checked. If he was discovered to have been embroiled in anything CLOSE to this EVIL act, I feel certain that any credits he'd earned for himself would be removed.
-
But at least Neil can defend him self, which is more than Jeremy can do. Despite I think he's guilty, not for a moment do I believe he's involved in this. As a Cat A prisoner, all his outgoing and incoming mail will be checked. If he was discovered to have been embroiled in anything CLOSE to this EVIL act, I feel certain that any credits he'd earned for himself would be removed.
I have to agree, I don't think he would be involved in this, it's obviously extremely damaging to him.
-
Ngb showed me the article, but I didn't post it on the forum because I foresaw all this which is going on now.
You should have told me,Mr G,then I wouldn't have let on. I could have just sat with steam coming out of my ears instead. I had no idea it would have had the reaction it did. I'll keep mum in future. :o
-
Once and for all I must make it clear I did not write the letter and it's not something I would ever consider doing.
I am disgusted by the letter and it should be properly investigated by the police. I do not believe this is a letter written by a Bamber supporter, it was written by someone wanting to harm Jeremy and trying to implicate me at the same time.
I want to find out wrote the letter because whoever did this should be prosecuted.
-
You should have told me,Mr G,then I wouldn't have let on. I could have just sat with steam coming out of my ears instead. I had no idea it would have had the reaction it did. I'll keep mum in future. :o
Do not worry Lookout. It was bound to be posted at some stage.
-
Being able to get a supporter to send a threat is not that difficult even given his status.
The reason to doubt Jeremy is behind it is because making such an overt threat is stupid.
A supporter with the mentality of a moron sent this threat on their own.
The " moron " in question is NOT a Jeremy supporter !!
-
Once and for all I must make it clear I did not write the letter and it's not something I would ever consider doing.
I am disgusted by the letter and it should be properly investigated by the police. I do not believe this is a letter written by a Bamber supporter, it was written by someone wanting to harm Jeremy and trying to implicate me at the same time.
I want to find out wrote the letter because whoever did this should be prosecuted.
they will be.
-
I have to agree, I don't think he would be involved in this, it's obviously extremely damaging to him.
I agree. Whether guilty or innocent he is not stupid and is not going to throw away all the work he has done by doing something like this.
unfortunately now this has gone into the papers , mud sticks. So if someone is trying to discredit him then they have succeeded.
IMO the receiver of the letter should have just gone straight to the police.
-
Being able to get a supporter to send a threat is not that difficult even given his status.
The reason to doubt Jeremy is behind it is because making such an overt threat is stupid.
A supporter with the mentality of a moron sent this threat on their own.
Or it could have been someone seeing an opportunity to get at Jeremy . A stupid supporter or a clever guilter. Could have been either.
-
Was it Janus ?
-
Adam why have you put up this link. Paul Harrison is not a Scot ;D ;D ;D
-
Was it Janus ?
you can not even spell my name correctly - and I think you had better explain you post pretty quickly >:(
-
I think the only person who could answer that one nugnug is Paul Harrison?
maybe neil might consider letting him back on so he could put his side of things thats assuming he wants to come back.
-
you can not even spell my name correctly - and I think you had better explain you post pretty quickly >:(
Adam I am waiting - explain your post?
-
Once and for all I must make it clear I did not write the letter and it's not something I would ever consider doing.
I am disgusted by the letter and it should be properly investigated by the police. I do not believe this is a letter written by a Bamber supporter, it was written by someone wanting to harm Jeremy and trying to implicate me at the same time.
I want to find out wrote the letter because whoever did this should be prosecuted.
So are you denying you are the PSI employee referred to?
-
Adam I am waiting - explain your post?
Jansus, am I imagining it or has Adam just suggested that you had something to do with this? With the chip he carries on HIS shoulder regarding Jeremy, I'd have thought he'd feel inclined NOT to throw wild suggestions around.
-
Or it could have been someone seeing an opportunity to get at Jeremy . A stupid supporter or a clever guilter. Could have been either.
Bamber is a non entity for those who know him to be guilty. Those threats were most certainly sent by a supporter.
-
Once and for all I must make it clear I did not write the letter and it's not something I would ever consider doing.
I am disgusted by the letter and it should be properly investigated by the police. I do not believe this is a letter written by a Bamber supporter, it was written by someone wanting to harm Jeremy and trying to implicate me at the same time.
I want to find out wrote the letter because whoever did this should be prosecuted.
I for one, don't believe that if such a letter exists, Jackie has anything to do with it. Those who have implied that she has, are very much out of order. It looks like a stitch up to me.
This is why I don't read the papers.....where's the letter? Has anyone actually seen it?
As they say, "there's no such thing as bad publicity"
If you received a death threat, would you;
a). Contact the Police?
Or
b). Contact a grubby tabloid newspaper?
-
So are you denying you are the PSI employee referred to?
what the fucks that got to do with anything.
-
Jansus, am I imagining it or has Adam just suggested that you had something to do with this? With the chip he carries on HIS shoulder regarding Jeremy, I'd have thought he'd feel inclined NOT to throw wild suggestions around.
yes looks like it .
-
Lets have a look thru the keyhole and see what comes up.
A female employee of Essex-based publisher PSI Ltd., Loughton, who just happens to be an avid Jeremy Bamber supporter offers to provide author Paul Harrison access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments. This was undoubtedly done on the basis that these contacts might have been useful to him as he was writing a book which challenged Jeremy Bamber's conviction.
However, this all changed when Harrison, having investigated the case in some detail, came to realise that Bamber's conviction is in fact sound. Somebody must have been really pissed at this having put her job on the line to help Harrison.
Last month Harrison received a letter at his remote home on the Orkney Island of Sanday in which several threats were made against him if he harmed Bambers chances of getting out of prison. The letter was posted in Essex.
Harrison's postal address on the island of Sanday would not be in the public domain but someone who worked for a publishing Company could very well have access to this information as Harrison has been an author for several years. Thus we have closed the circle, a disgruntled employee with a score to settle who just happens to have access to a database of names and addresses. Moreover, an employee who lives within a short commuting distance of Loughton.
Only one person fits in this particular house of cards!
-
I for one, don't believe that if such a letter exists, Jackie has anything to do with it. Those who have implied that she has, are very much out of order. It looks like a stitch up to me.
This is why I don't read the papers.....where's the letter? Has anyone actually seen it?
As they say, "there's no such thing as bad publicity"
If you received a death threat, would you;
a). Contact the Police?
Or
b). Contact a grubby tabloid newspaper?
Well said Neil. Another thing is that he does not imply that this letter was sent to him by ****** he goes on to say that she had made contact with him on a separate occasion. :)
-
Lets have a look thru the keyhole and see what comes up.
This was undoubtedly done on the basis that these contacts might have been useful to him as he was writing a book which challenged Jeremy Bamber's conviction.
However, this all changed when Harrison, having investigated the case in some detail, came to realise that Bamber's conviction is in fact sound. Somebody must have been really pissed at this.
Last month Harrison received a letter at his remote home on the Orkney Island of Sanday in which several threats were made against him if he harmed Bambers chances of getting out of prison. The letter was posted in Essex.
Harrison's postal address on the island of Sanday would not be in the public domain but someone who worked for a publishing Company could very well have access to this information as Harrison has been an author for several years. Thus we have closed the circle, a disgruntled employee with a score to settle who just happens to have access to a database of names and addresses. Moreover, an employee who lives within a short commuting distance of?.
Only one person fits in this particular house of cards!
There must be plenty of people who could find his address, if they really wanted to.
-
I for one, don't believe that if such a letter exists, Jackie has anything to do with it. Those who have implied that she has, are very much out of order. It looks like a stitch up to me.
This is why I don't read the papers.....where's the letter? Has anyone actually seen it?
As they say, "there's no such thing as bad publicity"
If you received a death threat, would you;
a). Contact the Police?
Or
b). Contact a grubby tabloid newspaper?
well i must admit if someone threatened my life and i took them seriously the daily express wouldn't be the first people i would choose to report it to.
-
Bamber is a non entity for those who know him to be guilty. Those threats were most certainly sent by a supporter.
Not exactly true because a lot of guilters spend a lot of time on forums trying to "persuade" ( that's putting it politely) the supporters that they are wrong.
-
You should have told me,Mr G,then I wouldn't have let on. I could have just sat with steam coming out of my ears instead. I had no idea it would have had the reaction it did. I'll keep mum in future. :o
Don't worry about it lookout. What's done is done. Perhaps it was a good thing because it has certainly been an eye opener to me as to the nasty characters of some people. It has been a great revealer to me at least. There are very very few folk I trust on this forum. One of them is ngb.
-
Don't worry about it lookout. What's done is done. Perhaps it was a good thing because it has certainly been an eye opener to me as to the nasty characters of some people. It has been a great revealer to me at least. There are very very few folk I trust on this forum. One of them is ngb.
I agree - I am sure the general press will pick it up eventually as well.
once its out in the press its not your fault lookout.
-
Not exactly true because a lot of guilters spend a lot of time on forums trying to "persuade" ( that's putting it politely) the supporters that they are wrong.
I wouldn't say so as its all over with now. Only this ****** still thinks he is going to fly out of jail and go and live in Australia. She's even on record saying that she'll drive him to the airport. Truly bonkers.
-
I agree. Whether guilty or innocent he is not stupid and is not going to throw away all the work he has done by doing something like this.
unfortunately now this has gone into the papers , mud sticks. So if someone is trying to discredit him then they have succeeded.
IMO the receiver of the letter should have just gone straight to the police.
And there are some gullible people who will make sure it does as well. This moron who sent this alleged letter is probably someone who is among the first to accuse a Jeremy supporter of sending it. Some who knew about a former time that Harrison "dodged" a bullet in the past. I am sure that is something that is not common knowledge?
-
its certanly not common kowledge who on here would know that could only be somebody he told.
-
its certanly not common kowledge who on here would know that could only be somebody he told.
Judging by the reaction of some on here in my opinion the letter writer is definitely a guilter. That is the only thing that can explain the comments of a few of the guilters on here. It is the oldest trick in the book in order to blacken someone's name. To send a threatening letter pretending to be that person. There are plenty of gullible morons out there who will believe it.
-
ill have a look at his website see if its mentioned on there but if its not how the hell would anybody here know about it.
-
ill have a look at his website see if its mentioned on there but if its not how the hell would anybody here know about it.
Didn't know he had a website?
-
At least Harrison has come to his senses about the case and can see that what we told him all along is true. Another deluded soul set straight, that must be a bonus!
I will look forward to reading his book in August now that it has become a book of fact and not fantasy.
-
Didn't know he had a website?
oh yes hes got one ill post it here later.
-
At least Harrison has come to his senses about the case and can see that what we told him all along is true. Another deluded soul set straight, that must be a bonus!
I will look forward to reading his book in August now that it has become a book of fact and not fantasy.
might not sell so well though . A book confirming someone who is in jail should be there?. Like you say to the guilters Jeremy is a non entity so why would they bother to read it? they already have all the proof they need. and the moron supporters wont bother to read it. So not on the best sellers list then :)
-
It is technically libellous of Jeremy, but the problem he faces is that as someone convicted of mass murder he is deemed not to have a character to defame. He would therefore not get anywhere.
I think the journalist was obliged to invite me to comment if he intended to use my name in the article. He clearly intended to use my name as it featured prominently in the letter and I can understand that he needed to find out what my views were. To say I was shocked is an understatement.
I see two problems for suing for libel.
1) as you identified he has no good name to ruin so peopel are free to essentially make up anythign they want wih impunity
2) Even if he had some image left to ruin, the bar for proving a lie for a public figure is pretty high. Unless it ocudl be shown the reporter sent it himself or knew for sure who did then there is a reasonable basis to believe Jerey is behind it based on the content.
If someone sent a threat in my name and the person receiving it claimed I threatend them they had a factual basis to believe I threatened them. If an investigation proved I didn't send such threat and at that point they still accused me then at that point they have no real defense.
An ambiguous letter with an ambiguous threat would be much easier to sue over if someone decided to attribute it to someone without having any evidence to support it. An overt threat in contrast provides its own attribution.
Some people on the planet are actually dumb enough to make overt threats like this but I don't believe Jeremy is one of them. That doesn't deprive someone receiving such threat of having the right to believing it was from him though. Only clear proof someone else did it would eliminate such right.
-
her he is.
http://www.murderarchiveuk.com/paul-harrison.html
i thouht there might be somthing on there about it but there isnt.
-
Judging by the reaction of some on here in my opinion the letter writer is definitely a guilter. That is the only thing that can explain the comments of a few of the guilters on here. It is the oldest trick in the book in order to blacken someone's name. To send a threatening letter pretending to be that person. There are plenty of gullible morons out there who will believe it.
Meaning who?
-
Bamber has since been told he will never be released from jail, despite his insistence that Ms Caffell carried out the murders and then turned the gun on herself.
Mr Harrison said he began researching the case suspecting there may have been a miscarriage of justice but has since come to the conclusion that the police got the right man.
-
might not sell so well though . A book confirming someone who is in jail should be there?. Like you say to the guilters Jeremy is a non entity so why would they bother to read it? they already have all the proof they need. and the moron supporters wont bother to read it. So not on the best sellers list then :)
lol ;D I can just see the advert now, "Convicted murderer proved guilty after 30 years". Public reaction: Yes....and? ;D
-
This is similar to the 'Crimes, hearts and coronets' author. Who went into the case suspecting it may have been a MOJ. But finished believing more strongly in Jeremy's guilt.
-
At least Harrison has come to his senses about the case and can see that what we told him all along is true. Another deluded soul set straight, that must be a bonus!
I will look forward to reading his book in August now that it has become a book of fact and not fantasy.
So you think a letter with a death threat has resulted in a bonus?
Really?
-
I see two problems for suing for libel.
1) as you identified he has no good name to ruin so peopel are free to essentially make up anythign they want wih impunity
2) Even if he had some image left to ruin, the bar for proving a lie for a public figure is pretty high. Unless it ocudl be shown the reporter sent it himself or knew for sure who did then there is a reasonable basis to believe Jerey is behind it based on the content.
If someone sent a threat in my name and the person receiving it claimed I threatend them they had a factual basis to believe I threatened them. If an investigation proved I didn't send such threat and at that point they still accused me then at that point they have no real defense.
An ambiguous letter with an ambiguous threat would be much easier to sue over if someone decided to attribute it to someone without having any evidence to support it. An overt threat in contrast provides its own attribution.
Some people on the planet are actually dumb enough to make overt threats like this but I don't believe Jeremy is one of them. That doesn't deprive someone receiving such threat of having the right to believing it was from him though. Only clear proof someone else did it would eliminate such right.
Which of course they do all the time. ::) I thought you said he wouldn't have as it would damage his case?
-
This is similar to the 'Crimes, hearts and coronets' author. Who went into the case suspecting it may have been a MOJ. But finished believing more strongly in Jeremy's guilt.
I am waiting for your reply to my post Adam. What did you mean by mentioning my name? >:(
-
Meaning who?
Not you
-
I for one, don't believe that if such a letter exists, Jackie has anything to do with it. Those who have implied that she has, are very much out of order. It looks like a stitch up to me.
This is why I don't read the papers.....where's the letter? Has anyone actually seen it?
As they say, "there's no such thing as bad publicity"
If you received a death threat, would you;
a). Contact the Police?
Or
b). Contact a grubby tabloid newspaper?
It depends on whether you take the threat seriously. I have been threatend multiple times and the only time I notified the police was not when I was scared the person would actually come to attack me but to docuemn the threat and then use it to have the person's professional license revoked.
Unless Jeremy actually gets out of jail he can't carry out the threat and contrary to the letter there is no sign he has any chance of being relesed imminently. So there was no reason to call the police to fear Jeremy though he apparently did because it supposedly being investigated. The investigation is to find out who sent it though because obviously Jeremy didn't mail it. It will be interesting if they find out who did send it though in most instances you have to be very careless to get caught sending a letter.
Unless your fingerprints are on file and you got your prints on it or you mailed it in some unique way that a camera captured you or some witness saw you forget it.
-
Which of course they do all the time. ::) I thought you said he wouldn't have as it would damage his case?
I don't think Scipio is saying he did - he is saying that that MD has the right to put it in a paper because he has the right to assume he did.
Which stinks - the law not Scipio
-
Mr. Gee/jansus think if Paul Harrison reveals new evidence that proves conclusively that Jeremy is Guilty it will put an end to the MOJ IMO ???
-
might not sell so well though . A book confirming someone who is in jail should be there?. Like you say to the guilters Jeremy is a non entity so why would they bother to read it? they already have all the proof they need. and the moron supporters wont bother to read it. So not on the best sellers list then :)
So well put Jansus, no money to be made out of Jeremy this time
-
Mr. Gee/jansus think if Paul Harrison reveals new evidence that proves conclusively that Jeremy is Guilty it will put an end to the MOJ IMO ???
There isn't any Susan, haven't you worked it out yet, someone cannot tell the truth
Fact
-
I don't think Scipio is saying he did - he is saying that that MD has the right to put it in a paper because he has the right to assume he did.
Which stinks - the law not Scipio
The law stinks if that is true, especially if prisoners get the vote. If they get the vote then that means the law counts them as worthy citizens and if they are worthy citizens then they have a reputation that can be libelled.
-
Mr. Gee/jansus think if Paul Harrison reveals new evidence that proves conclusively that Jeremy is Guilty it will put an end to the MOJ IMO ???
But he is in jail so in theory the proof exists anyway. And that has not stopped it so far has it?
-
Which of course they do all the time. ::) I thought you said he wouldn't have as it would damage his case?
My points are pretty clear.
If someone receives a threat purportedly from someone they have a basis to suggest that person threatened them. It doesn't matter if they would have to be stupid to send such threat some people are that stupid and don't care.
If there is ironclad evidence that proves a third pary else did it but someone still keeps claiming that the original person did it then at that point the accuser is on shaky ground.
The law looks at whether someone has a basis to know the claim is false (knows or should know it is false) but makes it anyway.
-
Mr. Gee/jansus think if Paul Harrison reveals new evidence that proves conclusively that Jeremy is Guilty it will put an end to the MOJ IMO ???
Susan the pivotal word is "conclusively". This word in itself proves that the proof that he is guilty is still in doubt. On the other hand if conclusive proof comes to light that he is innocent then I wonder just how many people on here will acknowledge that they have been wrong? I venture to speculate that there will be very few indeed?
-
Mr. Gee/jansus think if Paul Harrison reveals new evidence that proves conclusively that Jeremy is Guilty it will put an end to the MOJ IMO ???
I don't know what new evidence could possibly exist. At best he can dispell some of the myths of the pro Jeremy camp and present the known evidence which is it not really new at all.
-
Jansus surely if evidence has come to light that proves Jeremy is guilty surely posters like you and Mr Gee will be quite relieved that he is serving life and is where he deserves to be. Had his book been proving Jeremy is innocent I am sure your reaction would be different. I really cannot see why he should be attacked on this forum like he is being.
-
in a way its more cowardly than a post on a forum . I know people can hide behind an IP address but I am sure they are traceable if people know how.
But you never know they may have slipped up .
-
Jansus surely if evidence has come to light that proves Jeremy is guilty surely posters like you and Mr Gee will be quite relieved that he is serving life and is where he deserves to be. Had his book been proving Jeremy is innocent I am sure your reaction would be different. I really cannot see why he should be attacked on this forum like he is being.
'If'
Did the police and DPP not charge him on evidence ?
-
There isn't any Susan, haven't you worked it out yet, someone cannot tell the truth
Fact
The suggestion that Jeremy orchestrated this letter is absurd and as far as I can tell, nobody on here, on either side of the fence, believes that he is.
Why then, has this news paper attempted to create this impression?....To sell copy of course.
-
Jansus surely if evidence has come to light that proves Jeremy is guilty surely posters like you and Mr Gee will be quite relieved that he is serving life and is where he deserves to be. Had his book been proving Jeremy is innocent I am sure your reaction would be different. I really cannot see why he should be attacked on this forum like he is being.
I think there is proof and there is proof if you see what I mean.
Of course I would not support him if there was definitive proof - I am just struggling to see what that could be the same as I am struggling to see what could release him now.
-
Susan the pivotal word is "conclusively". This word in itself proves that the proof that he is guilty is still in doubt. On the other hand if conclusive proof comes to light that he is innocent then I wonder just how many people on here will acknowledge that they have been wrong? I venture to speculate that there will be very few indeed?
It could also depend on the strength of his new claimed evidence that proves it was not a MOJ. I would think if an author is going to sell a book about a true crime then every bit research should be backed up and not based on hearsay....or a wallet lol Sorry Caroline could not resist that. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
'If'
Did the police and DPP not charge him on evidence ?
Adam can you read your pm please I am waiting for an answer as to why you are implicating me?
-
Mr. Gee I can assure you I would hold my hands up don't forget I have been on both sides of the fence and it took me quite awhile to accept my change in stance. I am always open to have my mind changed if somebody can help me and convince me I am wrong thinking he is guilty. Telling me that Paul Harrison does not have evidence does not help at all.
-
Jansus surely if evidence has come to light that proves Jeremy is guilty surely posters like you and Mr Gee will be quite relieved that he is serving life and is where he deserves to be. Had his book been proving Jeremy is innocent I am sure your reaction would be different. I really cannot see why he should be attacked on this forum like he is being.
The evidence that proves his guilt conclusively came to light many years ago.
Jeremy has no realistic chance of ever being exonerated. The best that can be had is to try to rehabilitate his public image by getting people to think he was wronged and is innocent.
His book can threaten Jeremy's public support by publicly smashing the myths his supporters rely upon. His public support already has waned anyway. It was at its greatest when the press was spouting his claims of innocence but he CCRC rejection of his appeal means the public largely consideres Jeremy guilty and doesn't care.
The book thus at best will stand in the way of future recruitment. I doubt too many people will care and buy the book though anyway there are already so many on the subject.
-
Jansus surely if evidence has come to light that proves Jeremy is guilty surely posters like you and Mr Gee will be quite relieved that he is serving life and is where he deserves to be. Had his book been proving Jeremy is innocent I am sure your reaction would be different. I really cannot see why he should be attacked on this forum like he is being.
Hi Susan, I hope you're ok. I am struggling to understand why PH hasn't taken this to the Police, choosing instead, to take it to the newspapers.
-
Mr. Gee I can assure you I would hold my hands up don't forget I have been on both sides of the fence and it took me quite awhile to accept my change in stance. I am always open to have my mind changed if somebody can help me and convince me I am wrong thinking he is guilty. Telling me that Paul Harrison does not have evidence does not help at all.
if you look at his website he cliamed to have abslute proof of who jack the ripper was.
-
Jansus surely if evidence has come to light that proves Jeremy is guilty surely posters like you and Mr Gee will be quite relieved that he is serving life and is where he deserves to be. Had his book been proving Jeremy is innocent I am sure your reaction would be different. I really cannot see why he should be attacked on this forum like he is being.
Do you know - somehow I don't think a book will ever prove his innocence either - if you had proof you would be a pretty warped person just to publish it in a book and not to give it the "right" people in the first place.
-
Jansus surely if evidence has come to light that proves Jeremy is guilty surely posters like you and Mr Gee will be quite relieved that he is serving life and is where he deserves to be. Had his book been proving Jeremy is innocent I am sure your reaction would be different. I really cannot see why he should be attacked on this forum like he is being.
Who are you referring to as being attacked susan? It certainly isn't Harrison. On the contrary it is rather he who has done the attacking and this attacking had led to Jackie, ngb and myself being attacked by people who ought to know better.
And I'm not sure what you mean by your comment, " if evidence has come to light that proves Jeremy is guilty surely posters like you and Mr Gee will be quite relieved that he is serving life and is where he deserves to be."? What do you expect me to reply to that? "Oh no we are not relieved at all. We really are disappointed that a mass murderer is found to be guilty after all"? Do you really believe that those who appear to support Bamber are supporting him because he is guilty of murdering his who family? The reason I still have my doubts about his guilt is what I hope Harrison is going to write about in his book what he said we has going to write and that is he had some doubts about the way the police investigated the case?
I still believe that the police are still covering someone's backside? I would like to know who and what they are not telling?
-
Or it could have been someone seeing an opportunity to get at Jeremy . A stupid supporter or a clever guilter. Could have been either.
Those are the options, I agree. In any case, a very angry and disturbed person out for revenge.
That is all I am going to say - apart from how shocked I am by this, and that I am deeply sorry for the people wrongfully implicated. :(
-
Patti
There is so much that has gone on that has not been posted on this form but I will write it all down and send to the people who support Jeremy
You cannot lie when you know you will get found our
Jeremy has got absolutely nothing to worry about from the next book to be published about the WHF murders
I find desperate acts to get publicity are embarrassing
-
Hi Susan, I hope you're ok. I am struggling to understand why PH hasn't taken this to the Police, choosing instead, to take it to the newspapers.
maybe he doesnt realy take the threat seriosly.
-
Jansus surely if evidence has come to light that proves Jeremy is guilty surely posters like you and Mr Gee will be quite relieved that he is serving life and is where he deserves to be. Had his book been proving Jeremy is innocent I am sure your reaction would be different. I really cannot see why he should be attacked on this forum like he is being.
I have not attacked MD . I was being ironic about the fact that a poster said it was a bonus to his book that he had proved Jeremy guilty.
If he has changed his mind during the writing of the book that's his prerogative. No problem at all.
-
Hello Neil yes I am fine. Caroline did say he had taken it to the Scottish Police. I don't think this is a stunt to sell his book as by the time the book is published people will have forgotten all this on this forum. It would be very difficult if not impossible to trace the writer of this letter and maybe the police considered it a waste of time this is just my view not official.
-
Those are the options, I agree. In any case, a very angry and disturbed person out for revenge.
That is all I am going to say - apart from how shocked I am by this, and that I am deeply sorry for the people wrongfully implicated. :(
Thank you Alias
-
The suggestion that Jeremy orchestrated this letter is absurd and as far as I can tell, nobody on here, on either side of the fence, believes that he is.
Why then, has this news paper attempted to create this impression?....To sell copy of course.
Neil if Paul Harrison had been in contact with Bamber for 3 years he would have know it to be quite impossible for him to be in the position to do that.
-
Hello Neil yes I am fine. Caroline did say he had taken it to the Scottish Police. I don't think this is a stunt to sell his book as by the time the book is published people will have forgotten all this on this forum. It would be very difficult if not impossible to trace the writer of this letter and maybe the police considered it a waste of time this is just my view not official.
The matter will be investigated by the police
That's a fact it's a very very serious matter
-
jansus you have misunderstood I never said you had attacked him.Think the book was virtually complete when he changed his stance due to what he had uncovered.
-
Mr Gee think he has been in contact with Jeremy Bamber for more than three years and guess he has got to know him quite well.
-
if you look at his website he cliamed to have abslute proof of who jack the ripper was.
That should enlighten folk as to what kind of person he is. He is a sensationalist. He obviously uses words like "absolute proof" to sell his books. This is to my mind very misleading and probably untrue. But I bet you will by his books to find out if it is true? This man lives for sensationalism.
-
There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.
Oscar Wilde
-
The matter will be investigated by the police
That's a fact it's a very very serious matter
Jackie if you are accused for sending this alleged letter then you could get it investigated.
-
Mr Gee think he has been in contact with Jeremy Bamber for more than three years and guess he has got to know him quite well.
Then he should know that it is well nigh impossible for a category A prisoner to be behind this alleged letter?
-
There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.
Oscar Wilde
That is only true if you are Oscar Wilde. ;)
-
I know Grahame I have got the very best legal advice
Never ever be afraid of the truth
Jeremy's character has constantly been attacked since the murders and continues to be attacked, further proof of sinister behaviour in an attempt to keep him in prison
-
1 how did the person who sent the letter know he took a bullet.
2 how do they know where he lives.
3 how do they know niel and why did they see fit to mention him.
-
Grahame I was not aware Paul Harrison had attacked you or Jackie. Don't forget I had the story in black and white on Sunday did I post it on the forum NO because I could not see what good it would do. I have said many times I think he had an unfair trial and I know if you thought he was guilty you would not support him. You and jansus were making a joke about him and evidence to prove him guilty after 30 years now quite a number on here think he is innocent as did I so surely you would appreciate evidence that proves his guilt because at this moment in time many of you think he was "set up" and is innocent. Just my opinion as I am entitled to as you are yours. Still cannot understand why this story was brought to this forum nothing but trouble so far. I will now close on the subject as I am not qualified to talk further as I would be speculating. Jackie seems to know what is in the book and according to her he has nothing that can harm Jeremy so things will not change.
-
Mr Gee I have not seen anyone accuse Jackie of sending this letter think she is just assuming some people think it is her .
-
Grahame I was not aware Paul Harrison had attacked you or Jackie. Don't forget I had the story in black and white on Sunday did I post it on the forum NO because I could not see what good it would do. I have said many times I think he had an unfair trial and I know if you thought he was guilty you would not support him. You and jansus were making a joke about him and evidence to prove him guilty after 30 years now quite a number on here think he is innocent as did I so surely you would appreciate evidence that proves his guilt because at this moment in time many of you think he was "set up" and is innocent. Just my opinion as I am entitled to as you are yours. Still cannot understand why this story was brought to this forum nothing but trouble so far. I will now close on the subject as I am not qualified to talk further as I would be speculating. Jackie seems to know what is in the book and according to her he has nothing that can harm Jeremy so things will not change.
I created a thread on whether he had an unfair trial. It is clear he did not.
Why do you think he had an unfair trial ?
-
Grahame I was not aware Paul Harrison had attacked you or Jackie. Don't forget I had the story in black and white on Sunday did I post it on the forum NO because I could not see what good it would do. I have said many times I think he had an unfair trial and I know if you thought he was guilty you would not support him. You and jansus were making a joke about him and evidence to prove him guilty after 30 years now quite a number on here think he is innocent as did I so surely you would appreciate evidence that proves his guilt because at this moment in time many of you think he was "set up" and is innocent. Just my opinion as I am entitled to as you are yours. Still cannot understand why this story was brought to this forum nothing but trouble so far. I will now close on the subject as I am not qualified to talk further as I would be speculating. Jackie seems to know what is in the book and according to her he has nothing that can harm Jeremy so things will not change.
apologies if you thought that - my post was in response to Johns post . Nothing more .
If it is a good book it will stand on its own merits.
I have not got anything against MD or his change of opinion - but I do think it would have been better if he just handed the letter to the authorities and try and have it dealt with properly. IMO
-
in the articale he also cliamed his cumputer was hacked has he told the police about that.
-
jansus sorry about that my apologies. I guess Paul Harrison knows best how to handle the matter and he may not have disclosed everything to the newspaper he is an ex cop so will know what he is about on these matters and will only tell the paper what he wants them to know.
-
Adam are you free for the rest of the evening ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Then I will begin ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Adam are you free for the rest of the evening ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Then I will begin ;D ;D ;D ;D
I will find the thread for you.
-
in the articale he also cliamed his cumputer was hacked has he told the police about that.
that's good news . If it is connected then that might get it sorted.
By the way Adam did earlier on post this on this thread.
"Was it Janus ? "
not that he can spell my name right - but I will nip this right in the bud - it was not me :)
And despite asking Adam for an apology several times he has refused.
I am not making a fuss because in the big scheme of things it is nothing but an annoyance. But we all know how rumours can start.
I do feel for all those affected by this and it is no laughing matter.
-
well if the person who hacked the computer was the same person who sent the letter that explian how they knew all about him.
-
jansus have not got a clue what Adam is on about does he mean did you write the letter if so that is so ridiculous and you deserve an apology come Adam man up.
-
Really how lucky I am :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
good thinking nugnug and they knew when his birthday was as he got a birthday card. How sinister is this creepy I think :'(
-
I would like to see the letter!
BTW, who has a typewriter these days?
-
jansus have not got a clue what Adam is on about does he mean did you write the letter if so that is so ridiculous and you deserve an apology come Adam man up.
I am sure he is thinking up a story now - he has had long enough :)
-
I would like to see the letter!
BTW, who has a typewriter these days?
good point.
-
good thinking nugnug and they knew when his birthday was as he got a birthday card. How sinister is this creepy I think :'(
Really? I agree that is really creepy.
-
I would like to see the letter!
BTW, who has a typewriter these days?
Back in May a friend bought a typewriter in a charity shop because she finds them easier to use than a keyboard -No, I have no idea why- but there's no need for concern as she wouldn't know Jeremy Bamber from Jo Brand ;D
-
good thinking nugnug and they knew when his birthday was as he got a birthday card. How sinister is this creepy I think :'(
where does it say they sent him a birthday card.
-
Back in May a friend bought a typewriter in a charity shop because she finds them easier to use than a keyboard -No, I have no idea why- but there's no need for concern as she wouldn't know Jeremy Bamber from Jo Brand ;D
is she "old"? just seems like something an older person would do.
-
Grahame I was not aware Paul Harrison had attacked you or Jackie. Don't forget I had the story in black and white on Sunday did I post it on the forum NO because I could not see what good it would do. I have said many times I think he had an unfair trial and I know if you thought he was guilty you would not support him. You and jansus were making a joke about him and evidence to prove him guilty after 30 years now quite a number on here think he is innocent as did I so surely you would appreciate evidence that proves his guilt because at this moment in time many of you think he was "set up" and is innocent. Just my opinion as I am entitled to as you are yours. Still cannot understand why this story was brought to this forum nothing but trouble so far. I will now close on the subject as I am not qualified to talk further as I would be speculating. Jackie seems to know what is in the book and according to her he has nothing that can harm Jeremy so things will not change.
Susan Harrison has not attacked me or Jackie. But this letter provoked others to attack Jackie. People speak abuse to me every day and you get used to it. He has not mentioned me in the letter.
-
is she "old"? just seems like something an older person would do.
Older rather than younger :D
-
Grahame I was not aware Paul Harrison had attacked you or Jackie. Don't forget I had the story in black and white on Sunday did I post it on the forum NO because I could not see what good it would do. I have said many times I think he had an unfair trial and I know if you thought he was guilty you would not support him. You and jansus were making a joke about him and evidence to prove him guilty after 30 years now quite a number on here think he is innocent as did I so surely you would appreciate evidence that proves his guilt because at this moment in time many of you think he was "set up" and is innocent. Just my opinion as I am entitled to as you are yours. Still cannot understand why this story was brought to this forum nothing but trouble so far. I will now close on the subject as I am not qualified to talk further as I would be speculating. Jackie seems to know what is in the book and according to her he has nothing that can harm Jeremy so things will not change.
The are my views as well and it is evident that you also foresaw the trouble it would cause and alas it has come to pass. I have said on many occasions that if I believed him to be guilty then of course I would never support him. I don't support him now. But I do support the idea of justice and as you can see from some of the posts written by some on here it is quite evident that there are a few who like to accuse the innocent without proof just because it looks like it to them. I must confess I am shocked to realise that there still are people around who will condemn innocent people without proof as you have seen how Jackie has been villified on here today. It is a disgraceful state of affairs to do such a thing especially when it is those very people who claim to deduce the truth from the facts and who also boast to have studied this case and have found Bamber guilty beyond any doubt at all and not only that but condemn Jackie for sending a letter completely without proof at all. I simply cannot get over that. Such an unjust and infair thing to do, just because they don't like her.
As I said before if there is even a million to 1 chance that Bamber is innocent I will search exhaustively and turn things over and over in my mind until I am sure. I try not to think in a shallow way as appears to be the habit of some. One other thing puts me off most of the guilters that I have come across in the past and a few here is the rude and haughty and self righteous way in which they refer to those who disagree with them. As soon as I detect that attitude in people my guard goes up for these are the basest traits in human nature and never to be admired.
-
that's good news . If it is connected then that might get it sorted.
By the way Adam did earlier on post this on this thread.
"Was it Janus ? "
not that he can spell my name right - but I will nip this right in the bud - it was not me :)
And despite asking Adam for an apology several times he has refused.
I am not making a fuss because in the big scheme of things it is nothing but an annoyance. But we all know how rumours can start.
I do feel for all those affected by this and it is no laughing matter.
Of course he won't. Alot of guilters (the most passionate and determined ones) won't. I have yet to see it?
-
I would like to see the letter!
BTW, who has a typewriter these days?
Well that just shows you how some people just pluck things out of the air in order to back up their arguments.
-
is she "old"? just seems like something an older person would do.
Hey don't go blaming me. ;D
-
The are my views as well and it is evident that you also foresaw the trouble it would cause and alas it has come to pass. I have said on many occasions that if I believed him to be guilty then of course I would never support him. I don't support him now. But I do support the idea of justice and as you can see from some of the posts written by some on here it is quite evident that there are a few who like to accuse the innocent without proof just because it looks like it to them. I must confess I am shocked to realise that there still are people around who will condemn innocent people without proof as you have seen how Jackie has been villified on here today. It is a disgraceful state of affairs to do such a thing especially when it is those very people who claim to deduce the truth from the facts and who also boast to have studied this case and have found Bamber guilty beyond any doubt at all and not only that but condemn Jackie for sending a letter completely without proof at all. I simply cannot get over that. Such an unjust and infair thing to do, just because they don't like her.
As I said before if there is even a million to 1 chance that Bamber is innocent I will search exhaustively and turn things over and over in my mind until I am sure. I try not to think in a shallow way as appears to be the habit of some. One other thing puts me off most of the guilters that I have come across in the past and a few here is the rude and haughty and self righteous way in which they refer to those who disagree with them. As soon as I detect that attitude in people my guard goes up for these are the basest traits in human nature and never to be admired.
very honest post Mr Gee.
No one - including Jeremy should be accused without proof of sending this letter.
-
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524489/Mass-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-s-threat-to-Scots-author-Harrison
theres nothing here about a birthday card.
can you rember where you heard about the card susan.
-
"He added: "Having studied and worked within psychological and criminal profiling since the late 1980s, I know how the criminal mind works. Jeremy Bamber may be incarcerated within Full Sutton prison but he still manipulates and has disciples committed to helping him in any way they can."
Do you know I can honestly say - that I have written to Jeremy and he has never in my case tried to manipulate or ask for anything whatsoever.
I know I cant speak for others and perhaps Caroline might have a different view .
But the comment above does not reflect my experience what so ever.
And I have always made it clear I am still asking questions so I am in no way absolutely convinced of his innocence.
-
Same Jansus you can ask him absolutely anything and get a reply
-
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524489/Mass-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-s-threat-to-Scots-author-Harrison
theres nothing here about a birthday card.
can you rember where you heard about the card susan.
I wondered too, but doesn´t susan have some contact with Paul Harrison?
________________________
He got this letter a month ago, it says in the article. He cannot have taken the threat seriously - or what. I find this whole thing so confusing and saddening. :'(
-
wich has to make you wonder why he has chosen to make a fuss about it now.
-
"He added: "Having studied and worked within psychological and criminal profiling since the late 1980s, I know how the criminal mind works. Jeremy Bamber may be incarcerated within Full Sutton prison but he still manipulates and has disciples committed to helping him in any way they can."
Do you know I can honestly say - that I have written to Jeremy and he has never in my case tried to manipulate or ask for anything whatsoever.
I know I cant speak for others and perhaps Caroline might have a different view .
But the comment above does not reflect my experience what so ever.
And I have always made it clear I am still asking questions so I am in no way absolutely convinced of his innocence.
Totally totally untrue. I don't trust him and that statement is one of the reasons why. It is an out and out lie.
-
Totally totally untrue. I don't trust him and that statement is one of the reasons why. It is an out and out lie.
It is absolutely true that Jeremy manipulates people. It is also true though that such people allow themselves to be manipulated.
Manipulating someone into sending the threatening letter would not really help him though so I doubt he is behind it. It would not help him because it has little chance of actually getting Harrison to abandon the project.
While people claim some guilter would do it they have nothing to gain either. Only some wacko supporter could think that it could benefit trying to silence Harrison and be crazy enough to think the threat could work or did it just to annoy him. Otherwise it was someone who wanted to help Harrison by giving him press attention. Those are the realistic choices someone looking to help get him press coverage or a wacko Jeremy supporter trying to annoy him or scare him.
After seeing Jackie's irraitonal behavior I can see why some would suspect her. She is pretty wacky and defends Jeremy despite no evne knowing or caring about the evidence and facts but I have no idea if she would be wacky enough to try to annoy him and get back at him by sending such a stupid letter or not. I don't know enough about her to try making a judgment either way.
Some crazy lady got stuck in a chimney trying to breka into a house of a guy she met online and had a couple of dates with. I bet no one who knew her predicted she would do anything that stupid or crazy. People who are emotional do all sorts of stupid things. I have no idea how many passionate wacko supporters Jeremy has. So no idea how big the pool of suspects could be. It doesn't have to be a long term supporter it could be someone who just got involved recently. The chiney wacko didn't date him much or know him long.
As others pointed out stamps and envelopes are no longer licked and even when they were careful people used water, they had sponges especially for the task. At any rate that only works if you have the DNA of the culpret on file or get a warrant for same. So you need probable cause anyway.
Fingerprints also need to be on file and often are hard to lift from paper and can be avoided. The chance of ever finding out is nil unless the person does something else.
-
its pretty obvos who ever wrote it was trying to implicate neil only someone in the guilty camp would want to do that.
-
Totally totally untrue. I don't trust him and that statement is one of the reasons why. It is an out and out lie.
well its pretty jeremy couldent any of his supporters to do that.
and with paul harrisons exeprience he should know this.
-
It could also depend on the strength of his new claimed evidence that proves it was not a MOJ. I would think if an author is going to sell a book about a true crime then every bit research should be backed up and not based on hearsay....or a wallet lol Sorry Caroline could not resist that. ;D ;D ;D ;D
ha, ha, nor would I expect you to ::)
-
"He added: "Having studied and worked within psychological and criminal profiling since the late 1980s, I know how the criminal mind works. Jeremy Bamber may be incarcerated within Full Sutton prison but he still manipulates and has disciples committed to helping him in any way they can."
Do you know I can honestly say - that I have written to Jeremy and he has never in my case tried to manipulate or ask for anything whatsoever.
I know I cant speak for others and perhaps Caroline might have a different view .
But the comment above does not reflect my experience what so ever.
And I have always made it clear I am still asking questions so I am in no way absolutely convinced of his innocence.
I agree that he has never asked me for anything. I have always found him polite and to answer 'most' questions I have asked. If anyone asked me 'do you like Jeremy Bamber'? I would have to answer 'yes'. Does that make him innocent - no!
-
would you say he tried to manipulate you in any way.
-
It might seem like a stupid question but there is a poster with the user name Neil. He and NGB are different people correct or are they both NGB?
-
would you say he tried to manipulate you in any way.
He obviously has successfully manipulated the campaign team.
This forum and the campaign site are 2 very different animals. It is unclear to me why he didn't bother to reference the campaign team.
Some people here have suggested things like NGB funded his defense efforts and other things that give the impression NGB is actively involved in defending him. I always took such claims with a grain of salt but if I saw them no doubt he did too and maybe is making his claims based on that?
Protector is a strange word to use anyway if you ask me. Defender would be more accurate for anyone running around pressing the case he is innocent. A protector suggests a different relationship than merely stumping on his behalf.
-
It might seem like a stupid question but there is a poster with the user name Neil. He and NGB are different people correct or are they both NGB?
ngbs real name is neil.
-
He obviously has successfully manipulated the campaign team.
This forum and the campaign site are 2 very different animals. It is unclear to me why he didn't bother to reference the campaign team.
Some people here have suggested things like NGB funded his defense efforts and other things that give the impression NGB is actively involved in defending him. I always took such claims with a grain of salt but if I saw them no doubt he did too and maybe is making his claims based on that?
Protector is a strange word to use anyway if you ask me. Defender would be more accurate for anyone running around pressing the case he is innocent. A protector suggests a different relationship than merely stumping on his behalf.
im asking Caroline as someone who has actually spoken to him and thinks hes guilty. weather she thinks he manipulative.
obvosly someone who thinks hes innocent will say no his not.
-
im asking Caroline as someone who has actually spoken to him and thinks hes guilty. weather she thinks he manipulative.
obvosly someone who thinks hes innocent will say no his not.
Hi Nugs, I haven't spoken to him, only written and he hasn't been manipulative to me.
-
It might seem like a stupid question but there is a poster with the user name Neil. He and NGB are different people correct or are they both NGB?
Yes, they are different
-
ngbs real name is neil.
Yeah I know which was why I wanted to make sure they were 2 different posters.
-
im asking Caroline as someone who has actually spoken to him and thinks hes guilty. weather she thinks he manipulative.
obvosly someone who thinks hes innocent will say no his not.
The campaign team in particular are the ones he has manipulated. I still haven't figure out whether he uses Mike, Mike uses him or they both use eachother. So that one is like asking what came first the chicken or the egg.
-
I just read the article. It is strange because it doesn't quote what the letter wrote about NGB it just claims it identifies him as one of Jeremy's protectors.
The article seems to imply Jackie wrote the letter by saying Harrison contacted her employer and then a week later got the threat plus mentioing:
"Clive Beer, business development director of PSI Ltd, added that the employee who offered to give Mr Harrison 100,000 public sector email addresses had been "severely rebuked" and was "hanging on to her job by a thread".
He said: "She was trying to help him along and became slightly overzealous. She is a sales agent and has no access to any of our database information. All of the emails are in the public domain."
---
Someone just reading this article would naturally suspect the unnamed sales agent doing it as retribution. The fact she is a Jeremy zealot makes it even worse lucky for her they didn't mention that part and trying to get back at NGB for the whole fiasco would actually make some sense as well.
I can kind of see why matt would suspect her.
There is something critical to highlight with respect to the defamation claim:
"Last night, Mr Harrison said he believes Bamber himself is behind the threat, having manipulated one of his "disciples" into sending the sinister message."
Harrison prefaced it as his opinion not a fact that Jeremy sent it. Opinion is excluded from defamation. Prefacing something as an opinion won't always protect you but figures into the equation.
The author asserting Jeremy sent it in the headline seems to be the usual with journalists. How often you do read the story and find out that the headline is not actually supported by evidence. They do it all the time as the old bait and switch. It is th ehook to get you o read an article that otherwise you wouldn't.
-
Hi Nugs, I haven't spoken to him, only written and he hasn't been manipulative to me.
Other people have said he has been manipulative.
A poster posted on red and blue a few months ago about how she was supplying money for his Arizona tests. Jeremy dropped her after the money slowed down.
Woffinden says he is a 'charming psychopath'. There is no question he is charming.
-
Morning Mr. Gee the way you describe some guilty supporters well the same applies to some who are adamant he is innocent they are rude will not debate the case so it is a two way thing I think you will agree.
-
Morning Mr Gee I have not seen Paul Harrison or anyone on this forum accuse Jackie of sending a letter. Of course she should not be condemned for writing it without proof and again you must apply the same sentiments to Paul Harrison you don't trust him you don't even know him or what indeed this is all about. Come on Grahame lets have "fair do's" here what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Lookout should never have released her find on Google ;) ;) ;) nothing but trouble and a split in the forum will come out of this.
-
The campaign team in particular are the ones he has manipulated. I still haven't figure out whether he uses Mike, Mike uses him or they both use eachother. So that one is like asking what came first the chicken or the egg.
As far as I am aware Mike and Jeremy fell out a long time ago - Mike has made no secret of that.
-
I agree that he has never asked me for anything. I have always found him polite and to answer 'most' questions I have asked. If anyone asked me 'do you like Jeremy Bamber'? I would have to answer 'yes'. Does that make him innocent - no!
Agreed it does not make him innocent.
-
It is absolutely true that Jeremy manipulates people. It is also true though that such people allow themselves to be manipulated.
Manipulating someone into sending the threatening letter would not really help him though so I doubt he is behind it. It would not help him because it has little chance of actually getting Harrison to abandon the project.
While people claim some guilter would do it they have nothing to gain either. Only some wacko supporter could think that it could benefit trying to silence Harrison and be crazy enough to think the threat could work or did it just to annoy him. Otherwise it was someone who wanted to help Harrison by giving him press attention. Those are the realistic choices someone looking to help get him press coverage or a wacko Jeremy supporter trying to annoy him or scare him.
After seeing Jackie's irraitonal behavior I can see why some would suspect her. She is pretty wacky and defends Jeremy despite no evne knowing or caring about the evidence and facts but I have no idea if she would be wacky enough to try to annoy him and get back at him by sending such a stupid letter or not. I don't know enough about her to try making a judgment either way.
Some crazy lady got stuck in a chimney trying to breka into a house of a guy she met online and had a couple of dates with. I bet no one who knew her predicted she would do anything that stupid or crazy. People who are emotional do all sorts of stupid things. I have no idea how many passionate wacko supporters Jeremy has. So no idea how big the pool of suspects could be. It doesn't have to be a long term supporter it could be someone who just got involved recently. The chiney wacko didn't date him much or know him long.
As others pointed out stamps and envelopes are no longer licked and even when they were careful people used water, they had sponges especially for the task. At any rate that only works if you have the DNA of the culpret on file or get a warrant for same. So you need probable cause anyway.
Fingerprints also need to be on file and often are hard to lift from paper and can be avoided. The chance of ever finding out is nil unless the person does something else.
You know scipio you are a very intelligent and articulate person who seems to be able to weigh things up logically. For that reason I am really surprised that you could maske such a naive statement as that? Eepecially after you have seen some of the guilter wackos here and the absolutely unjust accusation towards Jackie? It is statements like this that still throw me in doubt of your honesty and truthfulness. That a man who knows the law could be part of a lynch mob? Sorry scipio but I stand in doubt of you and therefore do not trust you. It is not your obvious debating abilities that throw me in doubt, but it is you yourself and of your character, which cries out to me, "Unjust and prejudiced". :(
-
It might seem like a stupid question but there is a poster with the user name Neil. He and NGB are different people correct or are they both NGB?
Different people
-
Bamber is a non entity for those who know him to be guilty. Those threats were most certainly sent by a supporter.
Nope,they weren't. On the contrary,it was a bitter and twisted NON-supporter !
-
The campaign team in particular are the ones he has manipulated. I still haven't figure out whether he uses Mike, Mike uses him or they both use eachother. So that one is like asking what came first the chicken or the egg.
Mike and Bamber are often of different opinions. Mike does things off his own bat and indeed this very forum is against Bambers wishes.
Scipio you may not have noticed in your travels in life, but manipulation or rather influence in life is a two way thing. We all influence one another. I just do not agree with you that Bamber is the arch manipulator that you unjustly accuse him of. Totally untrue.
-
Bamber is a non entity for those who know him to be guilty. Those threats were most certainly sent by a supporter.
Interesting then that so many who believe he's guilty spend
so much of their lives talking about such a. 'non entity' must be other
ways to waste precious time.
-
Morning nugnug
Paul Harrison received a birthday card from Jeremy Bamber in spite of never having discussed his date of with him. All the strange happenings took place after Paul Harrison stopped all communication with Jeremy Bamber in prison. I read this in the Scottish Sunday Express which I purchased at my local shop on Sunday.
-
Interesting then that so many who believe he's guilty spend
so much of their lives talking about such a. 'non entity' must be other
ways to waste precious time.
Surely the same can be said for supporters that don't even know the case well enough to debate it? But just repeat that he is innocent. Waste of time for them when they can't add anything to a debate?
Morning nugnug
Paul Harrison received a birthday card from Jeremy Bamber in spite of never having discussed his date of with him. All the strange happenings took place after Paul Harrison stopped all communication with Jeremy Bamber in prison. I read this in the Scottish Sunday Express which I purchased at my local shop on Sunday.
Wow, really. That is strange - someone obviously did a good job in researching Harrison's personal details and it seems these were passed onto Bamber.
-
Hello Maggie welcome back do hope you are not including me in your post ;D ;D ;D kidding ;D
-
Mike and Bamber are often of different opinions. Mike does things off his own bat and indeed this very forum is against Bambers wishes.
Scipio you may not have noticed in your travels in life, but manipulation or rather influence in life is a two way thing. We all influence one another. I just do not agree with you that Bamber is the arch manipulator that you unjustly accuse him of. Totally untrue.
He has to be an arch manipulator to be a psychopath, Mr Gee and
he has to be a psychopath to have carried out the crime. Think that's the reasoning
for at least some guilters.
-
Mike and Bamber are often of different opinions. Mike does things off his own bat and indeed this very forum is against Bambers wishes.
Scipio you may not have noticed in your travels in life, but manipulation or rather influence in life is a two way thing. We all influence one another. I just do not agree with you that Bamber is the arch manipulator that you unjustly accuse him of. Totally untrue.
Nor I Grahame, but I'm highly amused that that at one end of the spectrum there are those who would have us believe him to be President of Mafia UK, and at the other end there are those who see him as a nonentity.
-
Morning Mat
must be quite spooky for Paul Harrison the birthday card especially :'(
-
Very possibly mat but that doesn't alter my point, does it?
-
Hello Maggie welcome back do hope you are not including me in your post ;D ;D ;D kidding ;D
Hi Susan, am not including anyone specifically just giving an opinion .... nothing
personal :D
-
Morning Mr Gee I have not seen Paul Harrison or anyone on this forum accuse Jackie of sending a letter. Of course she should not be condemned for writing it without proof and again you must apply the same sentiments to Paul Harrison you don't trust him you don't even know him or what indeed this is all about. Come on Grahame lets have "fair do's" here what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Lookout should never have released her find on Google ;) ;) ;) nothing but trouble and a split in the forum will come out of this.
Not at all Susan------------no " split " in the forum.Why should there be.? That's purely autosuggestion.
In other words-----------unless you want there to be ?
-
Morning Mat
must be quite spooky for Paul Harrison the birthday card especially :'(
Morning. :)
Does seem strange. It seems like a way of letting Harrison wonder what else people know about him and how they've found out.
Very possibly mat but that doesn't alter my point, does it?
Not trying to alter your point. Although it's a very broad point. Only John called Bamber a non-entity, so not sure why you mentioned "so many who believe him guilty" to be wasting their times and have better ways to spend their lives - guess you just felt like throwing a stone at the guilters.
-
Morning lookout No I don't want a split on the forum but I guess one occurred yesterday after your little find on Google ;) ;) ;) Think you know what I mean.
-
Morning. :)
Does seem strange. It seems like a way of letting Harrison wonder what else people know about him and how they've found out.
Not trying to alter your point. Although it's a very broad point. Only John called Bamber a non-entity, so not sure why you mentioned "so many who believe him guilty" to be wasting their times and have better ways to spend their lives - guess you just felt like throwing a stone at the guilters.
I'm not 'throwing stones' at anyone just widened the argument a bit but was responding to
A particular post. I'll ask you the same question, why do you spend so
much time debating about someone's guilt .... He's in prison for the rest of
his life what's the point? Surely you have better things to do?
-
Morning Susan, the " split "/division was already there anyway,but I prefer not to call it that. The more adult way of looking at the case and what it entails,is, or should be,a " difference of opinion ". Two entirely different forms of viewpoints. One,a childish " them and us ",the other being debate.
This is of course, my own take on the forum.
Although I have one or two books on the case,I prefer to follow my own thoughts and not those of authors who write of" history repeating itself",unless they were actually,physically there at the scene and were able to account for every detail which they wrote.
However,if by any chance I ever see any more snippets,I'll keep them under my hat. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
A post from Red.
I crossed out the names as both are current posters on Blue.
Seems like Harrison's claim has a 'ring of truth' to it.
-
Maggie I spend so much time debating Jeremy Bamber's guilt as I believe he is guilty. I would like to see conclusive evidence that would put to bed the idea he is in prison for a crime he did not commit and I think Paul Harrison can provide that evidence. This is just my take on it and my explanation why I am on this forum it is not to argue with posters Maggie think how boring it would be if we were not here ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
How dare they ! Stalked ? Well I suppose they know their own tricks best !!
-
I'm not 'throwing stones' at anyone just widened the argument a bit but was responding to
A particular post. I'll ask you the same question, why do you spend so
much time debating about someone's guilt .... He's in prison for the rest of
his life what's the point? Surely you have better things to do?
It's an interesting case, Maggie. I can't speak for the rest of the guilters but I personally find it interesting to see what the next attempt will be by Bamber to secure his release. Guilters are no more guilty of wasting there time here than the supporters as nothing said here will make a difference to the case.
Your veiled insult of "Surely you have better things to do" would make sense if this is all I did, but the board is only something I access in my spare time - I'm sure the rest of the guilters have better things to do too - as no one is on the board all the time.
But you obviously feel strongly enough about the case to spend a lot of your time here - so since you're questioning why me, and the guilters, are here - why are you here? What piece/pieces of evidence convince you to protest innocence for a convicted child killer? I guess there must be something you feel strongly about for you to do this.
-
A post from Red.
I crossed out the names as both are current posters on Blue.
Seems like Harrison's claim has a 'ring of truth' to it.
It seems that having two named people isn't enough. Could this be why you tried to implicate Jansus?
-
Not at all Susan------------no " split " in the forum.Why should there be.? That's purely autosuggestion.
In other words-----------unless you want there to be ?
Lookout you did nothing wrong. If you had not posted it someone else would have. :)
-
lookout wow how strange a post from you has now appeared from the Sunday Scottish Express it was not on when I spoke with you yesterday you said you got your information from latest news on Jeremy Bamber I can assure you that would not bring up this Paul Harrison story. Now lookout I am neither blind nor stupid and wonder why you have found it necessary to include this post as an extra. Remember I know exactly what is going on and I find it quite insulting to say the least.
-
Lookout you did nothing wrong. If you had not posted it someone else would have. :)
Thanks Patti. :)
-
Excuse me,Susan ??
-
I'm not 'throwing stones' at anyone just widened the argument a bit but was responding to
A particular post. I'll ask you the same question, why do you spend so
much time debating about someone's guilt .... He's in prison for the rest of
his life what's the point? Surely you have better things to do?
Well I did reply to this, but it seems to have been deleted. ;D
-
Patti the only thing lookout did wrong was not to tell the truth about her source. It is an insult to my intelligence the feeble source she gave me I know exactly what went on and I find it disappointing and very sad .
I will tell you now Susan that Lookout has not lied about where she got her source from it is freely available on the internet. Anyone could have found it by googling. I am not sure what you are trying to say.
Any further attacks on each other and the thread will be locked. By all means discuss the newspaper release and its contents.
-
Patti the only thing lookout did wrong was not to tell the truth about her source. It is an insult to my intelligence the feeble source she gave me I know exactly what went on and I find it disappointing and very sad .
Susan there's just been a post of yours implicating me in the Scottish Express newspaper,and as I tried to highlight the quote to answer it----------------it VANISHED ??
That's why I've just asked the question " Excuse me "".What's going on ?
It began with " Wow " ?
-
Someone's using your ID,Susan.
-
Or was it a PM that lost its way ? Mmm?
-
It might seem like a stupid question but there is a poster with the user name Neil. He and NGB are different people correct or are they both NGB?
We are different people. This has sometimes caused confusion, even with PMs going to the wrong person! My first name is Neil and I am the one referred to in the article.
-
Or was it a PM that lost its way ? Mmm?
Oh dear,you'll have to be more careful with your p/m's next time.
-
Protector is a strange word to use anyway if you ask me. Defender would be more accurate for anyone running around pressing the case he is innocent. A protector suggests a different relationship than merely stumping on his behalf.
I agree. It makes it sound more sinister.
-
I'm sorry but I think this letter is a figment of this guys imagination and the press just ran with it.
If and I say if his safety was at risk, the last place you'd publish it is anywhere public and if he thought it genuine, he should have placed it in a clean, unused clear food bag and gone straight to the police station or called them to visit him.
The thing I find most disturbing is that NGB got mentioned (if the letter is real at all, if it isn't then that's very nasty) and I see no reason why they'd have to mention a 3rd party or issue threats. I can't see the Krays et al issuing threats and then doing, it takes the element of surprise out etc, I don't think many potential murderers act like this and the whole thread to me is a disaster, discussing theories and who done and said what. Its just putting fuel on the fire, I bet this guy is sat in delight at the fact that he's banned and there's a thread about him and people arguing. Is it worth it? Really?
-
It seems that having two named people isn't enough. Could this be why you tried to implicate Jansus?
Just saying what a poster on Red said.
That him and another guilter had their homes, work places and families stalked by two current posters on blue.
-
I'm sorry but I think this letter is a figment of this guys imagination and the press just ran with it.
If and I say if his safety was at risk, the last place you'd publish it is anywhere public and if he thought it genuine, he should have placed it in a clean, unused clear food bag and gone straight to the police station or called them to visit him.
The thing I find most disturbing is that NGB got mentioned (if the letter is real at all, if it isn't then that's very nasty) and I see no reason why they'd have to mention a 3rd party or issue threats. I can't see the Krays et al issuing threats and then doing, it takes the element of surprise out etc, I don't think many potential murderers act like this and the whole thread to me is a disaster, discussing theories and who done and said what. Its just putting fuel on the fire, I bet this guy is sat in delight at the fact that he's banned and there's a thread about him and people arguing. Is it worth it? Really?
well if he has made it up then niel would have a right to take legal action aganst him.
i think he would know thst so i dont think he would.
-
Patti the only thing lookout did wrong was not to tell the truth about her source. It is an insult to my intelligence the feeble source she gave me I know exactly what went on and I find it disappointing and very sad .
Erm," not to tell the truth about my source ?".I couldn't have made it any clearer where my information came from,I didn't make it up. What's up ? Was it because you hadn't seen it first ? What's your problem ?
It doesn't surprise me in the least that you go behind my back with your p/m,ing,but do try and not make something out of nothing.
I don't even know what yout post is supposed to mean------------please explain. An insult to your intelligence ? What's that supposed to mean ?
Come on,out with it,tell me your problem,because I'm buggered if I know what it is. I've got NOTHING to hide,have you ?
-
I will tell you now Susan that Lookout has not lied about where she got her source from it is freely available on the internet. Anyone could have found it by googling. I am not sure what you are trying to say.
Any further attacks on each other and the thread will be locked. By all means discuss the newspaper release and its contents.
Apologies for my further posts,Patti,but Susan is deliberately implicating me in this matter now and I see she is conspicuous by her absence of answering why she's suddenly turned on me like this.?
I will stand up and be counted as I'm never afraid of the truth.
-
I put up my posts yesterday to give you guys an insight to threats from Bamber supporters or their friends. It was not to get at Grahame, we had moved on and I do not bare grudges in the least. My post was to show one thing only, yet, I don't think ANYBODY on here got the just of my point:
I say it more clearly now: under serious threats from Jeremy's supporters I went to the Police! I did not go to a newspaper (as I had no book or anything to promote as out Jeremy). I travelled to Redditch twice, with my sons and paid to stay in hotels. No expense was spurred trying desperately to get the police to act as I was so frightened. Therefore, I am more inclined to believe that no such letter was received. He may have received an email or something from one or more supporters but I doubt there would have been a threat, otherwise, I do believe he would have had it recorded and it would certainly go in his favour when promoting the book...especially if a copy of it where shown in the book itself....with a crime ref no.
Patti, I knew who was behind my threats, I knew their addresses to, however, I do not take the law into my ow hands.... It's for the police to chase them. Also, I would not lower myself to their level. The police did nothing at all. With all the threats and bullying by his supporters I began to have suicidal thoughts (for the first time in my life). I eventually upped sticks and moved, twice, so as not to be found. I closed my social media accounts and stayed away for a couple of years. I could not go online at all. It took a couple of years to recover ... And seldom do I shout about it. Sorry Grahame....
Please do not presume patti that I did not do all I could within the law!
-
AA,I don't think anyone here thinks ill of you. It's some idiot who's TRYING to pose as someone else,just to cause mischief. Believe me,they'd be the first one/s to shout if it happened to them. It's the work of a coward with nothing else better to do,and anyone who acts in this way,invariably comes to a sticky end.xx
-
He has to be an arch manipulator to be a psychopath, Mr Gee and
he has to be a psychopath to have carried out the crime. Think that's the reasoning
for at least some guilters.
No, that's not reasoning enough, that's only one aspect of a much larger debate.
-
Thank you lookout. I was unable to return to this site after my last post yesterday, due to work. Correct me if I'm wrong, but was something said about me on here? Other than Grahame, did I upset anybody as that was not my intention at all. I will try and have quick read thru.
Thank you for responding. X
Not to my knowledge did you upset anyone.Admittedly I haven't read all the posts myself,but I didn't see anything untoward. x
-
I put up my posts yesterday to give you guys an insight to threats from Bamber supporters or their friends. It was not to get at Grahame, we had moved on and I do not bare grudges in the least. My post was to show one thing only, yet, I don't think ANYBODY on here got the just of my point:
I say it more clearly now: under serious threats from Jeremy's supporters I went to the Police! I did not go to a newspaper (as I had no book or anything to promote as out Jeremy). I travelled to Redditch twice, with my sons and paid to stay in hotels. No expense was spurred trying desperately to get the police to act as I was so frightened. Therefore, I am more inclined to believe that no such letter was received. He may have received an email or something from one or more supporters but I doubt there would have been a threat, otherwise, I do believe he would have had it recorded and it would certainly go in his favour when promoting the book...especially if a copy of it where shown in the book itself....with a crime ref no.
Patti, I knew who was behind my threats, I knew their addresses to, however, I do not take the law into my ow hands.... It's for the police to chase them. Also, I would not lower myself to their level. The police did nothing at all. With all the threats and bullying by his supporters I began to have suicidal thoughts (for the first time in my life). I eventually upped sticks and moved, twice, so as not to be found. I closed my social media accounts and stayed away for a couple of years. I could not go online at all. It took a couple of years to recover ... And seldom do I shout about it. Sorry Grahame....
Please do not presume patti that I did not do all I could within the law!
Excuse me asking this question - but why were you getting such appalling treatment? I thought you were a supporter of Jeremy? Not that ir matters either way as no one should have to put up with what you have described , but I dont quite understand?
-
i think i know who sent that letter but im not going to say until im sure.
and i think the sender can be easly identfied.
-
i think i know who sent that letter but im not going to say until im sure.
and i think the sender can be easly identfied.
Well, you don't have to say who you think it is, but how can they be identified?
-
Excuse me asking this question - but why were you getting such appalling treatment? I thought you were a supporter of Jeremy? Not that ir matters either way as no one should have to put up with what you have described , but I dont quite understand?
I was wondering th same thing Jansus.
-
i think i know who sent that letter but im not going to say until im sure.
and i think the sender can be easly identfied.
I really hope you are right .
-
Well, you don't have to say who you think it is, but how can they be identified?
well it would have to involves pauls cooperation of course but must people can be identified from there style of typing.
words phrases they use typos they make etc.
-
well it would have to involves pauls cooperation of course but must people can be identified from there style of typing.
words phrases they use typos they make etc.
...........Which can be made up by studying and adopting the patterns other people use.
-
nugnug this could only apply if we knew the person who has typed the letter and had experience of their style of writing. Could be somebody who has never posted on this forum or indeed sent pm's to posters.
-
It's someone posing as somebody else and they needn't necessarily live in Essex. It could well have been passed on to a third party who does live in Essex,innocently or otherwise.
I'm not into writing poison-pen letters myself. I've got more about me I'm afraid.
-
nugnug this could only apply if we knew the person who has typed the letter and had experience of their style of writing. Could be somebody who has never posted on this forum or indeed sent pm's to posters.
oh im certain its someone whos posted on here or the other forum the fact they know who niel is and are making direct references to this forum.
-
nugnug you could be right how would we know who it is :'(
-
It's someone posing as somebody else and they needn't necessarily live in Essex. It could well have been passed on to a third party who does live in Essex,innocently or otherwise.
I'm not into writing poison-pen letters myself. I've got more about me I'm afraid.
That would mean a third person was involved! Would you post a letter addressed to PH and not ask question? Bloody sure I wouldn't!!
-
That would mean a third person was involved! Would you post a letter addressed to PH and not ask question? Bloody sure I wouldn't!!
There obviously is a third person,Caroline,as cowards don't normally work alone.
-
I'm removing all my posts of recent. You ask a question of me and I answer.....and it's all ignored as you're all so busy quarrelling with each other. I'll come back when it's about Jeremy.
-
I'm removing all my posts of recent. You ask a question of me and I answer.....and it's all ignored as you're all so busy quarrelling with each other. I'll come back when it's about Jeremy.
What response were you expecting to your posts?
-
Not to my knowledge did you upset anyone.Admittedly I haven't read all the posts myself,but I didn't see anything untoward. x
No I did not see anything either?
-
There obviously is a third person,Caroline,as cowards don't normally work alone.
This whole thing has ended up a long way from where it started. It no longer appears a question of who was responsible, more who WASN'T responsible.
-
I was asked a question by Janus and Caroline said she was also curious...so, I answer the question and it's completely ignored. Please, don't ask if you cannot have the courtesy to even acknowledge a reply.
-
I'm removing all my posts of recent. You ask a question of me and I answer.....and it's all ignored as you're all so busy quarrelling with each other. I'll come back when it's about Jeremy.
Well its a pity that you ignored mine Jacqui, becaue now I know what a grudge bearer you are. You of course didn't fill in the real history of abuse when you mentioned me, thus giving an entirely one sided view of what really happened. I hope that I am a forgiving person? That is why I never keep records of people's sins. But unfortunately you heart is not right and that your profession of being a Christian is false. I want nothing to do with you until you try and put things right and put the record straight concerning the facebook guilty page.
-
I was asked a question by Janus and Caroline said she was also curious...so, I answer the question and it's completely ignored. Please, don't ask if you cannot have the courtesy to even acknowledge a reply.
Look to yourself first Jacqui.
-
Well its a pity that you ignored mine Jacqui, becaue now I know what a grudge bearer you are. You of course didn't fill in the real history of abuse when you mentioned me, thus giving an entirely one sided view of what really happened. I hope that I am a forgiving person? That is why I never keep records of people's sins. But unfortunately you heart is not right and that your profession of being a Christian is false. I want nothing to do with you until you try and put things right and put the record straight concerning the facebook guilty page.
Grahame, I feel sure that you, more than anyone here will know JUST how hard it is to adhere to Christian teachings and success depends hugely on how personally we are affected by the actions of others. :)
-
I also do not like the fact AA acts as if Jeremy treated her badly
She told me herself it was her that dumped Jeremy
This forum tries to find out the truth
-
Grahame..... I believe you failed to notice a public apology on here from me to you.....but carry on as you wish!
-
lookout wow how strange a post from you has now appeared from the Sunday Scottish Express it was not on when I spoke with you yesterday you said you got your information from latest news on Jeremy Bamber I can assure you that would not bring up this Paul Harrison story. Now lookout I am neither blind nor stupid and wonder why you have found it necessary to include this post as an extra. Remember I know exactly what is going on and I find it quite insulting to say the least.
Here is Susan's post which was removed yesterday.
-
Erm," not to tell the truth about my source ?".I couldn't have made it any clearer where my information came from,I didn't make it up. What's up ? Was it because you hadn't seen it first ? What's your problem ?
It doesn't surprise me in the least that you go behind my back with your p/m,ing,but do try and not make something out of nothing.
I don't even know what yout post is supposed to mean------------please explain. An insult to your intelligence ? What's that supposed to mean ?
Come on,out with it,tell me your problem,because I'm buggered if I know what it is. I've got NOTHING to hide,have you ?
Lookout,you are absolutely correct,the article does indeed come up when the name 'Jeremy Bamber' is Googled,and I,like you often Google to see if there is any 'new' news. Other members were telling me about the article as early as the Sunday but I chose not to post it.However,you did and you have nothing to feel guilty about. If you hadn't then somebody else would have.
All I wish to say with regards to the article is - It has clearly served the purpose it was intended to serve!
Oh,and those that are blaming a certain forum member for the sending of the alleged letter should be ashamed of themselves. No 'disciple' ?? >:( of Bamber's would wish to cause him such harm from the bad publicity. The whole affair is despicable imo.
-
This whole thing has ended up a long way from where it started. It no longer appears a question of who was responsible, more who WASN'T responsible.
Depends who has the biggest grudge. ;D Against those who say Jeremy's innocent. I know it fills some with so much angst that they can't control themselves or their feelings.
A type of verbal incontinence towards others.
Who's missing ? ;D ;D ;D
-
Depends who has the biggest grudge. ;D Against those who say Jeremy's innocent. I know it fills some with so much angst that they can't control themselves or their feelings.
A type of verbal incontinence towards others.
Who's missing ? ;D ;D ;D
Lookout the post that Susan made has been posted back on this thread by NGB....a few doors up from this post.
-
Grahame..... I believe you failed to notice a public apology on here from me to you.....but carry on as you wish!
I'm afraid I must have Jacqui. Please direct me to it. You must also have failed to notice my pm to you as well? Still now the damage has been done please carry on as you are. I will no longer trust you in anything.
-
Thanks Patti.
I can see an anomaly straight away which is how things get twisted out of all proportion.
Susan-----when I googled " the latest news on the Jeremy bamber case ",it appeared,under a similar heading,along with 3 news items in blue,to highlight,the first one being about Jeremy Bamber,so I highlighted it and up came that story in the newspaper. I HADN'T a clue what I was going to see. I thought perhaps it might be something to do with any further evidence.
I don't know what you mean when you say " after you spoke to me that this article from the Scottish Post came up " ?? I DID NOT KNOW IT CONTAINED WHAT IT DID!! HONESTLY.
Do me a favour and just google " latest news on Jeremy bamber " and see for yourself what comes up.
Then I await an apology.
-
Thanks Patti.
I can see an anomaly straight away which is how things get twisted out of all proportion.
Susan-----when I googled " the latest news on the Jeremy bamber case ",it appeared,under a similar heading,along with 3 news items in blue,to highlight,the first one being about Jeremy Bamber,so I highlighted it and up came that story in the newspaper. I HADN'T a clue what I was going to see. I thought perhaps it might be something to do with any further evidence.
I don't know what you mean when you say " after you spoke to me that this article from the Scottish Post came up " ?? I DID NOT KNOW IT CONTAINED WHAT IT DID!! HONESTLY.
Do me a favour and just google " latest news on Jeremy bamber " and see for yourself what comes up.
Then I await an apology.
Why are people so unreasonable sometimes lookout? I sometimes despair of certain people on this forum who appear to have a veil over their eyes? A relatively simple thing like that would have dispelled all this accusation and speculation. ::)
-
Mr Gee a simple thing like what may I ask.
-
You know scipio you are a very intelligent and articulate person who seems to be able to weigh things up logically. For that reason I am really surprised that you could maske such a naive statement as that? Eepecially after you have seen some of the guilter wackos here and the absolutely unjust accusation towards Jackie? It is statements like this that still throw me in doubt of your honesty and truthfulness. That a man who knows the law could be part of a lynch mob? Sorry scipio but I stand in doubt of you and therefore do not trust you. It is not your obvious debating abilities that throw me in doubt, but it is you yourself and of your character, which cries out to me, "Unjust and prejudiced". :(
1) I explained why the logical assumption is either a wacko Jeremy supporter is behind the letter or Harrison/someone involved with Harrison did it as a publicity stunt.
2) I laid out how the article states the letter came a mere week after he went to Jackie's employer and she was rebuked and hanging on to her job by a thread and thus implies Jackie did it as retribution.
3) I pointed out that while the article didn't mention it, we know Jackie is a Jeremy zealot and know of the altercation between Jackie and Harrison that happened on this board. That altercation can indeed be interpreted in combination with being rebuked as a motive to potentially write such a letter. Thus I can see how some here would think such.
4) I mentioned others know Jackie better, including people who said she stalked them. They have abetter basis than me to know if she would do something so stupid. I reserved judgment as to whether she did so or not because I don't know her well enough to make an informed decision as to whether she would do something like that or not.
To try to hide from the article's implications would be pointless. It implies Jackie did it not NGB.
The way the article tossed NGB in is bizarre because it is an aside. Writers do that all the time too. The article doesn't discuss how he is relevant beyond claiming the letter says something about him being a protector. It is a classic case of why I hate news articles.
The article should have directly quoted from the letter if it was going to mention NGB so we could see the full context. Did it mention others being his protector as well? What was the full upshot in relation to the threat? Did it suggest NGB would be one of the agents carrying out the threat? Probably not because if so then the journalist would have quoted the letter. If not I don't even understand why to mention NGB in the article except to try making it look like a bigger mystery than is likely the case.
-
Mr Gee do you mean I should have done what lookout did i.e. googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber did that yesterday nothing on the Paul Harrison article in the SSE just done it again now nothing so this is why I wondered where she got the story. Maybe news getting upto The Highlands comes by snail and will be here next week ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I agree. It makes it sound more sinister.
Not just more sinister. A protector is usually someone very close to someone else like a "right hand man". It will either be a personal relationship, business or mixed but they will be involved in protecting the person physically or protecting the person's reputation. They do it because they are paid or because of the close personal relationship.
It is a much different relationship than just believing he is innocent and saying so. Running his website and thereby publishing propaganda on his behalf doesn't even rise to the level in my eyes.
-
Any author that is going to write a book about the case is going to make Jeremy look more guilty. If the book is going to be anywhere near half decent and accurate.
Even if they also approach the case on the assumption that there was a MOJ. As Harrison did.
There is just so much circumstantial and forensic evidence against Jeremy. As well as the common sense argument that it could not be Sheila. There was also not a MOJ & Jeremy has failed to get off on a technicality.
-
i suggest we contact paul harrison about it and ask if he would be kind enough to show us a copy.
-
Excuse me asking this question - but why were you getting such appalling treatment? I thought you were a supporter of Jeremy? Not that ir matters either way as no one should have to put up with what you have described , but I dont quite understand?
It stems from way back to the facebook page. It would take too long for her to reitterate it. In short there were some who did send abuse to her and I took sides and unfortunately wrongly supported those who were abusing her and I said some things that I now regret.
But it must be understood although not excused that AA then joined the guilty abusive facebook page and that was an indication that she also was agreeing with them. Shortly after that I saw what was really going on in that facebook supporters group and left as the people they were fighting were themselves and gossip was flying this way and that and I also was accused of various things by some. So I cut myself off from everyone in the supporters group and came here.
Unfortunately the same abusers followed me here and began a campaign of abuse on members of this forum including Mike. But it appears that inspite of my public apology to two of those who demanded apologies for my past actions are still accusing me of the same things. Christ said that if we do not forgive those who trespass against us then neither shal we be forgiven.
Now you may say to yourselves what has that religious stuff got to do with me? Well Jesus was a brilliant judge of human nature and he could see that if we continue in holding grudges even if the person concerned has apologised to you then that grudge will continue to grow until it becomes part of your very nature and your unforgiving nature will eventually become part of you and you will find that you will not be able to extricate yourself from it.
I fear that this has already happened in some judging by the way they keep on about past evils against them? The way ahead for those people to become forgiving towards their fellow human beings. There are none who are perfect, I less that some. But we can at least stive for a forgiving spirit even if there are those who cannot.
-
Any author that is going to write a book about the case is going to make Jeremy look more guilty. If the book is going to be anywhere near half decent and accurate.
Even if they also approach the case on the assumption that there was a MOJ. As Harrison did.
There is just so much circumstantial and forensic evidence against Jeremy. As well as the common sense argument that it could not be Sheila. There was also not a MOJ & Jeremy has failed to get off on a technicality.
I don't know what you mean by more guilty.
The fact he was convicted says he is guilty. A good book would lay out the evidence of why he was convicted and his appeals failed. It would thus explain why he was found guilty. That doesn't mae him more guilty it just explains the verdict and establishes why he was found guilty.
A good book would also evaluate the various claims raised by the defense at trial, on appeal and even those not raised on appeal because they were too weak but have been publicly leveled by supporters.
A good book would lay out everything so people unfamilair with the case would be aware of all aspects.
Part of that would entail obtaining information not publicly relesed such as everything to do with the 2009 CCRC submission and rejection so that the arguments made could be spelled out as well as why they were rejected.
That would round out things well.
The person would definitely want to obtain the trial testimony so that it could be accurately quoted from as well- certainly the testimony of the key witnesses. If you are going to write a book you need quotes and references. Otherwise I consider it a wasted effort.
-
i suggest we contact paul harrison about it and ask if he would be kind enough to show us a copy.
If he wasn't banned fromt he baord he might have been willing to post it here. I have doubts he will thoughnow. He likely is sore over that.
-
Mr Gee do you mean I should have done what lookout did i.e. googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber did that yesterday nothing on the Paul Harrison article in the SSE just done it again now nothing so this is why I wondered where she got the story. Maybe news getting upto The Highlands comes by snail and will be here next week ;D ;D ;D ;D
This is your post: Patti the only thing lookout did wrong was not to tell the truth about her source. It is an insult to my intelligence the feeble source she gave me I know exactly what went on and I find it disappointing and very sad.
Lookout DID give the source of her information. She said the Express. Why would you say she was lying?
-
If he wasn't banned fromt he baord he might have been willing to post it here. I have doubts he will thoughnow. He likely is sore over that.
A good motive to publish to a newspaper implicating bot ngb and Jacqui? ;)
-
Not just more sinister. A protector is usually someone very close to someone else like a "right hand man". It will either be a personal relationship, business or mixed but they will be involved in protecting the person physically or protecting the person's reputation. They do it because they are paid or because of the close personal relationship.
It is a much different relationship than just believing he is innocent and saying so. Running his website and thereby publishing propaganda on his behalf doesn't even rise to the level in my eyes.
Yes, I agree with your assessment on this. The words read to me by the journalist implied that I had power or influence beyond that which a lawyer would have, which clearly is nonsense. The objective was to place me near the centre of this. It was a shock hearing the words.
-
Mr Gee why are you interfering in my posts to lookout when I asked lookout the question where did you get the story she told me I just googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber and it came up I did the same it did not appear for me then my posts are removed what am I expected to think and I have just googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber the story did not come up. Don't be taking it out on me because you get abuse and give it as well. I said to you recently always two sides to every story.
-
1) I explained why the logical assumption is either a wacko Jeremy supporter is behind the letter or Harrison/someone involved with Harrison did it as a publicity stunt.
Or a wacky guilty? There are plenty of those.
2) I laid out how the article states the letter came a mere week after he went to Jackie's employer and she was rebuked and hanging on to her job by a thread and thus implies Jackie did it as retribution.
I didn't notice that that was what he was implying, He just wrote about her offering him names and addresses. Which I might add appears to be to be a dubious accusation, as he did indeed encourage her in his pm to her? This seems to be why he wrote the article?
3) I pointed out that while the article didn't mention it, we know Jackie is a Jeremy zealot and know of the altercation between Jackie and Harrison that happened on this board. That altercation can indeed be interpreted in combination with being rebuked as a motive to potentially write such a letter. Thus I can see how some here would think such. Remember that the altercation also involved ngb and that was the reason he was banned. This also should not be held up as proof that it was Jackie who sent the alleged letter. Also I think in the absence of PH publishing the letter it must therefore be referred to as "alleged"
4) I mentioned others know Jackie better, including people who said she stalked them. They have abetter basis than me to know if she would do something so stupid. I reserved judgment as to whether she did so or not because I don't know her well enough to make an informed decision as to whether she would do something like that or not.
I also know Jackie even better than her accusers, who in fact do not know her at all. Yet you have conveniently thrown out my testimony of her character. Is this what lawyers do in order to make the accused look more guilty? I testified that it was not Jackie who sent that "alleged" letter as it is not in her character to do so. She is passionate in what she does, but she is not fanatical as some falsly assume
To try to hide from the article's implications would be pointless. It implies Jackie did it not NGB.
I note your interpretation of PH's words. If that is so then it borders on libel and he should answer to the law for that.
The way the article tossed NGB in is bizarre because it is an aside. Writers do that all the time too. The article doesn't discuss how he is relevant beyond claiming the letter says something about him being a protector. It is a classic case of why I hate news articles.
Bizarre is exactly what it is and if PH has said this then that is proof that the rest of his accusations are in fact wrong and should be treated with the utmost contempt and dare I say it? As lies even?
The article should have directly quoted from the letter if it was going to mention NGB so we could see the full context. Did it mention others being his protector as well? What was the full upshot in relation to the threat? Did it suggest NGB would be one of the agents carrying out the threat? Probably not because if so then the journalist would have quoted the letter. If not I don't even understand why to mention NGB in the article except to try making it look like a bigger mystery than is likely the case.
I agree with you on that one. The letter should have been published. Then perhaps that would have stopped all this wild and unjust speculation about ngb and Jackie.
-
Any author that is going to write a book about the case is going to make Jeremy look more guilty. If the book is going to be anywhere near half decent and accurate.
Even if they also approach the case on the assumption that there was a MOJ. As Harrison did.
There is just so much circumstantial and forensic evidence against Jeremy. As well as the common sense argument that it could not be Sheila. There was also not a MOJ & Jeremy has failed to get off on a technicality.
What do you mean, more guilty? That statement actually goes to prove that such a book about Bambers guilt would be pointless. To whom is this book directed?
-
Mr Gee why are you interfering in my posts to lookout when I asked lookout the question where did you get the story she told me I just googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber and it came up I did the same it did not appear for me then my posts are removed what am I expected to think and I have just googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber the story did not come up. Don't be taking it out on me because you get abuse and give it as well. I said to you recently always two sides to every story.
I'm not abusing you or anybody else susan. Show me where I have abused anybody since my apology? Your accusations are both unjust and unfair susan. >:(
-
Yes, I agree with your assessment on this. The words read to me by the journalist implied that I had power or influence beyond that which a lawyer would have, which clearly is nonsense. The objective was to place me near the centre of this. It was a shock hearing the words.
As long as the article bothered to mention you it should have quoted the claims made in the letter so people could evaluate the logic of the claims instead of just including a cryptic protector claim that doesn't flow with the rest of the article well.
-
Mr Gee why are you interfering in my posts to lookout when I asked lookout the question where did you get the story she told me I just googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber and it came up I did the same it did not appear for me then my posts are removed what am I expected to think and I have just googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber the story did not come up. Don't be taking it out on me because you get abuse and give it as well. I said to you recently always two sides to every story.
So just because your google search didn't come up with the same as lookouts you called her a liar? is that right?
Two sides to every story you say, then why don't you look at both sides instead of keep on calling me an abuser, which I am not. Why do you keep on insinuating that I am lying about these things. that is both insulting and unfair of you.
-
As long as the article bothered to mention you it should have quoted the claims made in the letter so people could evaluate the logic of the claims instead of just including a cryptic protector claim that doesn't flow with the rest of the article well.
I agree it is rather a cryptic reference. I suspect the newspaper's lawyers had some input into that.
-
Mr Gee why are you interfering in my posts to lookout when I asked lookout the question where did you get the story she told me I just googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber and it came up I did the same it did not appear for me then my posts are removed what am I expected to think and I have just googled latest news on Jeremy Bamber the story did not come up. Don't be taking it out on me because you get abuse and give it as well. I said to you recently always two sides to every story.
I've just googled it again,Susan,and it's still there On Jeremy Bamber News---- " You are being watched",mass killer's threat to--------
Daily Express 4 days ago.
-
I've just googled it again,Susan,and it's still there On Jeremy Bamber News---- " You are being watched",mass killer's threat to--------
Daily Express 4 days ago.
I've just googled it lookout and I didn't get any results. But that does not justify me calling you a liar does it? ::)
-
Mr Gee I did not call lookout a liar. Now calm down and think what you are saying. Lookout has had an apology from me and as you are such a Christian that should be the end of it but no because of all the anger you have in you you cannot let things rest I have never called you an abuser nor did I call lookout a liar. Now put your Christian beliefs into action and forgive and forget.
-
It was available after Lookout had posted it because Mat posted a link to it......It might depend on the thingy that you use....like Google Chome, etc... :-\
-
I've just googled it lookout and I didn't get any results. But that does not justify me calling you a liar does it? ::)
In the web search,Mr Gee ? It's there folks.
-
Patti you could well be right as I do use Google Chrome I have said this could be the case apologised what does Grahame want from me to walk on hot coals. He needs to sort himself out and leave me to deal with myself.
-
It was available after Lookout had posted it because Mat posted a link to it......It might depend on the thingy that you use....like Google Chome, etc... :-\
Yahoo,Patti. That's the " thingy " ;D
-
If he wasn't banned fromt he baord he might have been willing to post it here. I have doubts he will thoughnow. He likely is sore over that.
I am sure he is.
-
Mr Gee I did not call lookout a liar. Now calm down and think what you are saying. Lookout has had an apology from me and as you are such a Christian that should be the end of it but no because of all the anger you have in you you cannot let things rest I have never called you an abuser nor did I call lookout a liar. Now put your Christian beliefs into action and forgive and forget.
Susan your posts: post 1) referring to lookout, Patti the only thing lookout did wrong was not to tell the truth about her source.
Your post concerning me: you get abuse and give it as well
These are your words susan. Please explain is you are not calling me an abuser?
I am not angry I am trying to explain to you from where the abuse originates and still continues. But unfortunately you do not wish to see the truth. I'm sorry but I must give up on trying to convince you. I've spent too much time on you already. I have said before thee are very few on the forum that I trust. Sadly this does not include you. :(
ps: how can I forgive you if you still believe I am an abuser and still insist on telling me that I also give abuse which is totally untrue?
-
I am sure he is.
niel did he make any attempt to contact you before going to the press about this.
-
Yahoo,Patti. That's the " thingy " ;D
I think its called a server Lookout.....Trying to do a million jobs here. Sort out some food, work on my cases, and read whats going off on here. Meanwhile Sam wants a treat. I need a drink lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Mr Gee how did I forgive you for sending me a nasty pm about Maggie and blocking me from replying that is not the act of a Christian then you started on me on the forum you had only heard one side of the story but you wished to make me the bad one. I am not calling you an abuser others have done. Your were a little abusive to me over Maggie but you apologised and I accepted it as I am a Christian you are not. I have apologised to lookout but that is not good enough for you as you want to abuse me.
-
niel did he make any attempt to contact you before going to the press about this.
No.
-
well thats a bit strange seeing as you were mentioned in the letter.
-
I was asked a question by Janus and Caroline said she was also curious...so, I answer the question and it's completely ignored. Please, don't ask if you cannot have the courtesy to even acknowledge a reply.
Sorry I have been at work and can only post lunchtimes - but are you sure your reply has not "vanished" because I can not see it on this thread between when I asked and this reply?
-
well thats a bit strange seeing as you were mentioned in the letter.
He does have my contact details as we have exchanged quite a few emails, but we did not part company here on the best of terms!
Since he decided to go to the press about the letter I suppose he thought it better to let the journalist make contact.
-
Mr Gee how did I forgive you for sending me a nasty pm about Maggie and blocking me from replying that is not the act of a Christian then you started on me on the forum you had only heard one side of the story but you wished to make me the bad one. I am not calling you an abuser others have done. Your were a little abusive to me over Maggie but you apologised and I accepted it as I am a Christian you are not. I have apologised to lookout but that is not good enough for you as you want to abuse me.
Susan I did not abuse you I spoke against you and you told me that what I did was good as it sorted out your business with Maggie. In other words I accomplished what I set out to do. It was not abuse and you acknowledged that at the time. Now you are telling me that I was abusive towards you. So you are now saying conflicting things about me. First I was right to tell you off and now you choose to call it abuse. You are being inconsistent susan. Now you are telling me that I am not a Christian? I think susan you have a lot to learn about what being a Christian really is?
-
Patti you could well be right as I do use Google Chrome I have said this could be the case apologised what does Grahame want from me to walk on hot coals. He needs to sort himself out and leave me to deal with myself.
I don't want you to apologise for anything I just want you to accept what you actually said. I search myself every day susan but when you tell me that I am an abuser and that those on the red forum are not that bad just because they don't abuse you I rather think it is yourself who has to do some heart searching? I'm afraid you have no idea what it is to be abused? I have and so has my family. I notice also that those on the red forum are always demanding apologies from us, but never volunteer apologies regarding themselves. Nor have they acknowledged my apolology. If these are the people you like to mix with then go ahead. I will leave you to deal with yourself.
-
Mr Gee you have it wrong again I do not mix with anyone on the Red forum as I am not a member. I have no intention of apologising to you I have done nothing wrong. You were nasty to me in a pm about Maggie and blocked me from replying to you then you abused me on the forum only knowing one side of the issues I had with Maggie you did apologise and I accepted it. Then you interfered with a pm to Mason Doyle over some information I shared with Maggie and she sent it to you in error and instead of leaving it you wrote to him and I can tell you I received a pm from him and he was cross with me quite rightly so but he has since forgiven me since it was all explained to him.
I have not called you an abuser. Now if nobody accepts your apology don't blame me nothing to do with me and I will not get involved as I see others on the forum don't.
You can do no more than you have done as I posted when I saw your apology to Tim and John if they don't accept it that is up to them. I apologise to people and they don't accept it what more can I do nothing just live with it and move on.
-
Yes, I agree with your assessment on this. The words read to me by the journalist implied that I had power or influence beyond that which a lawyer would have, which clearly is nonsense. The objective was to place me near the centre of this. It was a shock hearing the words.
Seems like someone out to get you, Jackie and Jeremy - all in one strike.
I may be wrong of course, I often am! ;D
-
thats exactly what it sounds like to me as well.
-
Mr Gee I was being a good Christian and forgave you for the horrible pm you sent me and the post you put up on the forum about how could I treat a good friend like I was doing. I told you then and I will tell you now mind your own business what I do off this forum is not your business..
-
What do you mean, more guilty? That statement actually goes to prove that such a book about Bambers guilt would be pointless. To whom is this book directed?
I for one will not be buying this book if it is ever published.
I find it strange that Paul Harrison chose to go to the press with the death threat against him and not to the police. All too dubious for my taste.
-
I for one will not be buying this book if it is ever published.
I find it strange that Paul Harrison chose to go to the press with the death threat against him and not to the police. All too dubious for my taste.
Makes you wonder,eh ?
-
Seems like someone out to get you, Jackie and Jeremy - all in one strike.
I may be wrong of course, I often am! ;D
That's how I see it Alias. :)
-
Mr Gee I was being a good Christian and forgave you for the horrible pm you sent me and the post you put up on the forum about how could I treat a good friend like I was doing. I told you then and I will tell you now mind your own business what I do off this forum is not your business..
Excuse me susan but you didn't forgive me because I didn't say anything to you that needed forgiveness on the contrary you thanked me at the time because what I said to you helped to reconcile you with Maggie.
You say that the red forum never have abused you? Well you you remember this: Hi Grahame alias bloggs and son This is why they are using my name to post because otherwise it will be the same three posting all the time.[/color] The used your name in order to make it look as if you had been posting on the red forum. That is how they work. But you appear to be content with your own lies so we will leave it at that. As far as I am concerned you are not to be trusted.
-
Seems like someone out to get you, Jackie and Jeremy - all in one strike.
I may be wrong of course, I often am! ;D
that about sums it up. Like I said guilty or innocent Jeremy is not stupid - There is no way that he would risk everything by being connected with something like that.
-
Mr Gee you have it wrong again I do not mix with anyone on the Red forum as I am not a member. I have no intention of apologising to you I have done nothing wrong. You were nasty to me in a pm about Maggie and blocked me from replying to you then you abused me on the forum only knowing one side of the issues I had with Maggie you did apologise and I accepted it. Then you interfered with a pm to Mason Doyle over some information I shared with Maggie and she sent it to you in error and instead of leaving it you wrote to him and I can tell you I received a pm from him and he was cross with me quite rightly so but he has since forgiven me since it was all explained to him.
I have not called you an abuser. Now if nobody accepts your apology don't blame me nothing to do with me and I will not get involved as I see others on the forum don't.
You can do no more than you have done as I posted when I saw your apology to Tim and John if they don't accept it that is up to them. I apologise to people and they don't accept it what more can I do nothing just live with it and move on.
WHAT are you accusing me of now? That is a downright lie on your part susan. I have never ever written to Mason Doyle about you or anyone else. What a disgusting thing to accuse me of. Don't you dare make stuff up like that. As far as I can see you are behaving just like those on the red forum. How dare you accuse me of being like TB either. Have I every threatened you with my dogs have I ever said abusive things about your husband or another family member who has cancer. How dare you you wicked minded woman. Christian indeed. my big toe. You and those other creatures on the red forum deserve each other.
-
that about sums it up. Like I said guilty or innocent Jeremy is not stupid - There is no way that he would risk everything by being connected with something like that.
As far as I know, he has never been involved in anything of this nature before; why would he start now at fifty three? Unlikely. Besides, he is not that stupid that he wouldn´t know it would harm him big time. Jeremy is out of the equation as far as I am concerned.
There have been other books about him with a negative stance - the authors have not received threats. There have been newspaper articles about him with a negative stance - the journalists have not received threats.
This is BS.
-
How many will have read that and will be taken-in by it ?? Typical of the gutter press.
-
Susan/Grahame can we draw a line under neath all of this please. Otherwise I will start to remove posts.
-
How many will have read that and will be taken-in by it ?? Typical of the gutter press.
Very true. Sensationalism, but I can see where the paper is coming from: business, they want to sell copies.
What I have a problem with is that "someone" fed this to the newspaper, in the process implicating Jeremy Bamber, Jackie and NGB.
Why, you have to ask yourself.
-
Very true. Sensationalism, but I can see where the paper is coming from: business, they want to sell copies.
What I have a problem with is that "someone" fed this to the newspaper, in the process implicating Jeremy Bamber, Jackie and NGB.
Why, you have to ask yourself.
Do you think its a ploy to cause as much disruption as possible to NGB, Jackie and this forum?
-
Mr Gee have not got a clue what that post means when I said I had not had abuse I got abuse from some not John and Tim when they thought I was Jackie Preece I got abuse on here from Mat and Vidvic would not speak to me and many others once it was cleared up I was not her everything was fine with me and has been ever since in fact Vic apologised to me and we became good friends so stop trying to cause trouble your Christian teachings are slipping. I must admit I have Patti and Bridget to thank for making things good for me and I have not forgotten that. Patti went on Red and spoke to John and Tim about this post which I quote said "Susan Ingham is under investigation" now this was awkward for me the fact that **************** is my sister and it was not fair on her that is why after that I dropped the Ingham but all this was down to mistaken identity. I have never been abused by xxxx or xxxx and I will not say a word against them why would I. You of course know me by my proper name as do others on Red and Blue.
-
Do you think its a ploy to cause as much disruption as possible to NGB, Jackie and this forum?
I do think it is someone holding a grudge against those three people. The two of them are connected to this forum, so maybe.
-
Mr Gee have not got a clue what that post means when I said I had not had abuse I got abuse from some not John and Tim when they thought I was Jackie Preece I got abuse on here from Mat and Vidvic would not speak to me and many others once it was cleared up I was not her everything was fine with me and has been ever since in fact Vic apologised to me and we became good friends so stop trying to cause trouble your Christian teachings are slipping. I must admit I have Patti and Bridget to thank for making things good for me and I have not forgotten that. Patti went on Red and spoke to John and Tim about this post which I quote said "Susan Ingham is under investigation" now this was awkward for me the fact that ************ is my sister and it was not fair on her that is why after that I dropped the Ingham but all this was down to mistaken identity. I have never been abused by xxxx or xxxx and I will not say a word against them why would I. You of course know me by my proper name as do others on Red and Blue.
Susan, are you sure it is wise to mention your sister´s name here? I wouldn´t!
-
Patti I apologise I am done now with Grahame for good so don't worry it is over with.
-
Alias when I joined the forum I had only been on the internet for three months and my friend said not to use my own name here in the Highlands as it is quite unusual. My sister who has since died said to use her name as she does not do the internet but that is why I was so upset when the post was put up on Red but have to say John and Tim were brilliant and removed it very quickly and I will always be grateful to them for that . When I joined the forum in my sheer ignorance I was not aware my name would be posted up with each post otherwise I could have been Snowdrop or Rose anything but her name. Once I changed my username to Susan all was well thank goodness.
-
Very true. Sensationalism, but I can see where the paper is coming from: business, they want to sell copies.
What I have a problem with is that "someone" fed this to the newspaper, in the process implicating Jeremy Bamber, Jackie and NGB.
Why, you have to ask yourself.
It's someone with an unnatural " hatred " for all three. I have a bad feeling about it.
Jeremy is hated for who he is,and not so much what the writer says he's done.
Jackie because she's an easy target to mimic,as the ploy is to make everyone think it's her.
NGB,really and honestly I've no idea,apart from the fact that he's been in contact with Jeremy in the past,but it's no reason to involve him in any mud-slinging.
I'm going to say that the person who went to the trouble of causing this mayhem,is unhinged and has to be really hard up to tell such lies.
-
I was asked a question by Janus and Caroline said she was also curious...so, I answer the question and it's completely ignored. Please, don't ask if you cannot have the courtesy to even acknowledge a reply.
Hi AA, sorry, I had to go out so have only just seen this. I wasn't ignoring you.
-
As far as I know, he has never been involved in anything of this nature before; why would he start now at fifty three? Unlikely. Besides, he is not that stupid that he wouldn´t know it would harm him big time.
When I first joined ***** warned me of two things.
1). I believe he is guilty, so never ever write to him. Because you have to include your address and she had heard many times where addresses had been passed on to the campaign team and that this is where abuse started.
Same for when people are supporters and fall out with him.
2). She told me never to join the facebook pages.
Not saying that has to do with THIS letter, because although i do believe it was by a supporter I don't think Bamber had anything to do with it, but it's food for thought about who we give our personal details to in the future.
-
Alias when I joined the forum I had only been on the internet for three months and my friend said not to use my own name here in the Highlands as it is quite unusual. My sister who has since died said to use her name as she does not do the internet but that is why I was so upset when the post was put up on Red but have to say John and Tim were brilliant and removed it very quickly and I will always be grateful to them for that . When I joined the forum in my sheer ignorance I was not aware my name would be posted up with each post otherwise I could have been Snowdrop or Rose anything but her name. Once I changed my username to Susan all was well thank goodness.
I remember that well Susan. I was a moderator at the time and I went to great lengths to have that thread taken down a full days negotiations if I am correct. John as always obliged and while doing so took some more threads down. It was a difficult time as I remember just prior to the truce.
Please can we end all of this now..... :(
-
When I first joined ****** warned me of two things.
1). I believe he is guilty, so never ever write to him. Because you have to include your address and she had heard many times where addresses had been passed on to the campaign team and that this is where abuse started.
Same for when people are supporters and fall out with him.
2). She told me never to join the facebook pages.
Not saying that has to do with THIS letter, because although i do believe it was by a supporter I don't think Bamber had anything to do with it, but it's food for thought about who we give our personal details to in the future.
Mat I am not sure you should be revealing this sort of information about *****. She supported Jeremy quite strongly If I remember rightly. It was not until her real name was revealed and her personal details of where she worked that she refrained from posting on here. Those details however were not revealed on this forum.
I cannot and will never understand how someone can gain confidence in a poster then at the same time reveal that posters details. It not cricket Mat is it?
I have been friends with you since day and yet I have never ever asked you a personal question. Yet on the other hand I have revealed all my hand to you. I have nothing to hide you see, what you see is what you get....Yeah I am a grumpy bugger sometimes, we all are...I am only human with the normal feeling that go with it.
So please forgive me if I strike through the name you have mentioned.
-
When I first joined xxxx warned me of two things.
1). I believe he is guilty, so never ever write to him. Because you have to include your address and she had heard many times where addresses had been passed on to the campaign team and that this is where abuse started.
Same for when people are supporters and fall out with him.
2). She told me never to join the facebook pages.
Not saying that has to do with THIS letter, because although i do believe it was by a supporter I don't think Bamber had anything to do with it, but it's food for thought about who we give our personal details to in the future.
Absolutely! People need to be careful.
-
It was posted on the open forum, hence why I've repeated it in the open - but feel free to edit it. She was/is a Bamber supporter. Her warning was about the campaign team. I don't know who leaked Keira's details as I wasn't speaking to her at that time and only saw who spread the details and not where they got them from.
-
Patti I remember it well and I know you put yourself out and I have not forgotten that and I will always be grateful to you. Patti I was not aware that you had removed my posts until the thing about the pm to Caroline was mentioned all done now and forgotten.
-
Read the article again. Some things were nagging at me.
This mostly:
"The anonymous letter - written with a typewriter and posted in Essex last month - warns: "Jeremy is close to getting out now and he will not allow you to harm or deny him the opportunity to gain the freedom he deserves.
"He may still be inside but Mr super cop he's still a powerful man and ... he is influential with people outside who he will have destroy you and whatever claims you try to make in your book or anyone else that obstructs his path to freedom come to that.
"We will make sure he gets his way and do what it takes so back off, Jeremy's going to get you.""
First, a typewriter! Blimey, it sounds like something out of an old crime novel. Who uses a typewriter these days?!
Secondly, isn´t it a little presumptious to think that some obscure writer from Orkney Islands has so powerful information that he could keep Jeremy Bamber behind bars - where he is anyway, and most probably will stay for many years to come - if not until the day he dies.
How can this author of an unpublished book "deny him the opportunity to gain (....) freedom."?
"Obstruct his path to freedom..."
Thirdly,
"But Mr Harrison said his book will "finally bring closure" and prove Bamber's guilt beyond doubt when it is published ahead of the 30th anniversary of the slayings next August."
Errrr, there IS closure - it happened almost thrity years ago! Again, JB is behind bars - what is it that this author needs to prove?
Or is it just that he wants to sell books?
Runs and hides.
:P :P :P :P :P and more :P and a ::)
-
Read the article again. Some things were nagging at me.
This mostly:
"The anonymous letter - written with a typewriter and posted in Essex last month - warns: "Jeremy is close to getting out now and he will not allow you to harm or deny him the opportunity to gain the freedom he deserves.
"He may still be inside but Mr super cop he's still a powerful man and ... he is influential with people outside who he will have destroy you and whatever claims you try to make in your book or anyone else that obstructs his path to freedom come to that.
"We will make sure he gets his way and do what it takes so back off, Jeremy's going to get you.""
First, a typewriter! Blimey, it sounds like something out of an old crime novel. Who uses a typewriter these days?!
Secondly, isn´t it a little presumptious to think that some obscure writer from Orkney Islands has so powerful information that he could keep Jeremy Bamber behind bars - where he is anyway, and most probably will stay for many years to come - if not until the day he dies.
How can this author of an unpublished book "deny him the opportunity to gain (....) freedom."?
"Obstruct his path to freedom..."
Thirdly,
"But Mr Harrison said his book will "finally bring closure" and prove Bamber's guilt beyond doubt when it is published ahead of the 30th anniversary of the slayings next August."
Errrr, there IS closure - it happened almost thrity years ago! Again, JB is behind bars - what is it that this author needs to prove?
Or is it just that he wants to sell books?
Runs and hides.
:P :P :P :P :P and more :P and a ::)
Who are we? I wonder.
-
I have just written a post on red about it. Books on the Yorkshire Ripper and the Moors murders still get published, they were found guilty and are now doing time, natural life. Bamber is no different from the others. Im actually surprised that more books havent been published about Bamber.
True Crime books sell well, wether the murderer is caught and convicted or not.
-
You can buy very upmarket electronic typewriters now,a far cry from the noisy clattery keys that we imagine.
-
I have just written a post on red about it. Books on the Yorkshire Ripper and the Moors murders still get published, they were found guilty and are now doing time, natural life. Bamber is no different from the others. Im actually surprised that more books havent been published about Bamber.
True Crime books sell well, wether the murderer is caught and convicted or not.
But the article is sensationally mentioning some bombshell information that will prevent Jeremy Bamber from gaining his freedom.
I haven´t heard about him being about to gain his freedom!
___________________________
"He added: "Having studied and worked within psychological and criminal profiling since the late 1980s, I know how the criminal mind works. Jeremy Bamber may be incarcerated within Full Sutton prison but he still manipulates and has disciples committed to helping him in any way they can."
Like JB is some kind of Charles Manson with "discilples".
The more I read that article in debth, the more absurd the whole thing gets!
-
I have just written a post on red about it. Books on the Yorkshire Ripper and the Moors murders still get published, they were found guilty and are now doing time, natural life. Bamber is no different from the others. Im actually surprised that more books havent been published about Bamber.
True Crime books sell well, wether the murderer is caught and convicted or not.
I agree Andrea, crime books are really popular.
-
"I feel violated by the unwanted intrusion and threats but will not desist in my pursuance of putting the truth of what actually happened at White House Farm in the public domain, it may not make palatable reading for all but it will finally bring closure to the case for all involved."
Again, there is closure. (http://royalchatter.com/Smileys/Smiley%20set1/352nmsp.gif)
-
Who are we? I wonder.
Reminds me of the (fake) ransom note in the JonBenet Ramsey case.
It starts: "Mr. Ramsey, Listen carefully. We are a group of individuals...."
-
Alias what is the little face and hands doing :'( crying, clapping or what :'(
-
Reminds me of the (fake) ransom note in the JonBenet Ramsey case.
It starts: "Mr. Ramsey, Listen carefully. We are a group of individuals...."
The 3 page note on the stairs? I've never read that Alias, I would be interested in reading it.
JonBonet's parents were persecuted for years. Her mother died a few years back... :(
-
But the article is sensationally mentioning some bombshell information that will prevent Jeremy Bamber from gaining his freedom.
I haven´t heard about him being about to gain his freedom!
___________________________
"He added: "Having studied and worked within psychological and criminal profiling since the late 1980s, I know how the criminal mind works. Jeremy Bamber may be incarcerated within Full Sutton prison but he still manipulates and has disciples committed to helping him in any way they can."
Like JB is some kind of Charles Manson with "discilples".
The more I read that article in debth, the more absurd the whole thing gets!
As I said before PH is a sensationalist and personally I think this is 1) a publicity stunt. If he has actually received a letter from someone unknown then the most likely people to have sent it are 2) those who will benefit the most from his reaction ie those who believe Bamber to be guilty. You may say, "How do you figure that out?" Well just look at the disruption and accusations that have been thrown about on the forum of late including the accusation by someone that I even wrote to him and caused trouble among certain members.
Who are those who are rubbing their hands with glee now over accusing Jackie? Those who think Bamber to be guilty. Just 2 possibilities to throw into the hat.
-
Who are we? I wonder.
I should think by using the word we, the person who allegedly wrote the letter wanted to give the impression that they are a bigger entity than they are? On the other hand if this is a publicity stunt by PH then it appears to give the impression that it was sent by one of the campaign team? Which I doubt very much? So if a letter was sent it was probably sent by either as scipio suggested a wacko Bamber supporter or a wacko guilter and I know plenty of those. ;)
-
As I said before PH is a sensationalist and personally I think this is 1) a publicity stunt. If he has actually received a letter from someone unknown then the most likely people to have sent it are 2) those who will benefit the most from his reaction ie those who believe Bamber to be guilty. You may say, "How do you figure that out?" Well just look at the disruption and accusations that have been thrown about on the forum of late including the accusation by someone that I even wrote to him and caused trouble among certain members.
Who are those who are rubbing their hands with glee now over accusing Jackie? Those who think Bamber to be guilty. Just 2 possibilities to throw into the hat.
And now you speak of "throw(n) into the hat", which was basically what NGB was, thrown into the hat. What has he got to do with this sordid business, why was his name mentioned. Why was he named Jeremy Bamber´s "protector".
PAH, this is someone out to get those three, as I said earlier! (Others have mentioned it too, not trying to take credit, just sharing my thoughts.)
____________
Susan, the little man doesn´t know what is going on - he is doubtful.
-
The 3 page note on the stairs? I've never read that Alias, I would be interested in reading it.
JonBonet's parents were persecuted for years. Her mother died a few years back... :(
It´s here. Sorry mods for being off topic. Oh, ooppps, that´s you, Patti, so HEY HO! ;)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/ransom-note?page=0
-
I'm a little concerned that in the rush to exonerate X the important fact has been overlooked of a poison pen letter threatening death which has apparently been sent to someone living in a remote area. There's been much said about if he'd really had the letter he'd have done/not done. He'd have gone to the police. It seems he DID speak to someone connected to them. Probably enough for an ex policeman to know what would -WOULDN'T- happen if he took it further. A paper published parts of the letter, hardly SIGHT UNSEEN I imagine.
Has anyone considered for a moment how difficult it would be for Jeremy to get that sort of request out of the prison when all outgoing and incoming mail is checked. Jeremy has spent the best part of 30 years trying to gain his freedom. Is it conceivable that he'd risk the SLIGHTEST chance of that happening by issuing mindless threats by proxy?
Perhaps we should all stop for a moment and imagine how WE would feel if it was one of us who'd received such a letter before we fall over ourselves in the attempt to deny it was anything to do with a person he hasn't actually accused. If we want to play detective perhaps we should look at what we know rather than making assumptions about what we don't know.
-
I should think by using the word we, the person who allegedly wrote the letter wanted to give the impression that they are a bigger entity than they are? On the other hand if this is a publicity stunt by PH then it appears to give the impression that it was sent by one of the campaign team? Which I doubt very much? So if a letter was sent it was probably sent by either as scipio suggested a wacko Bamber supporter or a wacko guilter and I know plenty of those. ;)
But why would the campaign team implicate Jackie and NGB?
This is my take on it Grahame.
1. He disliked what was being said about him on here and the red.
2. Someone had announced he had died (which was not good at all) I can understand his anger at that.
3. Jackie's thread which caused a right ole commotion in which he posted in and appeared rather angry.
4. He then had words with NGB and made threats.
5 He was banned as a consequence of that argument.
6. He was also banned from the red forum
7. He now receives a threat on his life implicating the two people 3 and 4.
8. He discusses the threatening letter with a contact from the police...He does not make a formal complaint.
9. He then gets in touch with the press and hey up!
10. The reporter makes contact with NGB
11. On the Sunday 19th October it is all in Scotland's Sunday Express hitting front page headlines.
12. Its either a publicity campaign to sell his book
13. He does not say the letter is written by a male or female.
14. It is true and it really did occur
15. If its the latter then it is someone who has a deep grudge on NGB and Jackie.
I think its a bag of bol****ks to be honest.... ;)
-
How would someone know PH's address ?
Why would PH believe that Jeremy is a threat after 29 years ?
" Mr Super Cop " ( how odd ) is an online game or an arcade game on Youtube. More a MAN thing !?
So it's a man posing as a woman.
-
It´s here. Sorry mods for being off topic. Oh, ooppps, that´s you, Patti, so HEY HO! ;)
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/ransom-note?page=0
Thank you for that Alias. Why send a note when she was already dead in the basement?
The last bit sounds personal I think...a bit like the the pipe bomber????
-
How would someone know PH's address ?
Why would PH believe that Jeremy is a threat after 29 years ?
" Mr Super Cop " ( how odd ) is an online game or an arcade game on Youtube. More a MAN thing !?
So it's a man posing as a woman.
Mr Super Cop seems like it's mocking Harrison because he says he has uncovered new evidence. you make a good point at who would be in a position to find out PH's address as not just anyone could find that information out.
Alias, I watched a program on that case recently. The lead investigator still believes it was the parents, in particular the father.
-
How would someone know PH's address ?
Why would PH believe that Jeremy is a threat after 29 years ?
" Mr Super Cop " ( how odd ) is an online game or an arcade game on Youtube. More a MAN thing !?
So it's a man posing as a woman.
Women play arcade games online too, its not just a man thing. I know loads of female gamers.
-
theres 2 coments on that artical the top ones mine look at the one below.
-
Hartley!
;D
-
its easy you can do it through facebook.
-
Women play arcade games online too, its not just a man thing. I know loads of female gamers.
More likely to be a man because of the " bullet threat ".
-
How would someone know PH's address ?
Why would PH believe that Jeremy is a threat after 29 years ?
" Mr Super Cop " ( how odd ) is an online game or an arcade game on Youtube. More a MAN thing !?
So it's a man posing as a woman.
Its easily done Lookout. Too much free information, plus for a small fee you can get anything these days.
The next future will be enacted via the internet....machines will take over and there will be no more standing in a bus queue to go the pub, shopping or cinema....Computers are taking over and we are addicted to them whether we admit it or not its the new social habit lolol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
theres 2 coments on that artical the top ones mine look at the one below.
Where Nugs???
-
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524489/Mass-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-s-threat-to-Scots-author-Harrison
here have a look.
-
Mr Super Cop seems like it's mocking Harrison because he says he has uncovered new evidence. you make a good point at who would be in a position to find out PH's address as not just anyone could find that information out.
Alias, I watched a program on that case recently. The lead investigator still believes it was the parents, in particular the father.
I have read a lot about the Ramsey case. I still don´t know what to think. The closest I am to a suspect is within the close family, but not the parents. They did cover up the crime though. ...possibly. It is a horrible case, and we will never know who did it!
-
More likely to be a man because of the " bullet threat ".
I agree about that. "You dodged one bullet", sounds like something a man would write, but of course, you never know.
-
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524489/Mass-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-s-threat-to-Scots-author-Harrison
here have a look.
I don´t see any comments. :'(
-
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524489/Mass-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-s-threat-to-Scots-author-Harrison
here have a look.
Oh Yeah....Hartley! Me milk bottle top holder. ;)
-
I don´t see any comments. :'(
2 CommentsRSS|Subscribe
StevenBones6 hours ago
i think things may not be what they seem here.
Reply 0
Hartley1 day ago
What a horrible existence these people must have.
Reply +1
-
So you have to subscribe to see the comments?
-
So you have to subscribe to see the comments?
they take a while to load, keep scrolling down. :)
-
they take a while to load, keep scrolling down. :)
The page has been open for a couple of hours, I still can´t see them! Well, never mind, Patti posted them. Nugs and Hartley are the only ones commenting! I am laughing about that - guess I should go to bed! :P
-
Even the sentence including "notorious gunman " is an ID---male.
-
they take a while to load, keep scrolling down. :)
Hartley had a reply but I can't see it....I think you have to register?
-
But why would the campaign team implicate Jackie and NGB?
This is my take on it Grahame.
1. He disliked what was being said about him on here and the red.
2. Someone had announced he had died (which was not good at all) I can understand his anger at that.
3. Jackie's thread which caused a right ole commotion in which he posted in and appeared rather angry.
4. He then had words with NGB and made threats.
5 He was banned as a consequence of that argument.
6. He was also banned from the red forum
7. He now receives a threat on his life implicating the two people 3 and 4.
8. He discusses the threatening letter with a contact from the police...He does not make a formal complaint.
9. He then gets in touch with the press and hey up!
10. The reporter makes contact with NGB
11. On the Sunday 19th October it is all in Scotland's Sunday Express hitting front page headlines.
12. Its either a publicity campaign to sell his book
13. He does not say the letter is written by a male or female.
14. It is true and it really did occur
15. If its the latter then it is someone who has a deep grudge on NGB and Jackie.
I think its a bag of bol****ks to be honest.... ;)
Why was he banned on the red forum Patti?
-
Why was he banned on the red forum Patti?
I don't know Grahame. Maybe Mat can give us an explanation? :)
-
I seem to vaguely remember some threat similar to this whilst on facebook. Someone told someone else, "Jeremy eill send his hitman after you". I wonder if it is the same person?
-
I don't know Grahame. Maybe Mat can give us an explanation? :)
I wasn't aware that he is banned from the red forum, in fact I don't think I even remember him being a member there.
-
I don't know Grahame. Maybe Mat can give us an explanation? :)
So it isn't just the Bamber forum that was involved then?
-
I wasn't aware that he is banned from the red forum, in fact I don't think I even remember him being a member there.
Yes he was Mat. Not sure why he was banned though. :-\
-
I wasn't aware that he is banned from the red forum, in fact I don't think I even remember him being a member there.
No I don't recall him being a member either :-\
-
No I don't recall him being a member either :-\
See post 83: A reminder if one was necessary, PH was banned from both forums.
-
So it isn't just the Bamber forum that was involved then?
I wouldn't like to say Grahame...As it stands no one can say who the letter came from, that's if it really exists. Why didn't the press show a copy of the letter? Or extracts from it?
-
See post 83:
Yes that is right I remember John saying that, but I also remember from somewhere else....Must have seen it on the red forum that he had been banned.
I think at the time they did not believe who he was.... ;)
-
Yes that is right I remember John saying that, but I also remember from somewhere....Must have seen it on the red forum that he had been banned.
I think at the time they did not believe who he was.... ;)
I didn't see any of the altercation on here that got him banned? I think he was banned because of threats made to ngb, but I can't be sure?
-
I wouldn't like to say Grahame...As it stands no one can say who the letter came from, that's if it really exists. Why didn't the press show a copy of the letter? Or extracts from it?
A newspaper isn't going to publish a story about a letter without seeing it. Paul Harrison is a respected author, he isn't going to risk damaging his reputation by lying.
-
A newspaper isn't going to publish a story about a letter without seeing it. Paul Harrison is a respected author, he isn't going to risk damaging his reputation by lying.
I never heard of him until he was mentioned on this forum.
-
A newspaper isn't going to publish a story about a letter without seeing it. Paul Harrison is a respected author, he isn't going to risk damaging his reputation by lying.
So why has he not taken things further? I just don't understand it. He received a threat yet he goes to the press who insinuate that the letter may have come from this forum.
Hand on heart Caroline can you see anyone on this forum telling him that he has dodged one bullet and Jeremy is watching you, and keep looking over your shoulder....If this letter is genuine then I urge him to take it forward. Saying that the police wont do anything is incorrect. Am mans life may be in danger and they have to take this very seriously. You know that and so do I.
If the letter is genuine, then it must have come from a forum who knows JP and NGB and is holding a grudge. I doubt the campaign team are even aware of it and I honestly do not think it is anyone from that there.
I know we should not guess....or assume, but like always we don't know the full facts. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
i dont think he made it up becouse i cant see him using those words.
-
So why has he not taken things further? I just don't understand it. He received a threat yet he goes to the press with aligations that it might be someone from this forum.
Hand on heart Caroline can you see anyone on this forum telling him that he has dodged one bullet and Jeremy is watching you, and keep looking over your shoulder....If this letter is genuine then I urge him to take it forward. Saying that the police wont do anything is incorrect. Am mans life may be in danger and they have to take this very seriously. You know that and so do I.
If the letter is genuine, then it must have come from a forum who knows JP and NGB and is holding a grudge. I doubt the campaign team are even aware of it and I honestly do not think it is anyone from that there.
I know we should not guess....or assume, but like always we don't know the full facts. :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
He states clearly why he isn't taking things further, because after discussing things with a police officer, he decided it wouldn't go anywhere because I guess it can't be proved who sent it. However, I'd say I don't agree with that and maybe (and I hope he does) he'll have a change of heart and peruse it.
I don't think it was sent by someone holding a grudge against Jackie or NGB, I think it's someone holding a grudge against Paul Harrison and I do believe the letter is genuine because he has no reason to lie.
I should add that I don't think Jeremy Bamber would ever be party to something like this as he has far too much to lose. However, if this is a supporter, they have done him some real damage.
-
i dont think he made it up becouse i cant see him using those words.
I have gotten to know him quite well and I know he wouldn't make up this kind of story!!
-
Course he didn't make it up.
The newspaper did extensive reaserch in contacting NGB and contacting JAckie's employers for comment. They printed it on the front page.
They wouldn't do that without being sure they aren't being used for a publicity stunt.
-
All of JB"s letters are read by the prison! That includes mail going in and coming out!
I repeat ALL mail will be read. Prisons on the whole do not accept mail without a name and address of the sender.
Therefore I believe whoever is behind this is a troll.
-
Course he didn't make it up.
The newspaper did extensive reaserch in contacting NGB and contacting JAckie's employers for comment. They printed it on the front page.
They wouldn't do that without being sure they aren't being used for a publicity stunt.
Of course they wouldn't - they would have to be pretty sure it was genuine.
-
i dont think he made it up becouse i cant see him using those words.
I'd like it if he made a formal complaint if the letter is genuine, with hope of catching the person responsible Nugs.
He is an ex policeman so he knows what he is doing is not right.
I'll tell you a short story Nugs.
A few years my son went out on the town. When he came home he was very ill and I put it down to drinking too much. He argued with me and told me that he had hardly drank anything. Meanwhile, he also told me this cotton bull story that whilst he went out of one of the pubs for some fresh air he was mugged and had his wallet taken. I did not believe at first, but he was so ill.
I contacted the police who took a statement from my son. I got the gut feeling they didn't believe him. My son went for a blood test and they found some drug inside of him that was enough to knock an elephant out...I have forgotten the name of it. I then thought OMG he is on drugs....I pondered and I knew in my heart that my son was not lying.
Meanwhile his wallet was missing so he had to notify the bank. His whole account had been wiped out and according to his account it had been used to buy item off Ebay.
The police did nothing. I myself did my own investigation and when I had all the information I needed I handed it over to the police.
It was only then they decided to look at the CCTV in the pub and picked my son out and noticed that someone a girl had spiked his drink. This made him very poorly so he went outside and sat on the kirb edge and this is when he was robbed.
The girl was arrested and charged in the end and my son got a full apology.....
The point I am making is that if you do nothing, nothing will get done and these sort of people will get away with it time after time. :)
-
All of JB"s letters are read by the prison! That includes mail going in and coming out!
I repeat ALL mail will be read. Prisons on the whole do not accept mail without a name and address of the sender.
Therefore I believe whoever is behind this is a troll.
This is true and I don't believe he had anything to do with it.
-
He states clearly why he isn't taking things further, because after discussing things with a police officer, he decided it wouldn't go anywhere because I guess it can't be proved who sent it. However, I'd say I don't agree with that and maybe (and I hope he does) he'll have a change of heart and peruse it.
I don't think it was sent by someone holding a grudge against Jackie or NGB, I think it's someone holding a grudge against Paul Harrison and I do believe the letter is genuine because he has no reason to lie.
I should add that I don't think Jeremy Bamber would ever be party to something like this as he has far too much to lose. However, if this is a supporter, they have done him some real damage.
Well that is up to PH of course. I would certainly pursue it. How does he know this letter cannot be traced if he hasn't tried? Surely with today's technology there has to be some DNA or something that can be of use. He does not say he went to the police he merely had a contact.
Back in the Yorkshire Ripper days....George Oldfield received letters and it is only with new technology many years later that the sender was found....
I would want the sender behind bars would you? :-\
-
He states clearly why he isn't taking things further, because after discussing things with a police officer, he decided it wouldn't go anywhere because I guess it can't be proved who sent it. However, I'd say I don't agree with that and maybe (and I hope he does) he'll have a change of heart and peruse it.
I don't think it was sent by someone holding a grudge against Jackie or NGB, I think it's someone holding a grudge against Paul Harrison and I do believe the letter is genuine because he has no reason to lie.
I should add that I don't think Jeremy Bamber would ever be party to something like this as he has far too much to lose. However, if this is a supporter, they have done him some real damage.
I could agree with that Caroline.
-
Well that is up to PH of course. I would certainly pursue it. How does he know this letter cannot be traced if he hasn't tried? Surely with today's technology there has to be some DNA or something that can be of use. He does not say he went to the police he merely had a contact.
Back in the Yorkshire Ripper days....George Oldfield received letters and it is only with new technology many years later that the sender was found....
I would want the sender behind bars would you? :-\
Of course!!
-
I think the prison should be investigated also.
'IF' and that's a big IF a letter like this was allowed to be sent out by JB - which is highly unlikely - then the officers who should have checked his mail need to be spoken to! Heads should roll IMO!
-
I'd like it if he made a formal complaint if the letter is genuine, with hope of catching the person responsible Nugs.
He is an ex policeman so he knows what he is doing is not right.
I'll tell you a short story Nugs.
A few years my son went out on the town. When he came home he was very ill and I put it down to drinking too much. He argued with me and told me that he had hardly drank anything. Meanwhile, he also told me this cotton bull story that whilst he went out of one of the pubs for some fresh air he was mugged and had his wallet taken. I did not believe at first, but he was so ill.
I contacted the police who took a statement from my son. I got the gut feeling they didn't believe him. My son went for a blood test and they found some drug inside of him that was enough to knock an elephant out...I have forgotten the name of it. I then thought OMG he is on drugs....I pondered and I knew in my heart that my son was not lying.
Meanwhile his wallet was missing so he had to notify the bank. His whole account had been wiped out and according to his account it had been used to buy item off Ebay.
The police did nothing. I myself did my own investigation and when I had all the information I needed I handed it over to the police.
It was only then they decided to look at the CCTV in the pub and picked my son out and noticed that someone a girl had spiked his drink. This made him very poorly so he went outside and sat on the kirb edge and this is when he was robbed.
The girl was arrested and charged in the end and my son got a full apology.....
The point I am making is that if you do nothing, nothing will get done and these sort of people will get away with it time after time. :)
That's a very interesting story Patti. My son has also an interesting story when he was arrested for something he had not done.
I noted particularly the bit about the police finding drugs in his blood stream. Just think, this could have been another moj if you hadn't done your own investigation. That one fact of this girl spiking his drink was missing. Yet it was the vital element that vindicated your son. Interesting.
-
Well that is up to PH of course. I would certainly pursue it. How does he know this letter cannot be traced if he hasn't tried? Surely with today's technology there has to be some DNA or something that can be of use. He does not say he went to the police he merely had a contact.
Back in the Yorkshire Ripper days....George Oldfield received letters and it is only with new technology many years later that the sender was found....
I would want the sender behind bars would you? :-\
Yes I would Patti, because it is malicious and damaging for all parties including PH himself no doubt? Although it has led to people having suspicions about the wrong people. Innocent people. I suspect that the writer of this alleged letter knew exactly what they would achieve?
-
Well that is up to PH of course. I would certainly pursue it. How does he know this letter cannot be traced if he hasn't tried? Surely with today's technology there has to be some DNA or something that can be of use. He does not say he went to the police he merely had a contact.
Back in the Yorkshire Ripper days....George Oldfield received letters and it is only with new technology many years later that the sender was found....
I would want the sender behind bars would you? :-\
well you would think so wouldn't you and your right how does he know they would impossble to trace if he doesnt try and trace them.
-
That's a very interesting story Patti. My son has also an interesting story when he was arrested for something he had not done.
I noted particularly the bit about the police finding drugs in his blood stream. Just think, this could have been another moj if you hadn't done your own investigation. That one fact of this girl spiking his drink was missing. Yet it was the vital element that vindicated your son. Interesting.
It was an hard time Grahame. I had my doubts that he was telling me the truth, but when I saw how ill he was for several days after and the look in eyes that said please believe me mum. I melted on the spot. I knew from then on my son was telling me the truth and he was.
The story sounded so far fetched and I was ill at the time, but I regret not believing him and in him.
I am trying to think of the drug....i now it end "lin"
I've had several runs ins Grahame....I contacted MWT about it....The police were pathetic and I told them so at the time. CEOP were wonderful and got the matter resolved very quickly.
It takes a long time to recover from something like that Grahame....I hope your son is OK... :)
-
I remember that horrendous incident with your son,Patti. The investigation was abysmal considering it was so serious. It's not something that you get over in a hurry either,and does make you aware that there are those around who do go all out to ruin peoples' lives. Nutjobs !
-
It was an hard time Grahame. I had my doubts that he was telling me the truth, but when I saw how ill he was for several days after and the look in eyes that said please believe me mum. I melted on the spot. I knew from then on my son was telling me the truth and he was.
The story sounded so far fetched and I was ill at the time, but I regret not believing him and in him.
I am trying to think of the drug....i now it end "lin"
I've had several runs ins Grahame....I contacted MWT about it....The police were pathetic and I told them so at the time. CEOP were wonderful and got the matter resolved very quickly.
It takes a long time to recover from something like that Grahame....I hope your son is OK... :)
I can see now why you have doubts about Bamber's guilt Patti, as do I. Your story tells me a lot about your insight into these things. Although everything seems to point to Bamber being guilty I have grave concerns that Essex police are holding something vital back?
-
I remember that horrendous incident with your son,Patti. The investigation was abysmal considering it was so serious. It's not something that you get over in a hurry either,and does make you aware that there are those around who do go all out to ruin peoples' lives. Nutjobs !
Although I try to help the police quite often through my work I nevertheless think they let us down on many occasions (I'm not an enemy og the police as some think) it frustrates me to see how incredibly stupid they sometimes can be and you will be surprised just how many moj's there are because of this. PH said afer 30 years he has some kind of sixth sense about the criminal mind I suggest that too many coppers trust in this "sixth sense" and that if there is no evidence they create some evidence? This together with this unbreakable comradeship and vow of silence when one of them is in trouble makes a dangerous mix. I don't say this idley either even PH said something similar himself.
-
But why would the campaign team implicate Jackie and NGB?
This is my take on it Grahame.
1. He disliked what was being said about him on here and the red.
2. Someone had announced he had died (which was not good at all) I can understand his anger at that.
3. Jackie's thread which caused a right ole commotion in which he posted in and appeared rather angry.
4. He then had words with NGB and made threats.
5 He was banned as a consequence of that argument.
6. He was also banned from the red forum
7. He now receives a threat on his life implicating the two people 3 and 4.
8. He discusses the threatening letter with a contact from the police...He does not make a formal complaint.
9. He then gets in touch with the press and hey up!
10. The reporter makes contact with NGB
11. On the Sunday 19th October it is all in Scotland's Sunday Express hitting front page headlines.
12. Its either a publicity campaign to sell his book
13. He does not say the letter is written by a male or female.
14. It is true and it really did occur
15. If its the latter then it is someone who has a deep grudge on NGB and Jackie.
I think its a bag of bol****ks to be honest.... ;)
Patti, surely you can't believe that the thoughts of a handful of people on a pro(?) Bamber forum is of ANY significance to a widely known -even if Grahame HAS'T previously heard of him- and respected author.
1. He probably couldn't care less
2. You're right. He wouldn't have liked it.
3. Anger was the appropriate response to it.
4. I imagine he was fighting his corner.
5. A professional hazard. We weren't his buddies. We'd served our purpose.
6. Ditto
7. Had one of those not misleadingly and knowingly implicated themself it wouldn't have been known.
8. It seems he was advised.
9. He turned something negative into a positive. Better for him psychologically.
10. Neil was mentioned. They didn't pull his name from a hat.
11. Basically, it's his local rag.
12. Why NOT make it work for him. Again better psychologically.
13. So why the rush to defend and exonerate a particular person? Thoughts you'd rather NOT have?
14. YES!!! Scary thought, that, isn't it?
15. OR it's someone who has a VERY deep grudge against PH because......................
I hope he takes this further, Patti and I can't believe you don't. The suggestion here, that an author of renown is going to MAKE UP a story of a poison pen letter -let alone one which implicates REAL people- to sell a book guaranteed, because of the genre, to sell, smacks of panic.
-
How would someone know PH's address ?
Why would PH believe that Jeremy is a threat after 29 years ?
" Mr Super Cop " ( how odd ) is an online game or an arcade game on Youtube. More a MAN thing !?
So it's a man posing as a woman.
That would depend on what search facilities they have at their disposal.
Not for a moment do I believe he does.
YOU know about it!
So it's a woman attempting to make it look as if it's a man posing as a woman.
-
Patti, surely you can't believe that the thoughts of a handful of people on a pro(?) Bamber forum is of ANY significance to a widely known -even if Grahame HAS'T previously heard of him- and respected author.
1. He probably couldn't care less
2. You're right. He wouldn't have liked it.
3. Anger was the appropriate response to it.
4. I imagine he was fighting his corner.
5. A professional hazard. We weren't his buddies. We'd served our purpose.
6. Ditto
7. Had one of those not misleadingly and knowingly implicated themself it wouldn't have been known.
8. It seems he was advised.
9. He turned something negative into a positive. Better for him psychologically.
10. Neil was mentioned. They didn't pull his name from a hat.
11. Basically, it's his local rag.
12. Why NOT make it work for him. Again better psychologically.
13. So why the rush to defend and exonerate a particular person? Thoughts you'd rather NOT have?
14. YES!!! Scary thought, that, isn't it?
15. OR it's someone who has a VERY deep grudge against PH because......................
I hope he takes this further, Patti and I can't believe you don't. The suggestion here, that an author of renown is going to MAKE UP a story of a poison pen letter -let alone one which implicates REAL people- to sell a book guaranteed, because of the genre, to sell, smacks of panic.
Hi April, I think that you have hit on something there? We had served our purpose. What was that? "Publicity that he needed". Thinking about it he was always cagey and guarded in what he said and didn't actually commit himself, but kept on about this new book that looked rather at the investigation side rather than at Bamber himself. He kept members attention. I also remember certain guilter members telling us he was a phoney and that there are no books coming out about Bamber. First it was being published in August of this year. Then there was a legal problem. Then the excuse was that some of his investigation was being used in an up and coming appeal. Now we read that it will be coming out NEXT August and so it goes on. He was definitely using this forum as a podium for his book and it was definitely aimed at interesting the Bamber supporters as he did capture out attention.
-
Hi April, I think that you have hit on something there? We had served our purpose. What was that? "Publicity that he needed". Thinking about it he was always cagey and guarded in what he said and didn't actually commit himself, but kept on about this new book that looked rather at the investigation side rather than at Bamber himself. He kept members attention. I also remember certain guilter members telling us he was a phoney and that there are no books coming out about Bamber. First it was being published in August of this year. Then there was a legal problem. Then the excuse was that some of his investigation was being used in an up and coming appeal. Now we read that it will be coming out NEXT August and so it goes on. He was definitely using this forum as a podium for his book and it was definitely aimed at interesting the Bamber supporters as he did capture out attention.
EUREKA!!! Grahame, now you realised that his relationship with us was NEVER personal, it may become clear that the letter he received -and you may rest assured that he did because no national publication will run a story like that without proof- was VERY personal. The book will eventually be published. OR not, as the case may be, but WE, and whatever small insights he may have gleaned from us really aren't important enough to have any significance to him and to imagine we are is, IMO, arrogant.
-
I wasn't aware that he is banned from the red forum, in fact I don't think I even remember him being a member there.
He is. John posted about it. Before he was banned he made a couple of posts, maybe even three or four.
-
EUREKA!!! Grahame, now you realised that his relationship with us was NEVER personal, it may become clear that the letter he received -and you may rest assured that he did because no national publication will run a story like that without proof- was VERY personal. The book will eventually be published. OR not, as the case may be, but WE, and whatever small insights he may have gleaned from us really aren't important enough to have any significance to him and to imagine we are is, IMO, arrogant.
they wont run a story without proof did you watch the leversion inquiry.
-
they wont run a story without proof did you watch the leversion inquiry.
I think national papers run stories every day without proof. That is why they employ lawyers and have money set aside in case of libel. Their equipped for that kind of thing. The smaller newspaper are usually part of a grouo, but I'm not sure about how they handle things?
-
Although I try to help the police quite often through my work I nevertheless think they let us down on many occasions (I'm not an enemy og the police as some think) it frustrates me to see how incredibly stupid they sometimes can be and you will be surprised just how many moj's there are because of this. PH said afer 30 years he has some kind of sixth sense about the criminal mind I suggest that too many coppers trust in this "sixth sense" and that if there is no evidence they create some evidence? This together with this unbreakable comradeship and vow of silence when one of them is in trouble makes a dangerous mix. I don't say this idley either even PH said something similar himself.
I must admit myself using " gut instinct " in many areas,but if I was in the police force,I certainly wouldn't rely on that alone,although you get an " instant feel " about someone.
It's all about studying that individual,deeply,and getting into their minds,as well as all the other parts of an investigation.It's not all about " by the book " questioning either.It's how they answer,straight,to the point and remain focussed on the questionnaire,without fidgeting,touching their face,or looking away at certain intervals especially if the question proves uncomfortable. Eyes fixed
There's far more to committing someone than just questioning.
As you get older,and with lifes' experiences,you can tell whether a person is lying or not. Well I can. ;D
I would probably know in an instant whether Jeremy was guilty or not just by speaking to him face to face for a short while.
Neither is it about the written word " guilty " by those who don't know. Only the few who have met Jeremy,can make their own personal judgement,it's impossible to tell from books/newspapers/journalists,,even his own extended family,who've only heard tales,without knowing the real person. A snap judgement,such as EP made,was bad policing,plus the fact that there was NO concrete evidence.
-
Only a crank with a grudge and an enormous chip on his shoulder would write something like that.
They've at least got to back up what's been written.
-
I think national papers run stories every day without proof. That is why they employ lawyers and have money set aside in case of libel. Their equipped for that kind of thing. The smaller newspaper are usually part of a grouo, but I'm not sure about how they handle things?
if they had proof for every story they ran they would never get sued.
-
I must admit myself using " gut instinct " in many areas,but if I was in the police force,I certainly wouldn't rely on that alone,although you get an " instant feel " about someone.
It's all about studying that individual,deeply,and getting into their minds,as well as all the other parts of an investigation.It's not all about " by the book " questioning either.It's how they answer,straight,to the point and remain focussed on the questionnaire,without fidgeting,touching their face,or looking away at certain intervals especially if the question proves uncomfortable. Eyes fixed
There's far more to committing someone than just questioning.
As you get older,and with lifes' experiences,you can tell whether a person is lying or not. Well I can. ;D
I would probably know in an instant whether Jeremy was guilty or not just by speaking to him face to face for a short while.
Neither is it about the written word " guilty " by those who don't know. Only the few who have met Jeremy,can make their own personal judgement,it's impossible to tell from books/newspapers/journalists,,even his own extended family,who've only heard tales,without knowing the real person. A snap judgement,such as EP made,was bad policing,plus the fact that there was NO concrete evidence.
Hi lookout, books and authors are really the same as us who write on the forum. They hopefully do their research, write their book or whatever, but at the end of the day they like us put their own slant on things. I would say that every author does this even if they try to be as neutral as they can. It's a bit like playing chess with yourself, you can't help favouring one side over the other whichever appeals to you.
-
I think national papers run stories every day without proof. That is why they employ lawyers and have money set aside in case of libel. Their equipped for that kind of thing. The smaller newspaper are usually part of a grouo, but I'm not sure about how they handle things?
Are you just making a point or saying that you think it's the case with the letter in question?
-
Are you just making a point or saying that you think it's the case with the letter in question?
No April I didn't have the newspaper article in mind at all. I was just making a general statement about national newspapers. I said I didn't know how local newspapers carry on?
-
Hi lookout, books and authors are really the same as us who write on the forum. They hopefully do their research, write their book or whatever, but at the end of the day they like us put their own slant on things. I would say that every author does this even if they try to be as neutral as they can. It's a bit like playing chess with yourself, you can't help favouring one side over the other whichever appeals to you.
That's right,Mr G. It's all,or mostly,history repeating itself when it's about the same crime. Personally,I don't see the sense,unless something came to light to alter the whole structure of the crime.
The books don't bring you any further on with the crime. ::)
The idiot who pieced together that ( childish ) piece in the paper did a botched job of playing devils advocate,thinking everyone would be taken in by it. Some will do anything for a quick buck. ::)
It's been written by someone with a very childish mind,and I would go as far as to say,not averse to some criminality themselves.
-
That's right,Mr G. It's all,or mostly,history repeating itself when it's about the same crime. Personally,I don't see the sense,unless something came to light to alter the whole structure of the crime.
The books don't bring you any further on with the crime. ::)
The idiot who pieced together that ( childish ) piece in the paper did a botched job of playing devils advocate,thinking everyone would be taken in by it. Some will do anything for a quick buck. ::)
It's been written by someone with a very childish mind,and I would go as far as to say,not averse to some criminality themselves.
Lookout I won't tell you who I think wrote the letter. I'd make even more enemies than I have now? ;D
-
Lookout I won't tell you who I think wrote the letter. I'd make even more enemies than I have now? ;D
I won't ask you Mr G. ;D But have I been " warm " at any time ? ;D ;D
-
Patti, surely you can't believe that the thoughts of a handful of people on a pro(?) Bamber forum is of ANY significance to a widely known -even if Grahame HAS'T previously heard of him- and respected author.
1. He probably couldn't care less
2. You're right. He wouldn't have liked it.
3. Anger was the appropriate response to it.
4. I imagine he was fighting his corner.
5. A professional hazard. We weren't his buddies. We'd served our purpose.
6. Ditto
7. Had one of those not misleadingly and knowingly implicated themself it wouldn't have been known.
8. It seems he was advised.
9. He turned something negative into a positive. Better for him psychologically.
10. Neil was mentioned. They didn't pull his name from a hat.
11. Basically, it's his local rag.
12. Why NOT make it work for him. Again better psychologically.
13. So why the rush to defend and exonerate a particular person? Thoughts you'd rather NOT have?
14. YES!!! Scary thought, that, isn't it?
15. OR it's someone who has a VERY deep grudge against PH because......................
I hope he takes this further, Patti and I can't believe you don't. The suggestion here, that an author of renown is going to MAKE UP a story of a poison pen letter -let alone one which implicates REAL people- to sell a book guaranteed, because of the genre, to sell, smacks of panic.
But I do April. I have said so many times, I want him to. I cannot understand why after reading my posts that you think I don't. Maybe you have misunderstood me. :-\
If I can answer your point 15...
In a sense this could be correct. However, it does mention NGB who is a volunteer administrator of this forum. The whole article is directed at this forum. So therefore I believe there is a deliberate attempt to involve not only PH but others on this forum.
If the letter was solely directed to PH for writing his book about Bamber then yes I can fully agree that it could be someone with a deep grudge solely against PH. But, the letter mentions NGB and the only people that know of NGB and his real name are those that post/look and read the two forums. From that deduction the letter not only has a grudge against PH but one has gone out there way to mention NGB and is aware of his real name. The letter does not say anything about a female member of this forum. PH throws that one in as a separate issue and by doing so PH himself has made implications that it might be someone connected to the forum that has sent the letter. That is my deduction on it anyway. :-\
-
But I do April. I have said so many times, I want him to. I cannot understand why after reading my posts that you think I don't. Maybe you have misunderstood me. :-\
If I can answer your point 15...
In a sense this could be correct. However, it does mention NGB who is a volunteer administrator of this forum. The whole article is directed at this forum. So therefore I believe there is a deliberate attempt to involve not only PH but others on this forum.
If the letter was solely directed to PH for writing his book about Bamber then yes I can fully agree that it could be someone with a deep grudge solely against PH. But, the letter mentions NGB and the only people that know of NGB and his real name are those that post/look and read the two forums. From that deduction the letter not only has a grudge against PH but one has gone out there way to mention NGB and is aware of his real name. The letter does not say anything about a female member of this forum. PH throws that one in as a separate issue and by doing so PH himself has made implications that it might be someone connected to the forum that has sent the letter. That is my deduction on it anyway. :-\
The 'whole' article isn't directed at the forum, it mentions the forum because of the reference to being offered help from Jackie and what occurred as a result. The article mentions NGB's real name but the letter may not.
-
Patti,It's some airhead who is trying to put the frighteners on those involved. I can tell by the way of the format.The content isn't " professional ",it's almost school-boyish. Someone who thinks he's being big and scary. A sick mischief-maker who likes to draw attention to himself ,then read about his escapades and conquests. Probably reading this forum as we speak-----
-
The 'whole' article isn't directed at the forum, it mentions the forum because of the reference to being offered help from Jackie and what occurred as a result. The article mentions NGB's real name but the letter may not.
The letter most certainly does mention my name.
-
The 'whole' article isn't directed at the forum, it mentions the forum because of the reference to being offered help from Jackie and what occurred as a result. The article mentions NGB's real name but the letter may not.
Nonetheless it implicates this forum Caroline not only once but twice. Other than this forum how would the sender know about NGB? If the letter did not mention NGB's real then how did the reporter know how to contact him. :-\
I just wish PH would sort this out with the police. He only spoke to a contact he knew in the police. He has not been to the police...and why I don't know. :-\
-
The letter most certainly does mention my name.
I didn't say it didn't mention your name but does it mention your REAL name or screen name? Have you seen the letter?
-
Nonetheless it implicates this forum Caroline not only once but twice. Other than this forum how would the sender know about NGB? If the letter did not mention NGB's real then how did the reporter know how to contact him. :-\
I just wish PH would sort this out with the police. He only spoke to a contact he knew in the police. He has not been to the police...and why I don't know. :-\
Patti,I've seen NGB's full name in the past,but never said anything,kept it to myself. Safe to say,not on this forum !!
-
Nonetheless it implicates this forum Caroline not only once but twice. Other than this forum how would the sender know about NGB? If the letter did not mention NGB's real then how did the reporter know how to contact him. :-\
I just wish PH would sort this out with the police. He only spoke to a contact he knew in the police. He has not been to the police...and why I don't know. :-\
I don't understand the question, if the letter mentions NGB, PH knows his real name.
-
Patti,I've seen NGB's full name in the past,but never said anything,kept it to myself. Safe to say,not on this forum !!
There you go then Lookout....It has to be someone who is aware of who is who. ;)
-
There you go then Lookout....It has to be someone who is aware of who is who. ;)
So it has to be someone from the forums then - which is why the forums were mentioned.
-
The letter most certainly does mention my name.
This is bloody appalling but doesn't surprise me one bit!
Since I became involved in fighting a MOJ I found there were many people with personality disorders out there. I didn't understand the mentality of many of these people until I started researching the psychology behind it all. There are some really sick and twisted individuals out there and motives vary IMO for doing things like this. I would want to get to the bottom of it if my name had been mentioned - it's shocking and really creepy!!
Simon received some crazy letters when he was in prison and I believe some of these letters factored into his death. I don't think people realise what impact they have on people lives by doing things like this!?
And what makes it worse is that many individuals believe this crap!
It's clear All those people named in the letter, including JB are not involved in this. Someone with a real mental health issue has done this. I'd want to get to the bottom of it. Also IMO in doesn't say much about the alleged authors ( both journalist and PH IMO). Whoever allowed this to go to print needs their head examined. And it made the front page apparently? Weirdos!
-
Patti,I've seen NGB's full name in the past,but never said anything,kept it to myself. Safe to say,not on this forum !!
I've even seen MY own full name on the red forum,and wondered at the time how could that have been.
I've kept an open mind about a few things up to now. :-\
-
ive seen it on the red forum but not on this one.
-
Unfortunately,people can be traced if you know how,and those who spend their SAD days looking, have got too much time on their hands. Criminal minds.
-
This is bloody appalling but doesn't surprise me one bit!
Since I became involved in fighting a MOJ I found there were many people with personality disorders out there. I didn't understand the mentality of many of these people until I started researching the psychology behind it all. There are some really sick and twisted individuals out there and motives vary IMO for doing things like this. I would want to get to the bottom of it if my name had been mentioned - it's shocking and really creepy!!
Simon received some crazy letters when he was in prison and I believe some of these letters factored into his death. I don't think people realise what impact they have on people lives by doing things like this!?
And what makes it worse is that many individuals believe this crap!
It's clear All those people named in the letter, including JB are not involved in this. Someone with a real mental health issue has done this. I'd want to get to the bottom of it. Also IMO in doesn't say much about the alleged authors ( both journalist and PH IMO). Whoever allowed this to go to print needs their head examined. And it made the front page apparently? Weirdos!
Hi Steph, and have you noticed that many of those who believe bad things about the person they are so ready to condemn are those who always profess that they only believe the "facts" as they put it? ::)
-
This is bloody appalling but doesn't surprise me one bit!
Since I became involved in fighting a MOJ I found there were many people with personality disorders out there. I didn't understand the mentality of many of these people until I started researching the psychology behind it all. There are some really sick and twisted individuals out there and motives vary IMO for doing things like this. I would want to get to the bottom of it if my name had been mentioned - it's shocking and really creepy!!
Simon received some crazy letters when he was in prison and I believe some of these letters factored into his death. I don't think people realise what impact they have on people lives by doing things like this!?
And what makes it worse is that many individuals believe this crap!
It's clear All those people named in the letter, including JB are not involved in this. Someone with a real mental health issue has done this. I'd want to get to the bottom of it. Also IMO in doesn't say much about the alleged authors ( both journalist and PH IMO). Whoever allowed this to go to print needs their head examined. And it made the front page apparently? Weirdos!
I agree with what you've said,Steph. Only a crazed idiot would think of doing something like that. Pity it didn't have something better to do. Like a job !
-
So it has to be someone from the forums then - which is why the forums were mentioned.
Why do you say it "has to be someone from the forum"? Just because PH mentioned he forum? If you ask me Caroline that is an enormous leap of faith on your part to make that deduction when PH professes himself that an investigation as to who sent the alleged letter that it would go nowhere?
-
Why do you say it "has to be someone from the forum"? Just because PH mentioned he forum? If you ask me Caroline that is an enormous leap of faith on your part to make that deduction when PH professes himself that an investigation as to who sent the alleged letter that it would go nowhere?
Because NGB was mentioned.
-
There you go then Lookout....It has to be someone who is aware of who is who. ;)
Of course it is,Patti. Someone after a quick buck. People aren't always what they seem. :-[
-
I don't understand the question, if the letter mentions NGB, PH knows his real name.
I think you do understand the question Caroline. It mentions NGB or his real....either way it mentions him. :-\
-
Because NGB was mentioned.
What you mean in the letter or in PH's article about the letter?
-
It would be interesting to know if the person used the name NGB or his real name. If it was NGB then it is clearly someone from the forum, if it was his real name, then it is less clear (although still possible).
-
I didn't say it didn't mention your name but does it mention your REAL name or screen name? Have you seen the letter?
It refers to me by my real name. My screen name is not mentioned, nor is this forum. I have not seen the letter, although I would certainly like to see it. As I said in my original post in this thread the reporter read me the parts which referred to me.
-
What you mean in the letter or in PH's article about the letter?
The letter
-
It refers to me by my real name. My screen name is not mentioned, nor is this forum. I have not seen the letter, although I would certainly like to see it. As I said in my original post in this thread the reporter read me the parts which referred to me.
OK, so it's someone who knows your real name - still doesn't really help given that many people here know your name.
-
OK, so it's someone who knows your real name - still doesn't really help given that many people here know your name.
I didn't up until a few months ago,and I've been here over 2 years. I don't take that much notice,nor do I ask questions. I only know Mikes' and Pattis' name.
-
OK, so it's someone who knows your real name - still doesn't really help given that many people here know your name.
You said in a previous post that if it refers to Neil as ngb then it is clear that it is some one from this forum. The you say if he uses his real name then it "still" doesn't really help given that many people on this forum know his real name.
Why I wonder do you appear to try to implicate this forum, seeing that the red forum use both names as well? Why can't it be that forum and not this one? Nothing is "clear" about this affair at all, so why keep jumping to conclusions?
-
OK, so it's someone who knows your real name - still doesn't really help given that many people here know your name.
The contents of the letter make it clear it was not written by a supporter of Jeremy Bamber. It was quite clearly intended to harm him and at the same time to harm two other people. Fortunately most people have seen through it.
-
You said in a previous post that if it refers to Neil as ngb then it is clear that it is some one from this forum. The you say if he uses his real name then it "still" doesn't really help given that many people on this forum know his real name.
Why I wonder do you appear to try to implicate this forum, seeing that the red forum use both names as well? Why can't it be that forum and not this one? Nothing is "clear" about this affair at all, so why keep jumping to conclusions?
It can be someone from either forum(s) past or present. If it were someone involved in the campaign, I very much doubt they would have mentioned NGB, the very fact that he is mentioned (to me) means it has to be someone who uses the forums.
-
The contents of the letter make it clear it was not written by a supporter of Jeremy Bamber. It was quite clearly intended to harm him and at the same time to harm two other people. Fortunately most people have seen through it.
But you have only been read extracts - I don't agree, I think it's a supporter but unless he takes things further which I strongly suggest he does, we will never know and they will most likely dream up another plot.
-
But you have only been read extracts - I don't agree, I think it's a supporter but unless he takes things further which I strongly suggest he does, we will never know and they will most likely dream up another plot.
I was read extracts and I have read the summary of the rest of the letter in the article. The combination of factors, already fully canvassed here, together with some other details surrounding this, make it clear that the letter was not written by a Bamber supporter. There is no plot, other that one to discredit Jeremy Bamber and two others.
-
It can be someone from either forum(s) past or present. If it were someone involved in the campaign, I very much doubt they would have mentioned NGB, the very fact that he is mentioned (to me) means it has to be someone who uses the forums.
Or who never posts but sits on the sides perhaps?
-
i wonder why they said the public secter what were they trying to imply from that.
-
i wonder why they said the public secter what were they trying to imply from that.
In order to incriminate Jackie. The publisher referred to in the article publishes magazines about business in the public sector.
-
The contents of the letter make it clear it was not written by a supporter of Jeremy Bamber. It was quite clearly intended to harm him and at the same time to harm two other people. Fortunately most people have seen through it.
I don't know about most? because there are still some who are intent on blaming certain people. But I believe that I myself have seen through it?
-
I don't know about most? because there are still some who are intent on blaming certain people. But I believe that I myself have seen through it?
I think most members here have seen through it.
-
Not sure about anybody else, but I would like to see the letter...........and his typewriter.
-
How would someone know PH's address?
Searching social media finds this website (https://twitter.com/NewquoyWriters), which gives a location that would probably be adequate.
-
Searching social media finds this website (https://twitter.com/NewquoyWriters), which gives a location that would probably be adequate.
Yes,Reader,I've realised that those who have a malicious mind ,will stop at nothing to get back at those who appear to be a " threat " to the feeble-minded individual who resorts to such measures.
In fact it tells you a lot about the person who instigated this garbage.
-
Searching social media finds this website (https://twitter.com/NewquoyWriters), which gives a location that would probably be adequate.
I can't open the link.
-
But I do April. I have said so many times, I want him to. I cannot understand why after reading my posts that you think I don't. Maybe you have misunderstood me. :-\
If I can answer your point 15...
In a sense this could be correct. However, it does mention NGB who is a volunteer administrator of this forum. The whole article is directed at this forum. So therefore I believe there is a deliberate attempt to involve not only PH but others on this forum.
If the letter was solely directed to PH for writing his book about Bamber then yes I can fully agree that it could be someone with a deep grudge solely against PH. But, the letter mentions NGB and the only people that know of NGB and his real name are those that post/look and read the two forums. From that deduction the letter not only has a grudge against PH but one has gone out there way to mention NGB and is aware of his real name. The letter does not say anything about a female member of this forum. PH throws that one in as a separate issue and by doing so PH himself has made implications that it might be someone connected to the forum that has sent the letter. That is my deduction on it anyway. :-\
Patti, I wasn't aware that the letter had anything derogatory to say about NGB, only mentioning that he was/is a "protector" of Jeremy which sounds to me as if the writer of the letter holds him in high esteem and is both a complimentary and female way of expressing things. As PH has already had some correspondence with one or two members here I imagine he would be capable of working through a reasonable process of elimination and coming up with a fairly satisfactory conclusion.
-
Patti, I wasn't aware that the letter had anything derogatory to say about NGB, only mentioning that he was/is a "protector" of Jeremy which sounds to me as if the writer of the letter holds him in high esteem and is both a complimentary and female way of expressing things. As PH has already had some correspondence with one or two members here I imagine he would be capable of working through a reasonable process of elimination and coming up with a fairly satisfactory conclusion.
The description of me had sinister overtones, as summarised I think fairly by the journalist by the use of the word "protector". It is clear to me that it was designed to tie me in with the threat. This was not in my view written by someone who holds me in high esteem, rather it was by someone who wants to cause me harm. I would like to read the letter although I doubt if that will happen, but I can say that the style of the parts read to me was not the style I would associate with the person indirectly implicated in the article. The "dodging a bullet" reference is also one I find significant.
-
now who would know that its not mentioned on his website and he certanly never mentioned it here.
-
The description of me had sinister overtones, as summarised I think fairly by the journalist by the use of the word "protector". It is clear to me that it was designed to tie me in with the threat. This was not in my view written by someone who holds me in high esteem, rather it was by someone who wants to cause me harm. I would like to read the letter although I doubt if that will happen, but I can say that the style of the parts read to me was not the style I would associate with the person indirectly implicated in the article. The "dodging a bullet" reference is also one I find significant.
One would expect that PH feels very close to how you feel. I agree though, that without seeing the letter in its' entirety, coming to any concrete conclusions are difficult. It may be that the style PH saw was something he recognized from other correspondence. I certainly don't believe that either he or Jeremy are behind it.
-
One would expect that PH feels very close to how you feel. I agree though, that without seeing the letter in its' entirety, coming to any concrete conclusions are difficult. It may be that the style PH saw was something he recognized from other correspondence. I certainly don't believe that either he or Jeremy are behind it.
I agree April, no point in speculating - whoever it is will probably get away with it and they shouldn't!!
-
I agree April, no point in speculating - whoever it is will probably get away with it and they shouldn't!!
I certainly agree with that.
-
I can't open the link.
The link is correct. Can you open any other twitter links?
-
The link is correct. Can you open any other twitter links?
Some, but I am not on twitter.
-
It's a pity that Jeremy wasn't in a position to sue. It shows how much of a coward the writer of the letter is,knowing full well that Jeremy can't fight back.
-
It's a pity that Jeremy wasn't in a position to sue. It shows how much of a coward the writer of the letter is,knowing full well that Jeremy can't fight back.
Sue who? We don't know who it is.
-
Sue who? We don't know who it is.
When,and if it's ever established who it is. Surely the Express must have something by way of a hint ?
-
Sue who? We don't know who it is.
I assume the newspaper, for saying he was behind the threat.
-
When,and if it's ever established who it is. Surely the Express must have something by way of a hint ?
and it will be established no doubt of that.
-
and it will be established no doubt of that.
It will be if Eric Allison has anything to do with it.
-
I assume the newspaper, for saying he was behind the threat.
Are you saying that if they had any leads they'd follow them up?
-
It will be if Eric Allison has anything to do with it.
whos eric allision.
-
whos eric allision.
He writes for the Guardian in support for prisoners like Jeremy.
-
He writes for the Guardian in support for prisoners like Jeremy.
What does he have to do with SSE?
-
What does he have to do with SSE?
He doesn't,but there are wheels within wheels as regards correspondents for newspapers. News spreads like wild fire in those places. Eric,having been a criminal himself will get to know how the Express came by that.
-
He doesn't,but there are wheels within wheels as regards correspondents for newspapers. News spreads like wild fire in those places. Eric,having been a criminal himself will get to know how the Express came by that.
That's assuming they're short of copy and how important they rate it, Lookout.
-
That's assuming they're short of copy and how important they rate it, Lookout.
Well if the headlines are anything to go by----------------large block caps with its sensationalised connotations.
-
He doesn't,but there are wheels within wheels as regards correspondents for newspapers. News spreads like wild fire in those places. Eric,having been a criminal himself will get to know how the Express came by that.
Well, we can tell him that for free. PH gave it to them.
-
Well if the headlines are anything to go by----------------large block caps with its sensationalised connotations.
Headlines of the day. Tomorrows chip wrapper OR if you're VERY mean, loo paper ;D
-
So what has Paul Harrison managed to accomplish by revealing the contents of this letter that was allegedly sent to him. Or in other words what effect has this had upon everybody here?
-
Headlines of the day. Tomorrows chip wrapper OR if you're VERY mean, loo paper ;D
I never buy newspapers - but I do buy loo paper :)
-
I never buy newspapers - but I do buy loo paper :)
If it's a question of one or the other, you've definitely made the right choice, Caroline ;D ;D ;D
-
Only a crank with a grudge and an enormous chip on his shoulder would write something like that.
They've at least got to back up what's been written.
Whoever wrote this alleged letter is tapped in the head. It does appear to be a personal attack on innocent parties?
Who is this Paul Harrison and does he know the journalist that wrote the article?
I'd want to get to the bottom of all this and I'd want a personal apology from the newspaper. 'kin unprofessional fools!.. The paper must have been desperate for a story?! Why was it in a Scottish newspaper? It's not a Scottish case?!
-
I never buy newspapers - but I do buy loo paper :)
Same thing. ;D
-
Whoever wrote this alleged letter is tapped in the head. It does appear to be a personal attack on innocent parties?
Who is this Paul Harrison and does he know the journalist that wrote the article?
I'd want to get to the bottom of all this and I'd want a personal apology from the newspaper. 'kin unprofessional fools!.. The paper must have been desperate for a story?! Why was it in a Scottish newspaper? It's not a Scottish case?!
Just ask yourself Steph, if you had a letter threatening your life would you 1) go to the police with it? Or 2) publish the fact so the whole world to see including the sender? and 3) Hide?
-
The idiot who pieced together that ( childish ) piece in the paper did a botched job of playing devils advocate,thinking everyone would be taken in by it. Some will do anything for a quick buck. ::)
It's been written by someone with a very childish mind,and I would go as far as to say,not averse to some criminality themselves.
Here here Lookout I agree!
Whomever wrote this appears to have a personal grudge with all persons mentioned (apart from Paul .harrison - whoever he is?) One has to ask the question - what is this persons game? There's defo a hidden agenda at play.
It doesn't however surprise me that this 'journalist/editor fell for it. They are working for the wrong paper if you ask me - far fetched stories like that are for papers like the national enquirer.. Is that what this newspapers all about? These types of papers write about seeing Elvis down in the local Sainsbury's.. Is it a spoof rag?
-
Whoever wrote this alleged letter is tapped in the head. It does appear to be a personal attack on innocent parties?
Who is this Paul Harrison and does he know the journalist that wrote the article?
I'd want to get to the bottom of all this and I'd want a personal apology from the newspaper. 'kin unprofessional fools!.. The paper must have been desperate for a story?! Why was it in a Scottish newspaper? It's not a Scottish case?!
Maybe the thickhead who wrote it thought it would only appear in the Scottish paper. ::)
-
Just ask yourself Steph, if you had a letter threatening your life would you 1) go to the police with it? Or 2) publish the fact so the whole world to see including the sender? and 3) Hide?
Police! Not that they can be very helpful in cases like this (I know from first hand experience) but I wouldn't go to a newspaper.
I still don't know much about this Paul Harrison bloke? Who is he and what's he all about? It all seems rather dodgy..
By the way Mr Gee, I wouldn't hide. :) I'd be writing letters of complaint to all and sundry and I'd want to learn more about PH. Something seems off kilter IMO?
-
Maybe the thickhead who wrote it thought it would only appear in the Scottish paper. ::)
It has hasn't it?
-
crime Harrison is an ex policeman and crime writer he wrote a book jack the ripper.
he lives on the Orkney islands witch is why he went to a Scottish newspaper.
-
Maybe the thickhead who wrote it thought it would only appear in the Scottish paper. ::)
Lookout, the whole point of it being in a Scottish publication is because PH lives on a remote island in Scotland. They weren't interested in JB or NGB, much less, the forum, except as an afterthought. Their interest was in the Scottish connection.
-
Hi April, I think that you have hit on something there? We had served our purpose. What was that? "Publicity that he needed". Thinking about it he was always cagey and guarded in what he said and didn't actually commit himself, but kept on about this new book that looked rather at the investigation side rather than at Bamber himself. He kept members attention. I also remember certain guilter members telling us he was a phoney and that there are no books coming out about Bamber. First it was being published in August of this year. Then there was a legal problem. Then the excuse was that some of his investigation was being used in an up and coming appeal. Now we read that it will be coming out NEXT August and so it goes on. He was definitely using this forum as a podium for his book and it was definitely aimed at interesting the Bamber supporters as he did capture out attention.
I've missed this?
Still haven't the foggiest who this Paul bloke is?? :-\
-
heres his bio.
http://www.murderarchiveuk.com/paul-harrison.html
-
I've missed this?
Still haven't the foggiest who this Paul bloke is?? :-\
His username here is Mason Doyle.
-
His username here is Mason Doyle.
Arrh thanks NGB...
-
Lookout, the whole point of it being in a Scottish publication is because PH lives on a remote island in Scotland. They weren't interested in JB or NGB, much less, the forum, except as an afterthought. Their interest was in the Scottish connection.
Yes it would seem so,April. What they thought his book would churn up,I don't know.
In a way,it's " Much Ado about Nothing " as whoever's responsible didn't even want to make a name for himself. Then again,you wouldn't particularly want to put a name to it really,would you ? :D
-
In a way,it's " Much Ado about Nothing " as whoever's responsible didn't even want to make a name for himself. Then again,you wouldn't particularly want to put a name to it really,would you ? :D
;D ;D ;D
It's propaganda.... Sad really.....
-
Yes it would seem so,April. What they thought his book would churn up,I don't know.
In a way,it's " Much Ado about Nothing " as whoever's responsible didn't even want to make a name for himself. Then again,you wouldn't particularly want to put a name to it really,would you ? :D
Lookout, PH is a crime writer. Presumably this is what he does to put food on the table. His subject for this book is Jeremy Bamber and the WHF murders. There have been pro Jeremy books written. There have been anti Jeremy books written. This then -with sincere apologies to PH- is just another book and to the wider world ie those who aren't into that particular genre and those who couldn't care less about a 30 year old case, on a scale of 1-10, MAY register a 1. To PH, kit COULD be the scariest thing that's ever happened but as he has gone to the trouble of finishing a book which seems to have caused him not just a few headaches, he WILL want to sell it..................If all authors who wanted to sell their books resorted to devious practices -which seems as if it may be the suggestion here- to do so, there'd be no room for any other news in our papers if they were the vehicle of choice.
-
Just a thought
there is another group of people who could be affected by the book even if PH does think he is guilty , also could watch the forum , and probably hate Jeremy . They also might not mind having a go at PH
perhaps this post from MD/PH might give a clue
" this case, I have come to the conclusion that the silencer evidence was completely fabricated, that is not to say Jeremy is innocent or guilty! There was manipulation of detail, and there still is because Essex cops wont release everything, not to hide Jeremy's innocence but their own failures. Essex police are one of the worst forces for recorded policing failures. Who is to blame for the concoction of the silencer evidence in the first place is anyones guess, it will likely never be known.
That said, I interviewed Stan Jones at length, he was an okay guy and I believed a lot of what he said, I tortured him in interview. Stan, in my opinion, was no where near as experienced or as clever as 'Taff' Jones, I have a ridiculous amount of excellent character reference on him (Taff), but Stan and Taff didn't actually get on. They were two different personalities.
I confess, I don't like the police of today, I don't trust the police of today, I certainly don't trust the establishment or the criminal justice system or the court system, and I've worked in the lot. I'm not sure that Essex police of 1985 were as united as people believe, it was regarded, in the bigger scheme of policing as one of the UK's crappest forces. "
QUOTE from Mason Doyle
"
-
Just a thought
there is another group of people who could be affected by the book even if PH does think he is guilty , also could watch the forum , and probably hate Jeremy . They also might not mind having a go at PH
perhaps this post from MD/PH might give a clue
" this case, I have come to the conclusion that the silencer evidence was completely fabricated, that is not to say Jeremy is innocent or guilty! There was manipulation of detail, and there still is because Essex cops wont release everything, not to hide Jeremy's innocence but their own failures. Essex police are one of the worst forces for recorded policing failures. Who is to blame for the concoction of the silencer evidence in the first place is anyones guess, it will likely never be known.
That said, I interviewed Stan Jones at length, he was an okay guy and I believed a lot of what he said, I tortured him in interview. Stan, in my opinion, was no where near as experienced or as clever as 'Taff' Jones, I have a ridiculous amount of excellent character reference on him (Taff), but Stan and Taff didn't actually get on. They were two different personalities.
I confess, I don't like the police of today, I don't trust the police of today, I certainly don't trust the establishment or the criminal justice system or the court system, and I've worked in the lot. I'm not sure that Essex police of 1985 were as united as people believe, it was regarded, in the bigger scheme of policing as one of the UK's crappest forces. "
QUOTE from Mason Doyle
"
My thoughts exactly. In this case, we could end up with the following:
Dodgy coppers, dodgy relatives, dodgy Jeremy, dodgy Julie.
As was once expressed to me by a well respected forum member from the guilty side. If the truth of the case ever fully came to light, it's likely that nobody will come out of it looking good.
-
Regardless of any " new " book being published by anyone,I fail to see any of them reaching a final conclusion because it clearly isn't known,except by those,such as " Taff " Jones and maybe one or two whose consciences may have alerted them to come forward,anonymously,of course.
It'll be interesting to see if there are any differences in these " new " publications as opposed to the older ones written by Lomax,Wilkes and Powell. I can't see it myself. How can anyone know,30 years later,what they didn't already know in 1985/6. ? They'll still be based on suppositions,but with a different format.
Maybe MD is awaiting the next pending submissions,which,if the contents are of Sheilas' medical history,could throw an entirely different light on the subject,so requiring a fair bit of editing,etc. so putting paid to the fact that it was impossible for this " slightly built,quiet,nervy " girl could/would carry out such a tragedy as was.
Sheila had told Dr Ferguson that she would have to be exorcised to get rid of the " Devil ",or she would HAVE to die ! Also that she was capable of murdering her sons. Because nobody took her " cry for help " seriously,she did just that. Sheila wouldn't have wanted to have done what she did,but the truth of the matter was that NOBODY was listening !!
-
Personally I don't think we should lower ourselves to their level.
I think we all agree that no definite accusations of who sent the letter should be bandied about , because that is as bad as what the press have done IMO.
We all can have ideas and possibilities - but lets face it unless PH or ngb or Jackie want to take it further then we are not going to know are we?
There are a few people who just pop up on here just to stir things - so perhaps we should just try and ignore them.
I just hope that if new evidence ( not hunches or assumptions) has been found then it has been directed through the proper channels.
I saw a post on here from March which said that the book had been finished and there was no inference that JB was guilty then - So I am guessing something has happened between then and now.
-
The Author has claimed to have discovered evidence that proves without a doubt Jeremy's guilt. Evidence that three Police forces appear to have missed. I would think that to be accepted as definitive proof it would have to be something concrete and since all? of the potential evidence has been destroyed,I cant see how anything can be proved without a doubt. I found it interesting that the Author appeared to change his stance on the case around the same time as an 'alleged' falling out with the Campaign Team. I wondered if the term 'Bamber's disciples' in the article was a reference to the Campaign Team. Was it an insinuation that one of them may have been responsible for the threatening letter? I have noted that some others feel someone from the CT may be responsible. Why also the reference to JP in the article? Imo,the whole article appears to be a revenge attack on all of those that the Author feels have slighted him in some way. And of course,it has raised some publicity for the forthcoming book.
-
Personally I don't think we should lower ourselves to their level.
I think we all agree that no definite accusations of who sent the letter should be bandied about , because that is as bad as what the press have done IMO.
We all can have ideas and possibilities - but lets face it unless PH or ngb or Jackie want to take it further then we are not going to know are we?
There are a few people who just pop up on here just to stir things - so perhaps we should just try and ignore them.
I just hope that if new evidence ( not hunches or assumptions) has been found then it has been directed through the proper channels.
I saw a post on here from March which said that the book had been finished and there was no inference that JB was guilty then - So I am guessing something has happened between then and now.
Well said Jan
I would think a writer would have great difficulty in changing the direction on where the book is leading one too.
From what PH told me it was not a book set out to prove innocence or guilt, but to highlight inaccuracies performed from the onset to the present.
From what I have gathered PH has been to Canada and, New Zealand and interviewed the majority of those who were involved at the time, including the infermus Sgt Jones.
It will interesting reading, that's if the book ever hits the shelves. We have been waiting for this book for a long time. It appears to have its setback in a legal capacity. What that is we don't know. :-\
-
The Author has claimed to have discovered evidence that proves without a doubt Jeremy's guilt. Evidence that three Police forces appear to have missed. I would think that to be accepted as definitive proof it would have to be something concrete and since all? of the potential evidence has been destroyed,I cant see how anything can be proved without a doubt. I found it interesting that the Author appeared to change his stance on the case around the same time as an 'alleged' falling out with the Campaign Team. I wondered if the term 'Bamber's disciples' in the article was a reference to the Campaign Team. Was it an insinuation that one of them may have been responsible for the threatening letter? I have noted that some others feel someone from the CT may be responsible. Why also the reference to JP in the article? Imo,the whole article appears to be a revenge attack on all of those that the Author feels have slighted him in some way. And of course,it has raised some publicity for the forthcoming book.
Without taking into consideration whether a letter was sent or not I think the article itself sounded vindictive and accusing of certain people totally without any proof whatsoever.
-
It does seem a shame that he probably had a falling out with just one person and then for some unknown reason others have to be dragged into it all. And now everyone and their dog is wading in for the opportunity of an argument. The more I think about it the more I think- there are sadly a lot of possibilities of who could be involved.
-
its got to be somone who knows him how else would they he doded a bullet.
-
Without taking into consideration whether a letter was sent or not I think the article itself sounded vindictive and accusing of certain people totally without any proof whatsoever.
I totally agree especially when on of those people has no right of reply.
-
its got to be somone who knows him how else would they he doded a bullet.
Do we even know if he did?
-
why would they say it if he hadent.
-
Well said Jan
I would think a writer would have great difficulty in changing the direction on where the book is leading one too.
From what PH told me it was not a book set out to prove innocence or guilt, but to highlight inaccuracies performed from the onset to the present.
From what I have gathered PH has been to Canada and, New Zealand and interviewed the majority of those who were involved at the time, including the infermus Sgt Jones.
It will interesting reading, that's if the book ever hits the shelves. We have been waiting for this book for a long time. It appears to have its setback in a legal capacity. What that is we don't know. :-\
Hi Patti. I agree with you that the Author has never stated as to whether he believes Jeremy to be innocent or guilty. But he did believe that the case was a MOJ. He appears to have changed his mind and that is obviously his perogative. However,he has stated previously that he believes the silencer evidence was faked,so,as I have asked before,if Jeremy was convicted on corrupt evidence,regardless of guilt/innocence,does that not make his case a MOJ?
-
well in terms of law theres no such things as a moj just an unsafe conviction.
it makes the conviction unsafe.
-
its got to be somone who knows him how else would they he doded a bullet.
I don't he has dodged a bullet do you Nugs? I think that was put there to frighten. :)
-
if he hadent i dont see the poit of saying it.
-
It does seem a shame that he probably had a falling out with just one person and then for some unknown reason others have to be dragged into it all. And now everyone and their dog is wading in for the opportunity of an argument. The more I think about it the more I think- there are sadly a lot of possibilities of who could be involved.
Who was the 'one' person that you refer to? He had a falling out with two members of this forum and was banned due to threatening behaviour. I understand he was banned from the red forum for the same reason? And I am led to believe that he also had a falling out with the Campaign Team,though for a different reason. I do not know how relations are between himself and Jeremy. Does anybody else know?
-
well in terms of law theres no such things as a moj just an unsafe conviction.
it makes the conviction unsafe.
thanks for explaining that Nugs.
-
Hi Patti. I agree with you that the Author has never stated as to whether he believes Jeremy to be innocent or guilty. But he did believe that the case was a MOJ. He appears to have changed his mind and that is obviously his perogative. However,he has stated previously that he believes the silencer evidence was faked,so,as I have asked before,if Jeremy was convicted on corrupt evidence,regardless of guilt/innocence,does that not make his case a MOJ?
Hi Tyler
I would imagine that all there is to know about the case has already been scrutinized by all previous authors' including those who have been interested in the case, such as we are. One thing is clear and I am sure everyone would agree and that is the mishandling/gross misconducts of the case. Whether Jeremy is guilty or not he did deserve a fair handling of the case along with a fair trial. So I agree with you 100%
The jury were unaware of a majority of things in my opinion which I think is unfair.
I often wonder if the case were put to trial now based on the evidence we have now, would the result be different? :)
-
Who was the 'one' person that you refer to? He had a falling out with two members of this forum and was banned due to threatening behaviour. I understand he was banned from the red forum for the same reason? And I am led to believe that he also had a falling out with the Campaign Team,though for a different reason. I do not know how relations are between himself and Jeremy. Does anybody else know?
He has had no contact with Jeremy or the campaign team for many months.
-
Hi Tyler
I would imagine that all there is to know about the case has already been scrutinized by all previous authors' including those who have been interested in the case, such as we are. One thing is clear and I am sure everyone would agree and that is the mishandling/gross misconducts of the case. Whether Jeremy is guilty or not he did deserve a fair handling of the case along with a fair trial. So I agree with you 100%
The jury were unaware of a majority of things in my opinion which I think is unfair.
I often wonder if the case were put to trial now based on the evidence we have now, would the result be different? :)
Hi Patti. I think that the result could have been different back in 86 if Jeremy had had a better defense team. Personally I think they were woefully inadequate.
-
He has had no contact with Jeremy or the campaign team for many months.
Thank you ngb.But do you know if there is any amniosity between them? As in,do you know if Jeremy feels disappointed, or even angry that the book is to now take a different direction,one that is going to be less favourable to his cause and even maybe potentially damaging to him? I will understand if you'd prefer not to say.
-
Thank you ngb.But do you know if there is any amniosity between them? As in,do you know if Jeremy feels disappointed, or even angry that the book is to now take a different direction,one that is going to be less favourable to his cause and even maybe potentially damaging to him? I will understand if you'd prefer not to say.
I have not spoken to Jeremy about it Tyler. I understand that at one time there was regular and close contact between Paul Harrison and members of the campaign team and that earlier this year that contact was ended. I do not believe there was any personal row beteen Paul Harrison and Jeremy. I would imagine that Jeremy is not at all happy with the way things have turned out. I do have some further information on the circumstances in which the contact was ended and I have formed a view about the underlying reasons, but at this stage I do not feel able to post that here. I will however say that I very much doubt if Paul Harrison has, as he claims, finally established guilt beyond any doubt. Obviously we will have to await the book but I do not believe any significant new evidence has been discovered.
-
I have not spoken to Jeremy about it Tyler. I understand that at one time there was regular and close contact between Paul Harrison and members of the campaign team and that earlier this year that contact was ended. I do not believe there was any personal row beteen Paul Harrison and Jeremy. I would imagine that Jeremy is not at all happy with the way things have turned out. I do have some further information on the circumstances in which the contact was ended and I have formed a view about the underlying reasons, but at this stage I do not feel able to post that here. I will however say that I very much doubt if Paul Harrison has, as he claims, finally established guilt beyond any doubt. Obviously we will have to await the book but I do not believe any significant new evidence has been discovered.
Thank you ngb
-
Who was the 'one' person that you refer to? He had a falling out with two members of this forum and was banned due to threatening behaviour. I understand he was banned from the red forum for the same reason? And I am led to believe that he also had a falling out with the Campaign Team,though for a different reason. I do not know how relations are between himself and Jeremy. Does anybody else know?
I must admit I am not clear on the full history - but in his posts here he did seem polite and was met with no obvious rudeness that I could see - so he did seem to get on with most posters. It seemed that the ban from here came after NGB was drawn into an argument only because of his position on this forum?
I have heard he was banned from the other forum - but have not a clue what that was about.
in posts here he said he got on well with Jeremy and had a laugh with him. But I am assuming that has changed recently. If Jeremy thought he had been duped by him I can imagine he would "cut him off" so to speak because it must be very hard for him to know who he can trust .
-
I must admit I am not clear on the full history - but in his posts here he did seem polite and was met with no obvious rudeness that I could see - so he did seem to get on with most posters. It seemed that the ban from here came after NGB was drawn into an argument only because of his position on this forum?
I have heard he was banned from the other forum - but have not a clue what that was about.
in posts here he said he got on well with Jeremy and had a laugh with him. But I am assuming that has changed recently. If Jeremy thought he had been duped by him I can imagine he would "cut him off" so to speak because it must be very hard for him to know who he can trust .
As can I. It would be a natural reaction on Jeremy's part. What I most emphatically DON'T believe is that he issued death threats OR commissioned anyone else to do it on his behalf.
-
MD - seemed quite relaxed in March 2014
"Opinion is great, I accept it, but living with this case day and night as I have, and there are a few people on here who know what I've gone through, makes you take stock and realise the traumatic affect that still endures. I had no allegiance at the outset, I have no allegiance now, I have researched this entire case objectively. I get on well with Jeremy, we laugh and talk together, but then I laugh with Ronald DeFeo too, he admits he murdered his family, each year I get cards off the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and serial killers such as Peter Sutcliffe - juxtaposition of morality or what?. In this case, me and Jeremy are two different people, I absolutely liked Stan Jones when I spoke to and interviewed him, doesn't make either Stan or Jeremy right in what they may or may not have done.
Jeremy is the only person on this planet who knows the truth, not the relatives, not the courts, not the media, and certainly not the red. The evidence at court was crap, you know it, we all know it, however, that means nothing because a jury of Jeremy's peers, lay people who were not instructed correctly, believed it. Therefore it all becomes fact.
-
I must admit I am not clear on the full history - but in his posts here he did seem polite and was met with no obvious rudeness that I could see - so he did seem to get on with most posters. It seemed that the ban from here came after NGB was drawn into an argument only because of his position on this forum?
I have heard he was banned from the other forum - but have not a clue what that was about.
in posts here he said he got on well with Jeremy and had a laugh with him. But I am assuming that has changed recently. If Jeremy thought he had been duped by him I can imagine he would "cut him off" so to speak because it must be very hard for him to know who he can trust .
he allways seemd like a perfectly reasonable guy when he was on here.
-
As can I. It would be a natural reaction on Jeremy's part. What I most emphatically DON'T believe is that he issued death threats OR commissioned anyone else to do it on his behalf.
No I don't believe that either.
And I would think that if he was approached to do a book then he would be aware of the dangers of doing that , surely the author would have told him from the beginning he was going in with an open mind?
-
But nug nug he did send threatening messages to NGB -why would he do that?
-
bad day perhaps.
-
If I remember at the time,wasn't MD's post " scrutinised " back then because it seemed out of character of him to have posted in such a manner,particularly when he was quite rude to NGB ?
I think a few were a bit baffled as to who the post actually came from. Whether it was authentic or not ?
-
No I don't believe that either.
And I would think that if he was approached to do a book then he would be aware of the dangers of doing that , surely the author would have told him from the beginning he was going in with an open mind?
Jan, that's an interesting point that hadn't previously occurred to me. Jeremy must have been prepared to take a chance with every author who has ever approached him. I can't imagine ANY of them telling him they thought he was guilty to start off with so why would he issue death threats to this one author in particular?
-
If I remember at the time,wasn't MD's post " scrutinised " back then because it seemed out of character of him to have posted in such a manner,particularly when he was quite rude to NGB ?
I think a few were a bit baffled as to who the post actually came from. Whether it was authentic or not ?
Lookout - you may be thinking of Harters rather than MD.
-
But nug nug he did send threatening messages to NGB -why would he do that?
Boys and injured pride? ;)
-
Lookout - you may be thinking of Harters rather than MD.
Maybe,ngb,but I seem to remember someone remarking,or querying as to whether MD's post was actually his or not.
I'm possibly mistaken. Wires crossed-----------again. :-[
-
Hi Patti. I think that the result could have been different back in 86 if Jeremy had had a better defense team. Personally I think they were woefully inadequate.
You're probably right there Tyler. ;D
-
Jan, that's an interesting point that hadn't previously occurred to me. Jeremy must have been prepared to take a chance with every author who has ever approached him. I can't imagine ANY of them telling him they thought he was guilty to start off with so why would he issue death threats to this one author in particular?
unless he was so confident that he would come to the conclusion that there was a MOJ ( which the author has indicated there was ) but did not think there was the additional risk of him then saying that he was still guilty? So therefore he was willing to be interviewed etc and work with him?
-
As can I. It would be a natural reaction on Jeremy's part. What I most emphatically DON'T believe is that he issued death threats OR commissioned anyone else to do it on his behalf.
Neither do I April. You are an intelligent person and have come to this conclusion. PH is an intelligent person also and surely cannot really believe that Jeremy had any involvement with the letter. So why then, approach the press with the story as opposed to taking it through the proper channels?
-
unless he was so confident that he would come to the conclusion that there was a MOJ ( which the author has indicated there was ) but did not think there was the additional risk of him then saying that he was still guilty? So therefore he was willing to be interviewed etc and work with him?
Jan, I'd say yes certainly if every previous author had found in his favour, but enough haven't to make him wary of each "new boy on the scene."
-
I think the worse thing that PH did was to announce his forth coming book and join two forums. A mistake he might consider not making in the future. :-\
-
Intelligent up to the point when researching the Jack the Ripper murders he researched the wrong Barnett ( which is supposedly the name of the original Ripper ) ;D ;D ;D ;D So these authors aren't infallible.
-
So far as I'm aware,Scott Lomax is the only author who's studied MOJ's.
Others have only written essays !
-
Neither do I April. You are an intelligent person and have come to this conclusion. PH is an intelligent person also and surely cannot really believe that Jeremy had any involvement with the letter. So why then, approach the press with the story as opposed to taking it through the proper channels?
Tyler, thank-you for the compliment :) but sadly, all I can do is speculate his reasons, and I feel that there's been enough speculating done and unwarranted accusations made on the forum over the last 24 hours to last a life time. :(
-
I think the worse thing that PH did was to announce his forth coming book and join two forums. A mistake he might consider not making in the future. :-\
With a genuinely open mind, wouldn't he need to join both....................or neither?
-
Tyler, thank-you for the compliment :) but sadly, all I can do is speculate his reasons, and I feel that there's been enough speculating done and unwarranted accusations made on the forum over the last 24 hours to last a life time. :(
True,but then I guess that is one of the hazards of a media article that is based on speculation and unwarranted accusations :(
-
With a genuinely open mind, wouldn't he need to join both....................or neither?
He could have joined both April and kept his identity quiet, no one would have been none the wiser and if he had stayed anonymous the article in the newspaper might not have happened. I assume the temptation to join in was too tempting for him. He was always Courteous to me and I to him. Goodness knows why things have turned out the way they have. I am sure he will welcome any form publicity good or bad it all adds to getting him name out in the open and, why not?
I suspect he is not the first author to have joined a forum and he maybe he wont be then the last. But two rights don't make a wrong. IMO
-
With a genuinely open mind, wouldn't he need to join both....................or neither?
He joined this forum to read the material posted here and to make contact with some of our members. He joined the red forum only in order to respond to derogatory comments about him posted there. It was not long before he was banned by the forum owner.
-
He could have joined both April and kept his identity quiet, no one would have been none the wiser and if he had stayed anonymous the article in the newspaper might not have happened. I assume the temptation to join in was too tempting for him. He was always Courteous to me and I to him. Goodness knows why things have turned out the way they have. I am sure he will welcome any form publicity good or bad it all adds to getting him name out in the open and, why not?
I suspect he is not the first author to have joined a forum and he maybe he wont be then the last. But two rights don't make a wrong. IMO
I DO hear what you're saying, but the other side of the coin is, that should he have done that and we'd somehow found out -be sure your sins and all that!!!- we would, I feel sure, be screaming from the roof tops about his lack of ethics/morals because he'd used us. He was up front and told us he was hoping to learn something. With hindsight it might have been better had he sat on the sidelines and watched from afar, without contributing, but neither he, nor WE, can go back and UNhappen any of it.
-
April you can have your opinion but a lot more has gone on behind closed doors than you realise. You will find out in time.
One thing I could never forgive someone who would make Jeremy look dangerous just to sell a book.
Nobody would fail to report that letter to the police and I am disgusted by the people who quote thE letter came from a supporter
-
The Author has claimed to have discovered evidence that proves without a doubt Jeremy's guilt. Evidence that three Police forces appear to have missed. I would think that to be accepted as definitive proof it would have to be something concrete and since all? of the potential evidence has been destroyed,I cant see how anything can be proved without a doubt. I found it interesting that the Author appeared to change his stance on the case around the same time as an 'alleged' falling out with the Campaign Team. I wondered if the term 'Bamber's disciples' in the article was a reference to the Campaign Team. Was it an insinuation that one of them may have been responsible for the threatening letter? I have noted that some others feel someone from the CT may be responsible. Why also the reference to JP in the article? Imo,the whole article appears to be a revenge attack on all of those that the Author feels have slighted him in some way. And of course,it has raised some publicity for the forthcoming book.
Also, ask yourselves where the term "Jeremy´s protector" comes from. The journalist? I doubt it - it was "fed" to him. Why? To make ngb look bad, as also Jackie and Jeremy were made to look bad.
To me this is rather transparent.
-
Tyler, thank-you for the compliment :) but sadly, all I can do is speculate his reasons, and I feel that there's been enough speculating done and unwarranted accusations made on the forum over the last 24 hours to last a life time. :(
Yes I too have noticed that you are probably the poster who has the most common sense when posting about this alleged letter.
-
I think the worse thing that PH did was to announce his forth coming book and join two forums. A mistake he might consider not making in the future. :-\
If you work it out Patti and you probably have probably the only county in England to be interested in such a book when the horse has already bolted after 30 years is Essex. So this is the place where he must catch the attention of potential readers of his book. Even my mate Steve Broughton from Lincolnshire didn't even know who he was. So who better to even care about an alleged threatening letter than people on this forum?
Even in Scotland they don't even care a hoot (get it?) They would probably say something like, "Whoartz this Sasanach babbling on aboot?"
-
He joined this forum to read the material posted here and to make contact with some of our members. He joined the red forum only in order to respond to derogatory comments about him posted there. It was not long before he was banned by the forum owner.
That's interesting. He was banned from the forum which allegedly boasts that they ban no one because he was apparently a Bamber supporter. Then he comes here, changes his stance to definitely guilty and is abusive to members here and then gets banned.
But then he is defended by members from the other forum by accusing members of this forum for allegedly sending him a death threat. ;D
-
Och aye the noo. Hoots mon,it's a broad bracht moonlit nacht the noo.
-
Och aye the noo. Hoots mon,it's a broad bracht moonlit nacht the noo.
Keep taking the tablets lookout. ;D
-
Keep taking the tablets lookout. ;D
Double the dose! ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
She's under the table!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
PH has written a series of quite readable books that focus on murder cases and criminal profiling. Almost all of them do not allege a miscarriage of justice, though, in some cases, suspicions are raised that certain unsolved murders might be attributable to known murderers. Thus, writing a book supportive of Jeremy Bamber would be a significant departure for him. Draw your own conclusions.
-
I have Reader.
-
Ph has written a series of quite readable books that focus on murder cases and criminal profiling. Almost all of them do not allege a miscarriage of justice, though, in some cases, suspicions are raised that certain unsolved murders might be attributable to known murderers. Thus, writing a book supportive of Jeremy Bamber would be a significant departure for him. Draw your own conclusions.
Which ever stance he chooses to write from won't necessarily reflect his personal view.
-
what i cant understand is if hes changed his stance to guilt what was holding up the publication of the book.
-
what i cant understand is if hes changed his stance to guilt what was holding up the publication of the book.
I think the book was held up before his change of stance...for reason we are not privy too. He also received threats prior to any misunderstanding on this forum...So that says something at least. ;)
-
and so in the time of it being held up his changed his stance funny.
so if hadent of been held up it would of been a completly diffrent book.
-
and so in the time of it being held up his changed his stance funny.
so if hadent of been held up it would of been a completly diffrent book.
I just hope that the threats did not encourage him to change his stance Nugs....
Don't know if it the book is different to what it was originally only PH will ever know that, I suppose. :-\
-
well its a bit funny he says hes found new evedence that the case is a possble moj.
hes about but somthing or someone helds up the publication of the book.
during the delay he suddenly finds abslute proof of guilt now dont you think thats a rather seres of events.
-
well its a bit funny he says hes found new evedence that the case is a possble moj.
hes about but somthing or someone helds up the publication of the book.
during the delay he suddenly finds abslute proof of guilt now dont you think thats a rather seres of events.
You try to make it sound like a strange series of events, but since that's not how it actually happened... ::)
-
You try to make it sound like a strange series of events, but since that's not how it actually happened... ::)
so what is the sequence ?
-
You try to make it sound like a strange series of events, but since that's not how it actually happened... ::)
thats eactly how it happend his book got delayed and in the mean time he found evedence that made him change his stance well at least im asuming he found evedence.
so if hes find overwheling evedence of jeremys guilt during the delay hes very lucky the book was delayed.
-
well its a bit funny he says hes found new evedence that the case is a possble moj.
hes about but somthing or someone helds up the publication of the book.
during the delay he suddenly finds abslute proof of guilt now dont you think thats a rather seres of events.
Yes in 2013 his book was due to be published in the autumn, then it got delayed and he told us that is was due out in the spring and now its not going to published until August 2015....So if there is anything legal holding this book up, how can he keep saying when it is to be published. It does not make any sense to me..... :-\
-
MD told us not to believe everything that you read on the internet, when there was an article printed about the book and an apparent few comments from him.
MD didn't speak about the contents of the book even on here often, he kept his cards close to his chest. The delay in publishing could be for a million reasons. I don't see how Nuggsy can say when the new evidence was found, just an attempt to make MD sound dodgy.
Nuggy's own posts is confusing.
well its a bit funny he says hes found new evedence that the case is a possble moj.
during the delay he suddenly finds abslute proof of guilt
:-\
-
well thats the thing if hes changed his stance to guilt i cant see how there can be who would want to.
-
Yes in 2013 his book was due to be published in the autumn, then it got delayed and he told us that is was due out in the spring and now its not going to published until August 2015....So if there is anything legal holding this book up, how can he keep saying when it is to be published. It does not make any sense to me..... :-\
that's a long time to wait when you write for a living.
-
Yes in 2013 his book was due to be published in the autumn, then it got delayed and he told us that is was due out in the spring and now its not going to published until August 2015....So if there is anything legal holding this book up, how can he keep saying when it is to be published. It does not make any sense to me..... :-\
Books are delayed all the time. It could be the publishers want to wait for a better time to market it? 30th anniversary coming up. It could be a legal issue that is holding it up. Which is what I've heard/posted about.
-
what legal reason would there be to hold up a book that's agreeing with the verdict of a court of law.
-
There could be a few reasons - he must have lawyers looking over the book to see if there is anything libellous that cannot be proved by evidence. Perhaps that took longer than he thought.
Or perhaps someone sent him some evidence after he had finished the first draft?
I thought at one stage he thought JB was going to make another application and he was waiting for that , but now it looks like the 30 year anniversary is the target.
-
thats eactly how it happend his book got delayed and in the mean time he found evedence that made him change his stance well at least im asuming he found evedence.
so if hes find overwheling evedence of jeremys guilt during the delay hes very lucky the book was delayed.
Mr Harrison said he began researching the case suspecting there may have been a miscarriage of justice but has since come to the conclusion that the police got the right man. Its just like another well known writer did, like a lot of people on this forum did, researched the case and realised that Bamber was guilty.
-
what legal reason would there be to hold up a book that's agreeing with the verdict of a court of law.
well my post where he was very critical of EP might give a clue.
-
There could be a few reasons - he must have lawyers looking over the book to see if there is anything libellous that cannot be proved by evidence. Perhaps that took longer than he thought.
Or perhaps someone sent him some evidence after he had finished the first draft?
I thought at one stage he thought JB was going to make another application and he was waiting for that , but now it looks like the 30 year anniversary is the target.
Oh, my Gawd, your profile picture! LOLOLOLOLOL Old dear!
-
Reading this thread back, it sound 'fanatical'.
-
Mr Harrison said he began researching the case suspecting there may have been a miscarriage of justice but has since come to the conclusion that the police got the right man. Its just like another well known writer did, like a lot of people on this forum did, researched the case and realised that Bamber was guilty.
I think he did say that the silencer evidence was dodgy though and that is a MOJ - But I agree if that was done just to get a guilty man then there is a moral and legal dilemma.
personally I would not want JB released on a technicality,
-
Oh, my Gawd, your profile picture! LOLOLOLOLOL Old dear!
Glad you get the joke ! Old dear with no sense of humour ehh?
-
There could be a few reasons - he must have lawyers looking over the book to see if there is anything libellous that cannot be proved by evidence. Perhaps that took longer than he thought.
Or perhaps someone sent him some evidence after he had finished the first draft?
I thought at one stage he thought JB was going to make another application and he was waiting for that , but now it looks like the 30 year anniversary is the target.
the application wouldn't stop him writing or publishing anything god knows how much was published while the last one was going on.
thats a long time for them the lawyers to take fact checking.
-
I think he did say that the silencer evidence was dodgy though and that is a MOJ - But I agree if that was done just to get a guilty man then there is a moral and legal dilemma.
personally I would not want JB released on a technicality,
Hi Jan he must have come up with something, because 2013 he was sure Bamber was innocent and stated he was in touch with him on a weekly basis?
-
Reading this thread back, it sound 'fanatical'.
The thread or the posters? Or the letter?
-
Mr Harrison said he began researching the case suspecting there may have been a miscarriage of justice but has since come to the conclusion that the police got the right man. Its just like another well known writer did, like a lot of people on this forum did, researched the case and realised that Bamber was guilty.
Hi Reader :) Hope I've got the right man this time. ;)
If PH has come to conclusion that Jeremy had not received a fair trial or that he had found new evidence,, why does he say that there is a legal issue???? Surely, what he should be saying is that due to my inaccuracies at the onset, my book has been delayed due to re-writes. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
why do you call him Reader?? ;D ;D Reader is a MOD here.
-
Hi Jan he must have come up with something, because 2013 he was sure Bamber was innocent and stated he was in touch with him on a weekly basis?
I think he said that he was talking and getting on with JB as recently as 2014 actually. I never saw him say JB was innocent only that he thought there definitely was a MOJ because of the silencer and other evidence that was presented.
-
Hi Reader :) Hope I've got the right man this time. ;)
If PH has come to conclusion that Jeremy had not received a fair trial or that he had found new evidence,, why does he say that there is a legal issue in publishing his book???? Surely, what he should be saying is that due to my inaccuracies at the onset, my book has been delayed due to re-writes. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
and he did say it was held up for legal reasons dident he.
-
Hi Reader :) Hope I've got the right man this time. ;)
If PH has come to conclusion that Jeremy had not received a fair trial or that he had found new evidence,, why does he say that there is a legal issue???? Surely, what he should be saying is that due to my inaccuracies at the onset, my book has been delayed due to re-writes. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Are you on the wine again Patti? You could be right Patti there could be several issues, when doing research something crops up and it takes a different line something similar happened with me?
-
The thread or the posters? Or the letter?
Both! No one knows who wrote the letter ONLY those involved!!
-
Are you on the wine again Patti? You could be right Patti there could be several issues, when doing research something crops up and it takes a different line something similar happened with me?
I am.................... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
and he did say it was held up for legal reasons dident he.
yes Nugs he did............. ;D
-
Both! No one knows who wrote the letter ONLY those involved!!
caroline as you know him have you ever thought of asking to see the whole letter.
-
Both! No one knows who wrote the letter ONLY those involved!!
yes , that is why I think the consensus is not to make any more accusations.
-
yes Nugs he did............. ;D
Someone also hacked into his computer could that have put things back?
-
but he dident say that he said legal reasons.
-
Someone also hacked into his computer could that have put things back?
Not sure Justice. How does one know they have been hacked? We all have computer issues, but how one knows they have been hacked, i do not know? ;D :) :) :)
-
Someone also hacked into his computer could that have put things back?
If he thinks it is connected to the book then yes I guess it could .
-
but he dident say that he said legal reasons.
I think he did Nugs.... :-\
-
if documents were alltered on the cumputer he would know.
-
if documents were alltered on the cumputer he would know.
Like you said before, books are rarely published on time a lot of unseen problems happen?
-
I think he did Nugs.... :-\
well it seems to be the concenios that he said that i dont think well could of all made a mistake.
-
Not sure Justice. How does one know they have been hacked? We all have computer issues, but how one knows they have been hacked, i do not know? ;D :) :) :)
I think there is different types of hacking Patti, pass word changing, when i got a virus someone took over my mouse and took control of my computer?
-
At a guess...It doesn't sound like Mason's book will be popular with a number of elements linked to this case.
The convicted person.
The star prosecution witness.
The convicted's wider relatives.
The convicted's campaign team.
Some of Essex Police.
Other authorities or professionals linked with scientific or legal processes.
If you have that wide a range of conflciting and competing parties concerned about your book... and the story itself keeps unwravelling over time, I'm not suprised there have been re-writes and delays.
If it ever gets published I think it will be explosive.
-
I think there is different types of hacking Patti, pass word changing, when i got a virus someone took over my mouse and took control of my computer?
OMgoodness I don't think I know anything about computers or hacking Justice. I know mine goes beserk sometimes....
I know what remote access is....Is a virus different from being hacked? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
OMgoodness I don't think I know anything about computers or hacking Justice. I know mine goes beserk sometimes....
I know what remote access is....Is a virus different from being hacked? ;D ;D ;D ;D
A virus is different to being hacked i think Patti, i think they call it hijacked when someone gets access to your computer?
-
who are the most likely people to know about hacking ? A criminal and or the police?
just saying - observation - nothing more :-\
-
A virus is different to being hacked i think Patti, i think they call it hijacked when someone gets access to your computer?
I'd like to know how you you would know if you had been hacked. Does that make sense Justice? My Chardonnay is getting to me lol xxxx
-
who are the most likely people to know about hacking ? A criminal and or the police?
just saying - observation - nothing more :-\
Would one have to have the IP address in order to hack????? or have received an email with a link in it?
I have no idea.... to be fair :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
I'd like to know how you you would know if you had been hacked. Does that make sense Justice? My Chardonnay is getting to me lol xxxx
they could send you messages on your computer and change files I would have thought.
-
I'd like to know how you you would know if you had been hacked. Does that make sense Justice? My Chardonnay is getting to me lol xxxx
I think if they changed Consider whether anything out of the usual is happening on your computer. You know your computer and how it runs better than anyone else. If it was working okay before but suddenly starts behaving oddly, it might be a sign of age or a broken part but the following issues could be just as likely to be signs of a hacking:
You have standard programs and files that won't open or work.
Files that you didn't delete appear to have disappeared, have been placed in the bin or have been deleted.
You cannot access programs using your usual password. You find that your passwords have been changed within your computer.
There is one or more programs on your computer that you didn't put there.
When you're not using the computer, it is connecting itself to the internet frequently.
File contents have been changed and you didn't do the changes.
Your printer may behave strangely. It may not print no matter what you do or it will print different pages that you did not command it to.
-
they could send you messages on your computer and change files I would have thought.
I don't know Jan, I honestly don't know. i suspect it would take a expert to know if one has been hacked...I just don't know to be honest. How does one prove this had happened? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
At a guess...It doesn't sound like Mason's book will be popular with a number of elements linked to this case.
The convicted person.
The star prosecution witness.
The convicted's wider relatives.
The convicted's campaign team.
Some of Essex Police.
Other authorities or professionals linked with scientific or legal processes.
If you have that wide a range of conflciting and competing parties concerned about your book... and the story itself keeps unwravelling over time, I'm not suprised there have been re-writes and delays.
If it ever gets published I think it will be explosive.
jeremy and the capaghn cant stop the book the realtives and mugford have never been able to stop anything else being published stan jones is dead so he cant.
now who does that leave.
-
who are the most likely people to know about hacking ? A criminal and or the police?
just saying - observation - nothing more :-\
Andy Coulson? ;)
Re: the phone hacking scandal,RB's personal assistant was one of those arrested. She is my sister-in-law's sister.Its a small world isnt it?
-
I think he said that he was talking and getting on with JB as recently as 2014 actually. I never saw him say JB was innocent only that he thought there definitely was a MOJ because of the silencer and other evidence that was presented.
Book cop I'll show Bamber's innocent. That was his headline?
-
Book cop I'll show Bamber's innocent. That was his headline?
If he was going in with an open mind that was a bit presumptious?
-
If he was going in with an open mind that was a bit presumptious?
Certainly was, something positive must have come up for him to change his mind?
-
Book cop I'll show Bamber's innocent. That was his headline?
From that to this, But Mr Harrison said his book will "finally bring closure" and prove Bamber's guilt beyond doubt when it is published ahead of the 30th anniversary of the slayings next August. So could the 30th anniversary be the reason like someone said?
-
here we are says hes spent 8 years resarching the book.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefreelibrary.com%2FBook%2Bcop%2BI%27ll%2Bshow%2BBamber%27s%2Binnocent.-a0337437563&ei=LNhKVJ-xJMmP7AaI94CQDA&usg=AFQjCNH1ztW6mILJVQWx1KRV1H85qsfTNQ&sig2=Y7E2Ie_lU7wlZ5Hx0Ky6CQ&bvm=bv.77880786,d.ZGU&cad=rja
-
From that to this, But Mr Harrison said his book will "finally bring closure" and prove Bamber's guilt beyond doubt when it is published ahead of the 30th anniversary of the slayings next August. So could the 30th anniversary be the reason for the delay like someone said?
-
A virus is different to being hacked i think Patti, i think they call it hijacked when someone gets access to your computer?
Hijacked? Do you think a lot of computers are headed for Cuba?
-
There won't be any new evidence in any book, I am quite certain of that
The only new evidence that could change things will be held under PII like nearly every other moj case
Authors and writers that make sensational claims are nearly always short of cash
-
i dident know he had been looking at the case for 8 years.
-
here we are says hes spent 8 years resarching the book.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thefreelibrary.com%2FBook%2Bcop%2BI%27ll%2Bshow%2BBamber%27s%2Binnocent.-a0337437563&ei=LNhKVJ-xJMmP7AaI94CQDA&usg=AFQjCNH1ztW6mILJVQWx1KRV1H85qsfTNQ&sig2=Y7E2Ie_lU7wlZ5Hx0Ky6CQ&bvm=bv.77880786,d.ZGU&cad=rja
Well I'm not sure which road he's going to take, Unsound conviction? Or Bamber proved guilty once and for all?
-
There won't be any new evidence in any book, I am quite certain of that
The only new evidence that could change things will be held under PII like nearly every other moj case
Authors and writers that make sensational claims are nearly always short of cash
Or if Muggy recants her testimony? ;) Now that would make a lot of people here look silly wouldn't it?
-
so hes spent so 8 years reaserch led him to think it was a possble moj. but in the space of a few months hes changed his mind.
-
so hes spent so 8 years reaserch led him to think it was a possble moj. but in the space of a few months hes changed his mind.
Seems to be a habit around here?
-
and chages his mind just before publication as well.
for 8 years he is planning to write a book about a possble moj then just as hes about to publish it turns into case of certan guilt.
-
caroline as you know him have you ever thought of asking to see the whole letter.
I don't know him THAT well!! - we talked about the case, I helped him with a few aspects an he told me a few things in return - THEN he found out something that NONE of us know. I know nothing about his forthcoming book and I like that way!
-
and he found itout rather recently
-
and he found itout rather recently
Not sure Nugs
-
well he must of done becouse hes only recently changed his mind after 8 years of going in the other direction.
-
Not sure Justice. How does one know they have been hacked? We all have computer issues, but how one knows they have been hacked, i do not know? ;D :) :) :)
Right. How do you know "your computer has been hacked into?"
You don´t, unless it´s made up and you have a vivid imagination.
-
Authors and writers that make sensational claims are nearly always short of cash
Authors and writers... how do they differ? Doesn't 'nearly always short of cash' apply to most of the population?
How do you know "your computer has been hacked into?"
Any sensible author shouldn't put their work on a computer that's connected to the internet.
-
Right. How do you know "your computer has been hacked into?"
You don´t, unless it´s made up and you have a vivid imagination.
jtfvjkiajk34-5989rqutvjrjmbz# ;'87wref 2 ;D
-
Right. How do you know "your computer has been hacked into?"
You don´t, unless it´s made up and you have a vivid imagination.
How do computer hackers get caught then? Why would anyone make that up?
Convicted computer criminals are people who are caught and convicted of computer crimes such as breaking into computers or computer networks.
-
I don't know him THAT well!! - we talked about the case, I helped him with a few aspects an he told me a few things in return - THEN he found out something that NONE of us know. I know nothing about his forthcoming book and I like that way!
It's going to have to be better than the new evidence which includes Sheilas' medical records.?
That's something that nobody will have known about. Not even MD.
-
Authors and writers... how do they differ? Doesn't 'nearly always short of cash' apply to most of the population?
Any sensible author shouldn't put their work on a computer that's connected to the internet.
I would think most writers and journalists use computers, it would be easier to share documents, some like to publish online. Some writers would i suppose use pen and paper and a computer?
-
What sort of an author gives away his trade secrets ?? Would you trust a person who does this ?
He'd have been in trouble if he'd worked for the Resistance Movement ! I'm surprised.
-
At a guess...It doesn't sound like Mason's book will be popular with a number of elements linked to this case.
The convicted person.
The star prosecution witness.
The convicted's wider relatives.
The convicted's campaign team.
Some of Essex Police.
Other authorities or professionals linked with scientific or legal processes.
If you have that wide a range of conflciting and competing parties concerned about your book... and the story itself keeps unwravelling over time, I'm not suprised there have been re-writes and delays.
If it ever gets published I think it will be explosive.
How quickly like Bob Woffinden before him, that Mason Doyle has gone from Hero to zero don't you think Roch? Its been the same pattern for several posters as well who changed from tunnel vision to funnel vision?
-
How quickly like Mr Allison before him, that Mason Doyle has gone from Hero to zero don't you think Roch? Its been the same pattern for several posters as well who changed from tunnel vision to funnel vision?
Your point about Mr Allison???
-
To be fair its quite difficult to judge something or someone when you don't know the full facts .
If he has found concrete evidence that Jeremy is guilty then presumably he has put that in the hands of the authorities so they don't have to waste any taxpayers money on more appeals .
We at the moment don't know what that is.
Has he told Jeremy what the new evidence is ? And that is why he feels he can "assume" that the letter came from him ?
There are so many things we don't know .
And if he has found something that the EP missed because after all presumably they with absolute evidence could have stopped all the appeals - then he is a very clever man. All credit due if it is true . But next August seems a long time to wait to find out.
-
How quickly like Mr Allison before him, that Mason Doyle has gone from Hero to zero don't you think Roch? Its been the same pattern for several posters as well who changed from tunnel vision to funnel vision?
I find it very amusing that according to guilters that it is only the supporters, so called who have the tunnel vision. ::) Usually from their ivory tower of conceit.
-
To be fair its quite difficult to judge something or someone when you don't know the full facts .
If he has found concrete evidence that Jeremy is guilty then presumably he has put that in the hands of the authorities so they don't have to waste any taxpayers money on more appeals .
We at the moment don't know what that is.
Has he told Jeremy what the new evidence is ? And that is why he feels he can "assume" that the letter came from him ?
There are so many things we don't know .
And if he has found something that the EP missed because after all presumably they with absolute evidence could have stopped all the appeals - then he is a very clever man. All credit due if it is true . But next August seems a long time to wait to find out.
He said that probably so that every guilter and supporter will buy the book?
-
He said that probably so that every guilter and supporter will buy the book?
Wouldn't you think that next August is a bit late in the day to be bringing out a book always supposing that any new evidence could possibly come to light before then that could stymie his " own findings " ?
Back to the drawing board. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think people should be complaining to his publisher if he refuses to go to the police
If he refuses to go to the police of show the authorities it's probably a publicity stunt
Would his publisher defend this behaviour
-
Whether Jeremy directly or indirectly arranged for Harrison to get the threatening letter, no one knows. But why should Jeremy a supporter or supporters be so upset or surprised if a new book is going to highlight guilt ?
Supporters on forums have often mentioned Mason Doyle's forthcoming book. Which seems to have disappeared. Optimistically believing that a new book will bring up new evidence showing Jeremy's innocence. But if that was going to happen, surely Jeremy would have already found this evidence. He's been campaigning for 29 years, & apparently has two sets of legal teams and a campaign team.
The best a new book could do would be to be a Scott Lomax esq book. Which would in a biased way suggest his innocence.
Any good investigative author will try to produce a balanced book, which would highlight the guilt that has convicted Jeremy for 29 years. While discussing the unproven claims about police corruption, family frame ups & savage girlfriends.
So why would Jeremy, a supporter or supporters be so upset when finding out the content of Harrison's book ?
One reason is because Harrison went into the book believing there could be a miscarriage of justice. Which could be a reason why Jeremy has engaged with him. However, similar to other writers Harrison has changed stance.
Being the first book in years, a guilty book will be a big blow which negates the internet and media work trying to secure a release. Obviously too much of a big blow for someone, or some people.
Writing a threatening letter does more harm than good. It will never stop the author trying to get the book published. He may have spent years writing it. It creates bad publicity and highlights that an author believes Jeremy is guilty, putting Jeremy & his supporters in a bad light.
Why do people believe a person or people wrote the threatening letter ?
-
if he did they would hardly be intrested acording to them they solved the case 30 years ago.
-
How odd that it would be published in Scotland. Grouse shooting,August------December.
There must be a list of those who go on this barbaric expedition ?
-
Erm---------we already have a thread about this!!
-
This is asking 'why'. Not who.
-
Wouldn't you think that next August is a bit late in the day to be bringing out a book always supposing that any new evidence could possibly come to light before then that could stymie his " own findings " ?
Back to the drawing board. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Remember it was supposed to be published this August as according to him it was going to be used in Jeremy's latest appeal application.
-
Right. How do you know "your computer has been hacked into?"
You don´t, unless it´s made up and you have a vivid imagination.
does he mean hes computer or his emails.
you can find out if your computers been hacked just like you can find out if your phones been hacked.
-
Your point about Mr Allison???
Sorry Jackie got the wrong writer Bob Woffinden, thanks for pointing this out. I have had a Allison on my mind from researching football?
-
does he mean hes computer or his emails.
you can find out if your computers been hacked just like you can find out if your phones been hacked.
I think he just said computer nugnug?
-
E-mails are easy to hack by those in the know,or if they have a proxy with instructions on " how to hack ".I kid you not.
-
I couldn't care less !!
-
Sorry Jackie got the wrong writer Bob Woffinden, thanks for pointing this out. I have had a Allison on my mind from researching football?
Thank you Justice
Allison continues to support Jeremy
-
Ditto Lookout
Seems to me a desperate bid for cash
I think I am done with this unless someone wants to post a copy of the letter
I am interested to see exactly what 'typewriter' was used
I am so bored already with you Adam
-
back to the point of the letter how many people knew he had changed his stance i only find out after reading it on this thread i think thats the first time hes publicly said it.
so who would know his opinions had changed.
-
back to the point of the letter how many people knew he had changed his stance i only find out after reading it on this thread i think thats the first time hes publicly said it.
I would have said a while back,nugs. He'd have made it plain to " a chosen few " via pm or e-mail,but on reading the posts he'd put on both forums,I got the feeling that he was " erring on the side of caution" even then,so it came as no surprise to me at all.
Similar to the way Woffinden changed tack.
-
if he can afford to spend 8 years reasarching without writting anything hes hardly desprate for cash.
-
Just wondering why a supporter would do it.
Jeremy has been saying he has fresh evidence and is going to make a new appeal. So thought a yet to be released book would be of little relevance.
-
Me too,nugs. It's the mind of a crank. Another example of double standards as the same person probably called Jeremy a psychopath,etc.
-
well it could only be one of those chosen few who sent him the letter becouse nobody else would know.
-
I think it's not worthy of anymore airtime on this forum
#stuntgonewrong
-
back to the point of the letter how many people knew he had changed his stance i only find out after reading it on this thread i think thats the first time hes publicly said it.
so who would know his opinions had changed.
Thats a good point Nugs. Who would know this? I do remember he posted alleged MOJ giving some indication. Not sure when that was, but I could find out. The article in the press said that he had received this letter a month ago...so that takes it back to mid September. :)
-
Just wondering why a supporter would do it.
Jeremy has been saying he has fresh evidence and is going to make a new appeal. So thought a yet to be released book would be of little relevance.
i wondered that as well the only conclsion i can come is there not a supporter.
-
What date did he get banned Patti
-
Thats a good point Nugs. Who would know this? I do remember he posted alleged MOJ giving some indication. Not sure when that was, but I could find out. The article in the press said that he had received this letter a month ago...so that takes it back to mid September. :)
saying alleged moj shouldent really the conclusion that he had changed his mind completely.
and they would have pretty eagled eyed to even notice he said it.
-
His last post was on the 19th September, so it would have been within a fews of that. :-\
-
Once released Jeremy and his supporters can go into overdrive to discredit the book. Just as they did when Woffinden turned.
That is only if the book is acclaimed. Bad reviews and they will not have to bother so much.
I suppose the best thing to do is prevent publication altogether. Or attempt to get Harrison to change content. Once word has got around of the content, which seems to have happened.
-
so with in a few days of him saying alleged on a forum someones found out where he lives and sent him a threatening letter.
and in that time they also found personal details about him.
-
His last post was on the 19th September, so it would have been within a fews of that. :-\
Has his name gone from the members list Patti?
-
His last post was on the 19th September, so it would have been within a fews of that. :-\
he was banned the same day as Jackie suggested he had been sending her PM's, that would have been around 19th. During the exchange of messages, it was quite clear that MD had changed his stance so LOTS of people would have known.
-
from his forum posts it wasnt clear at all.
alleged moj doesnt mean. i think hes guilty.
and untill he typed that personally i dident even notice and nobody who wasnt reading the thread would of noticed he gave no indecation that hes stance had changed.
-
from his forum posts it wasnt clear at all.
alleged moj doesnt mean. i think hes guilty.
and untill he typed that personally i dident even notice and nobody who wasnt reading the thread would of noticed he gave no indecation that hes stance had changed.
It was no secret that he had changed his stance - perhaps you didn't realise but lots of people did know.
-
Hang on a minute.Who goes into overdrive if and when there's a hint in Jeremys' favour ?
The world and its wife comes out of the woodwork then as someone tries their level best to put the blockers on anything concerning the word " release ".
-
Has his name gone from the members list Patti?
Yes it has Justice. ;D
-
It was no secret that he had changed his stance - perhaps you didn't realise but lots of people did know.
well i dont see how they could his posts give no indication of it.
and how else would they know.
-
he was banned the same day as Jackie suggested he had been sending her PM's, that would have been around 19th. During the exchange of messages, it was quite clear that MD had changed his stance so LOTS of people would have known.
I think you are right Caroline. It was the 19th. Up to that point I don't think anyone had a clue about his stance though.
From what I gather he had already received threats and had legal issues surrounding his book. So it must be that someone knew before the 19th of September.
A couple of people picked up on it on the 19th that it was suspected that he had changed stance when it made the comment "note I said alleged" I suppose it all stemmed from that point on? But after that I doubt anyone was fully aware of it till the news article in the Express. I don't think his stance had been commented on since the 19th right up to the time and date of this thread. I could be wrong, but that is how I see it. :-\
-
well i dont see how they could his posts give no indication of it.
and how else would they know.
How do I know how they knew? But they did know. It was mentioned in the thread on 19th, many of the posts were removed but anyone reading it that day - would know. His change of stance had been discussed here before many times both here and on the red forum and I'm surprised you didn't know.
-
Adam,why would you want to prevent publication. I,for one am looking forward to reading the book. As I understand it the book will go in depth regarding the failings of the Police investigation etc. If the author concludes that Jeremy is indeed guilty then that is his opinion to which he is fully entitled. If the author has conclusive proof that Jeremy is indeed guilty then all the better. Most of us would like the truth either way.
-
I think you are right Caroline. It was the 19th. Up to that point I don't think anyone had a clue about his stance though.
From what I gather he had already received threats and had legal issues surrounding his book. So it must be that someone knew before the 19th of September.
It was talked about by a couple of people on the 19th that it was suspected that he had changed stance when it made the comment "note I said alleged" I suppose it all stemmed from that point on?
It has been discussed before the 19th, people speculate all of the time. I for one knew he had changed his mind and know that lots of other people also knew. However, NONE OF THEM would have written such a letter. This is turning into a kangaroo court and until it can be made clear who did send it, the accusations should stop.
-
So I can still see us being here in 12 months time. ;D
-
Adam,why would you want to prevent publication. I,for one am looking forward to reading the book. As I understand it the book will go in depth regarding the failings of the Police investigation etc. If the author concludes that Jeremy is indeed guilty then that is his opinion to which he is fully entitled. If the author has conclusive proof that Jeremy is indeed guilty then all the better. Most of us would like the truth either way.
Excellent post Tyler! Completely agree!!
-
what acusations.
nobodys made any.
-
It's in case they do,nugs. ;D ;D
-
Even Julie,as she'd asked a deceased person who did it. Honestly,the lengths some people will go to to find the truth.
-
Once released Jeremy and his supporters can go into overdrive to discredit the book. Just as they did when Woffinden turned.
That is only if the book is acclaimed. Bad reviews and they will not have to bother so much.
I suppose the best thing to do is prevent publication altogether. Or attempt to get Harrison to change content. Once word has got around of the content, which seems to have happened.
if he really has abslute proof as his the artical cliams how can they descredit him they cant.
-
what acusations.
nobodys made any.
People have 'insinuated' he sent the letter himself, that Jackie sent it, that it's a guilty supporter etc. None of us have even seen the letter but you yourself have just indicated that it has to be someone who knew he had changed his stance - there are lots of people who knew and it has been discussed here before. The campaign team knew, Jeremy knew - other people here knew and it has been discussed.
-
It's in case they do,nugs. ;D ;D
Insinuating what?
-
Insinuating what?
How would I know. I haven't got as far as reading minds------------yet.
-
How would I know. I haven't got as far as reading minds------------yet.
::)
-
It has been discussed before the 19th, people speculate all of the time. I for one knew he had changed his mind and know that lots of other people also knew. However, NONE OF THEM would have written such a letter. This is turning into a kangaroo court and until it can be made clear who did send it, the accusations should stop.
Well the only person who can take this whole matter forward is PH himself. The fact that he is not going to that and stated publicly that he does not think the person who penned the letter would be caught. This alone raises suspicions as to why he might think that given the technology we have today. He does not think it worthy to make a formal complaint but then goes to the press about it. It is this that I find odd.
This is no kangaroo court at all Caroline. PH has brought this in the public domain and no matter how you look at this forum....So therefore we are all entitled to make comments. I do agree that making accusations should not be allowed. The first one to cast those accusation were from those who think Bamber is guilty....and automatically accused a female member on here. It is not nice to accuse someone of something they have not done, is it? It makes you angry and its upsetting.
Surely we can discuss this in an adult fashion...without the shouting. ;D
-
Well the only person who can take this whole matter forward is PH himself. The fact that he is not going to that and stated publicly that he does not think the person who penned the letter would be caught. This alone raises suspicions as to why he might think that given the technology we have today. He does not think it worthy to make a formal complaint but then goes to the press about it. It is this that I find odd.
This is no kangaroo court at all Caroline. PH has brought this in the public domain and no matter how you look at this forum....So therefore we are all entitled to make comments. I do agree that making accusations should not be allowed. The first one to cast those accusation were from those who think Bamber is guilty....and automatically accused a female member on here. It is not nice to accuse someone of something they have not done, is it? It makes you angry and its upsetting.
Surely we can discuss this in an adult fashion...without the shouting. ;D
Very good post Patti.
-
People have 'insinuated' he sent the letter himself, that Jackie sent it, that it's a guilty supporter etc. None of us have even seen the letter but you yourself have just indicated that it has to be someone who knew he had changed his stance - there are lots of people who knew and it has been discussed here before. The campaign team knew, Jeremy knew - other people here knew and it has been discussed.
That's rich coming from you
The accuser
Better luck next time Caroline
As long as the letter remains 'hidden' it looks like a stunt
-
Well the only person who can take this whole matter forward is PH himself. The fact that he is not going to that and stated publicly that he does not think the person who penned the letter would be caught. This alone raises suspicions as to why he might think that given the technology we have today. He does not think it worthy to make a formal complaint but then goes to the press about it. It is this that I find odd.
This is no kangaroo court at all Caroline. PH has brought this in the public domain and no matter how you look at this forum....So therefore we are all entitled to make comments. I do agree that making accusations should not be allowed. The first one to cast those accusation were from those who think Bamber is guilty....and automatically accused a female member on here. It is not nice to accuse someone of something they have not done, is it? It makes you angry and its upsetting.
Surely we can discuss this in an adult fashion...without the shouting. ;D
A fair-minded and calm post. Thankyou Patti.
-
Adam,why would you want to prevent publication. I,for one am looking forward to reading the book. As I understand it the book will go in depth regarding the failings of the Police investigation etc. If the author concludes that Jeremy is indeed guilty then that is his opinion to which he is fully entitled. If the author has conclusive proof that Jeremy is indeed guilty then all the better. Most of us would like the truth either way.
Sanity reigns!!!!! AT LAST!!!!!!Well done, TYLER :)
-
Well let's hope the book is marketed telling the truth
If you attempt to make money saying you have absolute proof someone is guilty you would be in very serious trouble and no publisher would release a book on such a serious subject based on a theory claiming to be a fact
I suggest that would be the reason the book might NEVER be published
-
Thanks Patti you post so and make such a good moderator with your team
Always looking at both sides fairly
-
im not sure he actully did say that. it could just be the way the paper spun it.
-
Well let's hope the book is marketed telling the truth
If you attempt to make money saying you have absolute proof someone is guilty you would be in very serious trouble and no publisher would release a book on such a serious subject based on a theory claiming to be a fact
I suggest that would be the reason the book might NEVER be published
He said this in March Jackie, Before anyone asks, my book is done, its with the publisher and legals now. Still no date for publication, nothing more to say or add at present. So it looks like the legal bit is sorted?
-
That's rich coming from you
The accuser
Better luck next time Caroline
As long as the letter remains 'hidden' it looks like a stunt
It's even richer coming from you given what you did recently. Had you not already tried to discredit PH, you would never have been under suspicion but when did I accuse you? I'm not playing your childish games Jackie and I hope he does have the letters investigated!!
-
It's even richer coming from you given what you did recently. Had you not already tried to discredit PH, you would never have been under suspicion but when did I accuse you? I'm not playing your childish games Jackie and I hope he does have the letters investigated!!
How many are there?
-
How many are there?
One letter and an email.
-
Well the only person who can take this whole matter forward is PH himself. The fact that he is not going to that and stated publicly that he does not think the person who penned the letter would be caught. This alone raises suspicions as to why he might think that given the technology we have today. He does not think it worthy to make a formal complaint but then goes to the press about it. It is this that I find odd.
This is no kangaroo court at all Caroline. PH has brought this in the public domain and no matter how you look at this forum....So therefore we are all entitled to make comments. I do agree that making accusations should not be allowed. The first one to cast those accusation were from those who think Bamber is guilty....and automatically accused a female member on here. It is not nice to accuse someone of something they have not done, is it? It makes you angry and its upsetting.
Surely we can discuss this in an adult fashion...without the shouting. ;D
ill give him the benfit of the doubt he could of gone to the press as a warning.
-
One letter and an email.
I must have missed something. Where is the reference to an email?
-
Well the only person who can take this whole matter forward is PH himself. The fact that he is not going to that and stated publicly that he does not think the person who penned the letter would be caught. This alone raises suspicions as to why he might think that given the technology we have today. He does not think it worthy to make a formal complaint but then goes to the press about it. It is this that I find odd.
This is no kangaroo court at all Caroline. PH has brought this in the public domain and no matter how you look at this forum....So therefore we are all entitled to make comments. I do agree that making accusations should not be allowed. The first one to cast those accusation were from those who think Bamber is guilty....and automatically accused a female member on here. It is not nice to accuse someone of something they have not done, is it? It makes you angry and its upsetting.
Surely we can discuss this in an adult fashion...without the shouting. ;D
Had Jackie not already tried to discredit PH with the PM fiasco, she would never have come under suspicion - she brought that on herself. Personally, I have no idea if she did sent it or not. It could be anyone - supporter or non supporter - forum member, ex member ...... so many possibilities but I certainly hope we do find out because it's a pretty sick thing to do!
-
I must have missed something. Where is the reference to an email?
It's nothing to do with the article, he has had threats in the past - you already know that.
-
ill give him the benfit of the doubt he could of gone to the press as a warning.
I agree!
-
somtimes when your being threatned the only way to stop it is to go public with it.
-
It's nothing to do with the article, he has had threats in the past - you already know that.
I have no recollection of this but obviously I could have forgotten about being told about it. Can you remind me? Was he threatened in an email? If so it should be possible to trace the sender, certainly more easily that in the case of the letter.
-
oh yes there much more easy to trace.
-
I have no recollection of this but obviously I could have forgotten about being told about it. Can you remind me? Was he threatened in an email? If so it should be possible to trace the sender, certainly more easily that in the case of the letter.
That's for him to discuss but he did tell you that his mail was hacked and that he received threats around that time. I can't believe that writing one bloody book can lead to this amount of trouble. I hope he has the lot investigated!!
-
somtimes when your being threatned the only way to stop it is to go public with it.
When the book was deemed to be innocent linked, he had threats and his mail hacked, now it's the other way, he gets more threats. You can't win!
-
Had Jackie not already tried to discredit PH with the PM fiasco, she would never have come under suspicion - she brought that on herself. Personally, I have no idea if she did sent it or not. It could be anyone - supporter or non supporter - forum member, ex member ...... so many possibilities but I certainly hope we do find out because it's a pretty sick thing to do!
Come under suspicion from who exactly?
-
When the book was deemed to be innocent linked, he had threats and his mail hacked, not it's the other way, he gets more threats. You can't win!
Poor guy, i touched on this subject earlier from hero to zero.
-
Come under suspicion from who exactly?
Read the thread!!
-
Poor guy, i touched on this subject earlier from hero to zero.
Exactly, it doesn't take much - just a change of mind!
-
Exactly, it doesn't take much - just a change of mind!
Seems to me that there's a mix going on here between the unconditional voices of reason and those who are prepared to be reasonable but with conditions :D
-
Exactly, it doesn't take much - just a change of mind!
Its be hoped Scotty doesn't have a change of stance or that would cause a riot?
-
Its be hoped Scotty doesn't have a change of stance or that would cause a riot?
Who is Scotty?
-
Who is Scotty?
Sorry Caroline should not resort to that, Scott Lomax. I apologise
-
Sorry Caroline should not resort to that, Scott Lomax. I apologise
Oh right :). Perhaps he did have his fair share of abuse, who knows but his book is written now, I doubt he would ever come out on the other side. ;D
-
Read the thread!!
Caroline you clearly pointed the finger at me! So I posted on an open forum that author was writing a book about Jeremy Bambers absolute guilt when a lot of people felt like they had been led to be the book was about a moj
The person clearly knew my stance and it has never changed but encouraged me to carry on fighting and tried to encourage me to email him
Because of this you have tried to make people people I sent a letter with a death threat
Miss Marple I suggest he mentioned a typewriter because anyone's computers can be checked
Next time you have a cosy chat with him ask him xxxx. Perhaps he has been getting tips of xxxx
I take it he has been in touch with xxxx
-
Oh right :). Perhaps he did have his fair share of abuse, who knows but his book is written now, I doubt he would ever come out on the other side. ;D
#desperate
-
#desperate
#Rightbackatya!
-
Exactly the legal bit!!!
-
It's all backfired on you hasn't it
Still look on the bright side you have Lamberton supporting you
-
It's all backfired on you hasn't it
Still look on the bright side you have Lamberton supporting you
What back fired on me?
-
He said this in March Jackie, Before anyone asks, my book is done, its with the publisher and legals now. Still no date for publication, nothing more to say or add at present. So it looks like the legal bit is sorted?
so hes book was finished in march and in september he was still saying it might be a moj but now hes sure jeremys guilty.
-
I couldn't care less either way. It's a persons' prerogative to support whichever way they want to,and if their minds are changed at the drop of a hat,so be it. I don't see what difference it should make to anyone.
One article that I was reading about was that a " troll " had its own website and was leading a campaign of hate against certain MP's. Needless to say,that troll was traced and is now jailed.
This is a nasty,vile, and despicable crime against those who happened to have had a different religion.
The writer of the newspaper article is of the same league as a troll. Cowardly and Evil.
-
Caroline you clearly pointed the finger at me! So I posted on an open forum that author was writing a book about Jeremy Bambers absolute guilt when a lot of people felt like they had been led to be the book was about a moj
The person clearly knew my stance and it has never changed but encouraged me to carry on fighting and tried to encourage me to email him
Because of this you have tried to make people people I sent a letter with a death threat
Miss Marple I suggest he mentioned a typewriter because anyone's computers can be checked
Next time you have a cosy chat with him ask him xxxx. Perhaps he has been getting tips of xxxx
I take it he has been in touch with xxxx
Where have I tried to make anyone believe the above? You're doing it again!! You are clearly deranged!!!!!
-
so hes book was finished in march and in september he was still saying it might be a moj but now hes sure jeremys guilty.
I find it all Unusual in a strange way Nugnug.
-
And who on gods earth is XXXX?????
-
What back fired on me?
You and your mate Lamberton were hoping people would blame me because that's how the article read
You need to accept why your new bestie got banned
-
I suppose you could argue that he was guilty,but it remains to be a MOJ simply because of the unfair trial,if enough evidence was brought against it having been an unfair trial.
-
And who on gods earth is XXXX?????
Its a beer Caroline lol?
-
Caroline you clearly pointed the finger at me! So I posted on an open forum that author was writing a book about Jeremy Bambers absolute guilt when a lot of people felt like they had been led to be the book was about a moj
The person clearly knew my stance and it has never changed but encouraged me to carry on fighting and tried to encourage me to email him
Because of this you have tried to make people people I sent a letter with a death threat
Miss Marple I suggest he mentioned a typewriter because anyone's computers can be checked
Next time you have a cosy chat with him ask him xxxx. Perhaps he has been getting tips of xxxx
I take it he has been in touch with xxxx
NOBODY had to MAKE you look involved. You did that VERY successfully when you announced that MD had contacted you out of the blue and you actually bragged that you supposed he wanted to be friends because of all the information that you had re Jeremy -It crossed my mind at the time, why would he know you from Adam- had you not done so, in all likelihood, your name wouldn't be associated with him now.
-
You and your mate Lamberton were hoping people would blame me because that's how the article read
You need to accept why your new bestie got banned
I didn't write the article Jackie!! If that's the way it reads it's because you tried to discredit MD over the PM fiasco - which is also mentioned. For your information, I had no idea about the article until I read it here and you can believe what you like. You STILL haven't answer what you meant by your cryptic message about me getting a reply soon! If you didn't meddle with people you wouldn't get yourself in so much crap. You don't debate the case you just try an abuse ANYONE who think is Jeremy might be guilty - you're obsessed and obsessive!!
-
That's for him to discuss but he did tell you that his mail was hacked and that he received threats around that time. I can't believe that writing one bloody book can lead to this amount of trouble. I hope he has the lot investigated!!
Do you know if he reported the earlier threats to the police?
-
I knew that Paul Harrison had changed his stance and that his computer had been hacked and the letter of course; but I never heard of threatening emails.
Can you point me to where it says that, Caroline?
-
Do you know if he reported the earlier threats to the police?
I have no idea.
-
I didn't write the article Jackie!! If that's the way it reads it's because you tried to discredit MD over the PM fiasco - which is also mentioned. For your information, I had no idea about the article until I read it here and you can believe what you like. You STILL haven't answer what you meant by your cryptic message about me getting a reply soon! If you didn't meddle with people you wouldn't get yourself in so much crap. You don't debate the case you just try an abuse ANYONE who think is Jeremy might be guilty - you're obsessed and obsessive!!
You and April are the obsessive two.
Tell me why was your mate so furious the truth was out and as for your comment April it's pathetic
You are implying that the finger is pointed at me for a death threat letter because I told the truth about Your new mate on an open forum
You need help after posting rubbish like that
Try reading Pattis post and let it sink in
-
I knew that Paul Harrison had changed his stance and that his computer had been hacked and the letter of course; but I never heard of threatening emails.
Can you point me to where it says that, Caroline?
He didn't put it on the forum, he told myself, NGB and a few others - quite a while ago now.
-
if he did and they dident anything that might be why he dident report this one but i notice he dident go the press then.
-
You and April are the obsessive two.
Tell me why was your mate so furious the truth was out and as for your comment April it's pathetic
You are implying that the finger is pointed at me for a death threat letter because I told the truth about Your new mate on an open forum
You need help after posting rubbish like that
Try reading Pattis post and let it sink in
Of course Jackie - you STILL can't admit that you tried to discredit him, even though we all read the PM's which were posted on the open forum. You can TRY and weedle but everyone read it and the article even states that you almost lost your job over it and STILL you have learned nothing. I have nothing more to say to you Jackie - you're your own worst enemy!
-
is possble we could stop all the name calling.
and acusations.
-
if he did and they dident anything that might be why he dident report this one but i notice he dident go the press then.
Well, perhaps this is the straw that broke the camels back - to be honest, if I were him I'd wish I'd never started the damn book - it seems to have been a nightmare from start to finish.
-
is possble we could stop all the name calling.
and acusations.
I agree Nugnug. It is not helpful.
-
is possble we could stop all the name calling.
and acusations.
I said that about 3 hours ago.
-
I find it all Unusual in a strange way Nugnug.
i find it strange becouse surely a change of stance would require some rewritting.
-
Well, perhaps this is the straw that broke the camels back - to be honest, if I were him I'd wish I'd never started the damn book - it seems to have been a nightmare from start to finish.
could be he might of just had enough.
though funny thing is no other auther has been threatend like this before not not wilkes Powell or lomax
wolfingdon and webster never got any threats.
why are they picking on him.
-
He didn't put it on the forum, he told myself, NGB and a few others - quite a while ago now.
Oh, OK.
He really should go to the police - emails can be traced.
-
could be he might of just had enough.
though funny thing is no other auther has been threatend like this before not not wilkes Powell or lomax
wolfingdon and webster never got any threats.
why are they picking on him.
A very good question.
In fairness, we don´t know whether the other authors received any sort of threats. They may have chosen not to go public with them. I suppose we could ask them.
If none of them received threats, it is strange that PH has.
-
Oh, OK.
He really should go to the police - emails can be traced.
He obviously hasn't ?????
-
A very good question.
In fairness, we don´t know whether the other authors received any sort of threats. They may have chosen not to go public with them. I suppose we could ask them.
If none of them received threats, it is strange that PH has.
i think its rather strane hes being singled out for persecution i mean hes not the only person planning to write a book on the case.
-
'Last night, Mr Harrison said he believes Bamber himself is behind the threat, having manipulated one of his "disciples" into sending the sinister message'.
-
'But Mr Harrison said his book will "finally bring closure" and prove Bamber's guilt beyond doubt when it is published ahead of the 30th anniversary of the slayings next August'.
-
Once released Jeremy and his supporters can go into overdrive to discredit the book. Just as they did when Woffinden turned.
That is only if the book is acclaimed. Bad reviews and they will not have to bother so much.
I suppose the best thing to do is prevent publication altogether. Or attempt to get Harrison to change content. Once word has got around of the content, which seems to have happened.
Those you call Jeremy supporters may indeed be justice supporters and may want the book to be published. I think perhaps you do those who think differently from you an injustice in thinking that they will discredit such a book? I for one would like it to be published, not because I blindly suport a mass murderer as you obviously believe those who "support" Jeremy to be. But because I want to hear the truth and not from a load of biased guilters who claim to know the truth.
-
It is quite possible there is new evidence that Harrison has unearthed proving Jeremy's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The police do not have to disclose this to the public. They have already got a conviction. If Jeremy knows about this evidence he will want to keep it quiet and stop anyone who knows, publishing.
Mmmm.
-
It is quite possible there is new evidence that Harrison has unearthed proving Jeremy's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The police do not have to disclose this to the public. They have already got a conviction. If Jeremy knows about this evidence he will want to keep it quiet and stop anyone who knows, publishing.
Mmmm.
That's strange, I thought that was done in the original trial?
-
they dont have to disclose it but why would they not want to disclose it.
-
they dont have to disclose it but why would they not want to disclose it.
why would they suppress information that proves them right.
-
It is quite possible there is new evidence that Harrison has unearthed proving Jeremy's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The police do not have to disclose this to the public. They have already got a conviction. If Jeremy knows about this evidence he will want to keep it quiet and stop anyone who knows, publishing.
Mmmm.
But nearly 30 years ago the jury voted 10-2 that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Jeremy maintaining his innocence is irrelevant.
-
That's strange, I thought that was done in the original trial?
They did indeed. But there could be evidence which refutes Bamber's 29 year year claims of a cover up.
-
That's strange, I thought that was done in the original trial?
Does this mean that generally even guilters don´t quite trust the evidence Jeremy was convicted on? I see no other option.
-
i find it strange becouse surely a change of stance would require some rewritting.
Im not certain that the author had a stance? At least not as to innocence/guilt. If he did,he doesn't appear to have conveyed that to us. I would imagine the book has had to be re-written to a degree in order to factor in the deaths of Stan Jones and Bob Miller? Im guessing that the book might reveal or hint at noble cause corruption and this may be where the legal problems have arisen. The author has previously disclosed to us that the believes the silencer evidence to be bogus and yet he now believes the Police got the 'right man'. A case of 'nobel cause corruption' throws up a different set of questions for me. I don't know about any cases where this has been proved (if any) and what the outcome was. Would a case involving this still be classed as a MOJ? Would Jeremy have grounds for an appeal based on this if it could be proved? If proved could it lead to his release? If corruption in his case was proved,especially involving one of the main planks of evidence against him,rather than be released on a technicality (which he doesn't want) he would surely have to be released as an innocent man as the Crown would have failed to have proven his guilt. Im not sure the conviction could stand on JM's evidence alone? I admit,I havent a clue when it comes to all the legalalities.
-
Yes they did.
They did indeed. But there could be evidence which refutes Bamber's 29 year year claims of a cover up.
But you've said that proof of his guilt is already out there.
-
Does this mean that generally even guilters don´t quite trust the evidence Jeremy was convicted on? I see no other option.
Jeremy is certainly guilty. There is a mountain of circumstantial and forensic evidence. Together with a motive and opportunity.
However he has managed to build up a head of steam with unproven claims of a triple frame of Julie, the police and the relatives. If negated by Harrison, it's all over.
Or Harrison may have just found new compelling evidence adding to the evidence the public know about.
Or both.
Either way, someone is not happy.
-
why would they suppress information that proves them right.
Wheels within wheels. It's got to be proven yet.Don't worry,there'd have been NO information held back that would have proved Jeremys' guilt. We'd have heard it LONG before now.
-
Jeremy is certainly guilty. There is a mountain of circumstantial and forensic evidence. Together with a motive and opportunity.
However he has managed to build up a head of steam with unproven claims of a triple frame of Julie, the police and the relatives. If negated by Harrison, it's all over.
Or Harrison may have just found new compelling evidence adding to the evidence the public know about.
Or both.
Either way, someone is not happy.
Why is it always a "mountain" of circumstantial evidence in cases without that much proof? :P Sometimes a "molehill" of circumstantial evidence would be more fitting!
-
An interesting article on noble cause corruption
http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=313
-
Why is it always a "mountain" of circumstantial evidence in cases without that much proof? :P Sometimes a "molehill" of circumstantial evidence would be more fitting!
And how come it's possible, that after ALL this time, there are still those who are holding onto information of ANY kind?
-
Why is it always a "mountain" of circumstantial evidence in cases without that much proof? :P Sometimes a "molehill" of circumstantial evidence would be more fitting!
Just quoting the judge.
-
Just quoting the judge.
I know - but this phrase is always used in cases without direct evidence. It is always a "mountain", to make it seem more than it actually is.
-
Wheels within wheels. It's got to be proven yet.Don't worry,there'd have been NO information held back that would have proved Jeremys' guilt. We'd have heard it LONG before now.
if somones protesting there innocence and appealing and they would want to make that information public to shut them up wouldent they.
-
Wheels within wheels. It's got to be proven yet.Don't worry,there'd have been NO information held back that would have proved Jeremys' guilt. We'd have heard it LONG before now.
Lookout, I'm inclined to agree. What on EARTH would be the point of holding back proof of anyone's guilt after they've been proven guilty.
-
An interesting article on noble cause corruption
http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=313
How sad is that Tyler. 5 appeals later.
One of the most heart-rending examples I came across was an excerpt from a letter written by Michael MacMahon just after his appeal had been turned down for an unprecedented fifth time ... ‘I am here in my cell writing this having served almost nine years of a sentence for a murder I did not commit. I also know that I sit here not because of any evidence against me but because of the legal establishment's concern for its own pretensions of infallibility’. Michael MacMahon served his full sentence but sadly died in 2000 aged 55. However his family continued the fight for justice and, with the assistance of Gareth Pierce, Michael's posthumous sixth appeal eventually succeeded on 31 July 2003.
-
you would think they would release it before the appeal was heard wouldent you.
-
Lookout, I'm inclined to agree. What on EARTH would be the point of holding back proof of anyone's guilt after they've been proven guilty.
It won't be held back. Just submitted at appropriate appeals.
-
How sad is that Tyler. 5 appeals later.
One of the most heart-rending examples I came across was an excerpt from a letter written by Michael MacMahon just after his appeal had been turned down for an unprecedented fifth time ... ‘I am here in my cell writing this having served almost nine years of a sentence for a murder I did not commit. I also know that I sit here not because of any evidence against me but because of the legal establishment's concern for its own pretensions of infallibility’. Michael MacMahon served his full sentence but sadly died in 2000 aged 55. However his family continued the fight for justice and, with the assistance of Gareth Pierce, Michael's posthumous sixth appeal eventually succeeded on 31 July 2003.
How sad is that ? How cruel.
I was reading about the case of Sam Hallam who was imprisoned,wrongly,for 8 years and during that time the lads' father died with the strain of it all,then the grandmother.
-
you would think they would release it before the appeal was heard wouldent you.
Stuff like this is not rare....its almost like the full truth is buried, but it also rises from the depth it was placed in....Its a real shame in this case it came too late.
It has to be said that Jeremy Bamber is the only man fighting his case after an impeccable 30 years.
If Essex police had nothing to hide then why do they hang on to documents and why did they destroy documents when Jeremy was still fighting his case. :o
-
Whether Jeremy directly or indirectly arranged for Harrison to get the threatening letter, no one knows. But why should Jeremy a supporter or supporters be so upset or surprised if a new book is going to highlight guilt ?
Supporters on forums have often mentioned Mason Doyle's forthcoming book. Which seems to have disappeared. Optimistically believing that a new book will bring up new evidence showing Jeremy's innocence. But if that was going to happen, surely Jeremy would have already found this evidence. He's been campaigning for 29 years, & apparently has two sets of legal teams and a campaign team.
That was the authors claim not Jeremys
The best a new book could do would be to be a Scott Lomax esq book. Which would in a biased way suggest his innocence.
Any good investigative author will try to produce a balanced book, which would highlight the guilt that has convicted Jeremy for 29 years. While discussing the unproven claims about police corruption, family frame ups & savage girlfriends. But the author claimed he was trying to prove an MOJ
So why would Jeremy, a supporter or supporters be so upset when finding out the content of Harrison's book ? I don't think they are particularly, they are more annoyed about him accusing JB of instigating the letter and putting it in the press when he does not have proof and also dragging other peoples names into the article
One reason is because Harrison went into the book believing there could be a miscarriage of justice. Which could be a reason why Jeremy has engaged with him. However, similar to other writers Harrison has changed stance. No he has not , his last comments were it still could be a MOJ - buy JB could still be guilty there is a difference
Being the first book in years, a guilty book will be a big blow which negates the internet and media work trying to secure a release. Obviously too much of a big blow for someone, or some people. See above
Writing a threatening letter does more harm than good. It will never stop the author trying to get the book published. He may have spent years writing it. It creates bad publicity and highlights that an author believes Jeremy is guilty, putting Jeremy & his supporters in a bad light. ???? Or if JB did not instigate the letter who does it put in a bad light
Why do people believe a person or people wrote the threatening letter ? Have not got a Scooby doo
-
theres allready been an appeal they would of submitted it before that.
-
How sad is that ? How cruel.
I was reading about the case of Sam Hallam who was imprisoned,wrongly,for 8 years and during that time the lads' father died with the strain of it all,then the grandmother.
Its sole destroying Lookout. Once you can accept that it is possible that evidence can be made to fit the crime theory, you can and only them view this case with an open mind.... ;D ;D ;D
-
It won't be held back. Just submitted at appropriate appeals.
My point is, if condemning information proving guilt HASN'T been previously revealed, it HAS been withheld...................and given that Jeremy was found guilty, of what value can it be?
-
PH was following the " Bible John " case where 3 young women were murdered in Glasgow,and there was a sick theme connected to the murders which was that the 3 young women were menstruating.
PH was convinced that the murderer was an ex-cop,but I have my doubts whether the man who was arrested in the end,was ever a cop,and that was Peter Tobin.
PH wrote a book based on the killings " Dancing with the Devil " because the 3 women had been murdered after attending a dance hall in Glasgow.
-
There won't be any new evidence in any book, I am quite certain of that
The only new evidence that could change things will be held under PII like nearly every other moj case
Authors and writers that make sensational claims are nearly always short of cash
In that case why were you so desperate to help him promote the book?
How quickly like Bob Woffinden before him, that Mason Doyle has gone from Hero to zero don't you think Roch? Its been the same pattern for several posters as well who changed from tunnel vision to funnel vision?
Seems some posters only like people who agree with them. Once they doubt Bambers innocence steps are taken to try and discredit them.
I had no idea he had changed his stance, not until it was posted about on the board after his ban - even then I was unsure.
I'll buy his book because it seems some people don't want others to read the book - that in itself seems to say alot. ;D
-
None whatsoever,April.
-
I can't wait for the book to come out,if only to pick holes in it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D It's what one does,is it not ?
-
'But Mr Harrison said his book will "finally bring closure" and prove Bamber's guilt beyond doubt when it is published ahead of the 30th anniversary of the slayings next August'.
-
The Express said he went into the book believing it could be a MOJ.
-
'Mr Harrison said he began researching the case suspecting there may have been a miscarriage of justice but has since come to the conclusion that the police got the right man'.
-
So how would you advertise your new book on a subject written about previously? Would you say something to spike peoples' interest, or would you say that you hadn't found anything new to write about?
-
'Mr Harrison said he began researching the case suspecting there may have been a miscarriage of justice but has since come to the conclusion that the police got the right man'.
I don't think that was the case Adam. He told me otherwise. I think we sort of believed that he was writing a book about a MOJ
I suppose we shall have to wait what the book says....when and if it comes to print ;)
-
I don't think that was the case Adam. He told me otherwise. I think we sort of believed that he was writing a book about a MOJ
I suppose we shall have to wait what the book says....when and if it comes to print ;)
Hi Patti.
What did he tell you? Because others seem to indicate that he told them the same thing as Adam has posted?
-
I don't think that was the case Adam. He told me otherwise. I think we sort of believed that he was writing a book about a MOJ
I suppose we shall have to wait what the book says....when and if it comes to print ;)
I am quoting the Express.
Harrison can clarify if wrong. He hasn't.
-
So how would you advertise your new book on a subject written about previously? Would you say something to spike peoples' interest, or would you say that you hadn't found anything new to write about?
The book is due next August. The publicity will start then.
It will get a lot of publicity then.
-
So how would you advertise your new book on a subject written about previously? Would you say something to spike peoples' interest, or would you say that you hadn't found anything new to write about?
THIS was the question I asked you, Adam. It has nothing to do with what will happen when and if the book is published.
-
Hi Patti.
What did he tell you? Because others seem to indicate that he told them the same thing as Adam has posted?
He sort of said that the book was not going to be like the others and he thought there would be disappointment among the pro Bamber supporters, because he was writing about the way in which the case had been handled....or something to that effect. I still have the PM I never delete any of them. It was sometime last year...
I got the impression that he was writing more about corruption within the police and the mistakes within the case. I did feel though that he swayed towards Jeremy. PH was always OK with me.
What happened from the 19th of September and after that made me re-consider his own agenda.
I shall buy his book, if it does go to print....I'd also be interested to read the back cover.... :)
-
He sort of said that the book was not going to be like the others and he thought there would be disappointment among the pro Bamber supporters, because he was writing about the way in which the case had been handled....or something to that effect. I still have the PM I never delete any of them. It was sometime last year...
I got the impression that he was writing more about corruption within the police and the mistakes within the case. I did feel though that he swayed towards Jeremy. PH was always OK with me.
What happened from the 19th of September and after that made me re-consider his own agenda.
I shall buy his book, if it does go to print....I'd also be interested to read the back cover.... :)
So Patti, if you take another look at exactly what he said, do you think he EVER stated categorically that he was writing from an "innocent" stance, or is it possible it was worded in a way which made you believe it was. I ask, because IMO, if he'd believed Jeremy to be innocent, it MAY have been a better bet to stay with the red forum.
-
So Patti, if you take another look at exactly what he said, do you think he EVER stated categorically that he was writing from an "innocent" stance, or is it possible it was worded in a way which made you believe it was. I ask, because IMO, if he'd believed Jeremy to be innocent, it MAY have been a better bet to stay with the red forum.
I'd say what he posted on the forum was worded in a way so that we would believe his stance to be in favor of Jeremy and maybe it was, but its possible that it wasn't.
It had crossed my mind on several occasions and I am not saying this is the case with PH...But, if I was an author and I wanted to present a good argument in my book. I would do what Adam is doing now. I would raise the question and pluck out the best answer to the argument that I had presented....I'm not saying this is what he did April. Does that answer your question?
Don't worry Adam, I am only using you as an example.
-
I'd say what he posted on the forum was worded in a way so that we would believe his stance to be in favor of Jeremy and maybe it was, but its possible that it wasn't.
It had crossed my mind on several occasions and I am not saying this is the case with PH...But, if I was an author and I wanted to present a good argument in my book. I would do what Adam is doing now. I would raise the question and pluck out the best answer to the argument that I had presented....I'm not saying this is what he did April. Does that answer your question?
Don't worry Adam, I am only using you as an example.
Yes, it does, Patti. It also makes it easier to believe that we're all capable of reading into things what we want to see. No worries, I wouldn't expect you to use Adam for anything other than as an example :D
-
He sort of said that the book was not going to be like the others and he thought there would be disappointment among the pro Bamber supporters, because he was writing about the way in which the case had been handled....or something to that effect. I still have the PM I never delete any of them. It was sometime last year...
I got the impression that he was writing more about corruption within the police and the mistakes within the case. I did feel though that he swayed towards Jeremy. PH was always OK with me.
What happened from the 19th of September and after that made me re-consider his own agenda.
I shall buy his book, if it does go to print....I'd also be interested to read the back cover.... :)
In the review he said the reason he was writing the book was because he thought it was a moj. This is what the article said: Harrison said: "It is not for me to say Jeremy is innocent, but his conviction is unsound. There has been a miscarriage of justice, of that I'm sure."
-
In the review he said the reason he was writing the book was because he thought it was a moj. This is what the article said:
Yes it does Grahame.....I had forgotten about that. When was it dated, do you know? :) :)
-
Yes it does Grahame.....I had forgotten about that. When was it dated, do you know? :) :)
July 21st 2013
-
July 21st 2013
I wonder what he found that changed his mind? I suppose we will have to wait.... ;D ;D ;D
-
maybe hes been shown some of the documents that have been held under wraps.
though i doubt it very much.
-
or maybe he hasnt changed his mind maybe its cunning plan to get everyone talking about the book.
-
or maybe he hasnt changed his mind maybe its cunning plan to get everyone talking about the book.
I doubt it. He would have a better chance of selling the book if he claimed he had found evidence of JB´s innocense than of his guilt. He was found guilty almost thirty years ago, so who cares?
-
i cant waite ethere
-
well he couldent want for better publicity could he.
the other thing ive considred is weather he allways thought it and he was just stringing everybody along.
though i cant think why he would really.
-
In that case why were you so desperate to help him promote the book?
Seems some posters only like people who agree with them. Once they doubt Bambers innocence steps are taken to try and discredit them.
I had no idea he had changed his stance, not until it was posted about on the board after his ban - even then I was unsure.
I'll buy his book because it seems some people don't want others to read the book - that in itself seems to say alot. ;D
I was never desperate get you facts straight when you use than tone
I did think there was a million to one chance he might have persuaded Julie Mugford to tell the truth
I am going to get MWT to look at everything that has gone on and give him details of the letter and I am going to write to the publisher
-
I will be getting to th bottom of this letter and the 'numerous' 'threats'
-
I will be getting to th bottom of this letter and the 'numerous' 'threats'
What I find problematic with this whole thing is that PH and the newspaper basically get away with insinuating that JB is behind this and that you, Jackie, are the "disciple" who sent the letter - and probably with the blessing of Jeremy´s "protector", NGB.
It is all in very poor taste at least!
NGB said here on the board that Jeremy didn´t have a "name" to protect, so he couldn´t do anything. Does that mean that I can make up a story about Jeremy, say, claim he is a pedophile and molested children before he went to prison and go to a newspaper with it - and Jeremy can´t do anything about it because he is in prison?
Surely even lifers have a right not to be unjustly defamed?
-
yes it means you can make up anything you like.
-
yes it means you can make up anything you like.
That is just not right.
-
and some wanker would come on here and insist it must be true because you said it.
-
I don't care if he's got glowing reports from the Dalai Lama himself, I for one do not trust him after reading that article. Sounds like someone who would sell his own grandmother for 30 pieces of silver?
-
I remember my shakespeare here, "A man may smile and smile and be a villian".
-
possbly its still the same but with an added thing saying he now thinks jeremys guilty.
i mean changing opinion doesnt neccasrly mean changing the content.
-
What I find problematic with this whole thing is that PH and the newspaper basically get away with insinuating that JB is behind this and that you, Jackie, are the "disciple" who sent the letter - and probably with the blessing of Jeremy´s "protector", NGB.
It is all in very poor taste at least!
NGB said here on the board that Jeremy didn´t have a "name" to protect, so he couldn´t do anything. Does that mean that I can make up a story about Jeremy, say, claim he is a pedophile and molested children before he went to prison and go to a newspaper with it - and Jeremy can´t do anything about it because he is in prison?
Surely even lifers have a right not to be unjustly defamed?
mind you jackie and nggb might still have a case for libel
-
What I find problematic with this whole thing is that PH and the newspaper basically get away with insinuating that JB is behind this and that you, Jackie, are the "disciple" who sent the letter - and probably with the blessing of Jeremy´s "protector", NGB.
It is all in very poor taste at least!
NGB said here on the board that Jeremy didn´t have a "name" to protect, so he couldn´t do anything. Does that mean that I can make up a story about Jeremy, say, claim he is a pedophile and molested children before he went to prison and go to a newspaper with it - and Jeremy can´t do anything about it because he is in prison?
Surely even lifers have a right not to be unjustly defamed?
Thanks Alias
I find it extraordinary the anger and bad behaviour we have seen just because the author has been exposed as someone who is writing a book about Jeremy's guilt
What was the reason for?
-
i cant understand the reason for anyone to do that i mean hes bring out a book from a guilty stance hes not the first person to do that so who cares that much.
same as if he was writting from an innocent point of view who cares i mean nobody tried to bully lomax so why him.
the only reason i can think is to try and frame somebody else.
-
What I find problematic with this whole thing is that PH and the newspaper basically get away with insinuating that JB is behind this and that you, Jackie, are the "disciple" who sent the letter - and probably with the blessing of Jeremy´s "protector", NGB.
It is all in very poor taste at least!
NGB said here on the board that Jeremy didn´t have a "name" to protect, so he couldn´t do anything. Does that mean that I can make up a story about Jeremy, say, claim he is a pedophile and molested children before he went to prison and go to a newspaper with it - and Jeremy can´t do anything about it because he is in prison?
Surely even lifers have a right not to be unjustly defamed?
You can feel the bitterness and jealousy in just those two phrases.
Jeremy can't defend himself against this slander/libel and whoever wrote that,knows this.It's so cowardly,but so very childish at the same time,as no normal balanced adult would write in this way.
-
I don't care if he's got glowing reports from the Dalai Lama himself, I for one do not trust him after reading that article. Sounds like someone who would sell his own grandmother for 30 pieces of silver?
I agree. Why didn't he just overlook it and put it down to it having been a crank/crackpot.?
-
You can feel the bitterness and jealousy in just those two phrases.
Jeremy can't defend himself against this slander/libel and whoever wrote that,knows this.It's so cowardly,but so very childish at the same time,as no normal balanced adult would write in this way.
Lookout, what exactly to you think he's bitter about and jealous of? I very much doubt that he wants to be either a "disciple" or a "protector" of Jeremy, and I feel perfectly certain that you've been around this forum long enough to know that we all regard ourselves as being "normal, balanced adults". Others may disagree.
-
You can feel the bitterness and jealousy in just those two phrases.
Jeremy can't defend himself against this slander/libel and whoever wrote that,knows this.It's so cowardly,but so very childish at the same time,as no normal balanced adult would write in this way.
Jealous of what?
-
Well,c'mon,can't you detect a certain inadequacy in the writer ? That answers your question,I think.
Otherwise why resort to it ?
-
Lookout I have been thinking out this a lot.
Wouldn't it be funny if there was a way to make a claim against the article writer but could donate the whole lot to Jeremy's campaign for freedom
Who would have the last laugh then
-
Crank or not.
Only Jeremy or a well informed supporter would know the contents of a book not due for release until 2015.
-
Crank or not.
Only Jeremy or a well informed supporter would know the contents of a book not due for release until 2015.
Lies,lies and damned lies.
-
Lookout I have been thinking out this a lot.
Wouldn't it be funny if there was a way to make a claim against the article writer but could donate the whole lot to Jeremy's campaign for freedom
Who would have the last laugh then
Heck no. I'd use the money to buy a flat. ;D
-
Crank or not.
Only Jeremy or a well informed supporter would know the contents of a book not due for release until 2015.
Why and how would ONLY a supporter know? That doesn't make any sense.
-
Why and how would ONLY a supporter know? That doesn't make any sense.
Well Harrison thinks it was Jeremy.
Are you saying that a crank with no interest in the case found out Harrison was releasing a book in August 2015 and decided to send threatening letters ?
-
Well Harrison thinks it was Jeremy.
Are you saying that a crank with no interest in the case found out Harrison was releasing a book in August 2015 and decided to send threatening letters ?
Correction, Harrison "says" it's Jeremy. But who's to say that Harrison is not lying? Oh I forgot there are some who have spoken to him a few times and therefore are authorities on whether he's an honest man or not. ::) In my book it's the easyist think in the world to sling mug and accuse others of something. There will always be some who will believe it.
-
Well Harrison thinks it was Jeremy.
Are you saying that a crank with no interest in the case found out Harrison was releasing a book in August 2015 and decided to send threatening letters ?
Someone posing as PH perhaps ? Why must you always be taken in by what the press says ?
-
This Harrisonson article also speaks about Bamber being at the back of all these "death threats" and has power from within prison to influence his "disciples". Sorry but U must really laugh at this as this man claims to have been in contact with Bamber for about 3 years. If that is true then he will know that Bamber is a category "A" prisoner and that everything he does, every visitor, every phone call and every letter is vetted and that he cannot possibly run a mafia type gang fron inside.
I'm afraid this tells me much more about Robertson than it does about Bamber. It tells me that he certainly has a vivid imagination. I also challenge him to publish the actual letter for us all to see and examine for ourselves.
This man far from being in danger himself has in fact put people's lives and careers in danger. May I also remind members here that he sent Jackie a pm asking her to contact him by email and that he tells her to "keep up the good work for Bamber".
Now you may or may not believe me? That is up to every individual. I have no control over that. But please keep in mind that death threats are a criminal offence and of this letter is real then he should go to the police about it. I stongly encourage him to do so. That way this matter can be investigated by the proper authorities so that lies and accusations may not be flying around hurting innocent people. I implore everyone to take into consideration an old saying, "A lie is half way round the world before truth has even started out".
when did he send the email to jackie telling her to keep up the good work.
-
Well,c'mon,can't you detect a certain inadequacy in the writer ? That answers your question,I think.
Otherwise why resort to it ?
I can see bitterness, but i am at a loss to think how someone could be jealous of a mass murderer, or supporter of or against a mass murderer?
-
when did he send the email to jackie telling her to keep up the good work.
August 20th. Here is the message:
Re: (No subject)
« Sent to: JackiePreece on: August 20, 2014, 05:03:PM »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »ReplyQuoteDelete
Hi Jackie
I'm keeping a low profile at present, I have sustained a lot of pressure off the establishment and the cops, they have done their utmost to get the book banned and they don't know what is in it! They even tried to kill me off on the internet, hoping someone would come forward claiming to know details of the book. No one else, other than publisher and solicitor does. If we make it into print, it won't be out until next year now. Still a few battles to fight yet I would think.
You can contact me at [email protected] its the email address most people come through and gets checked most frequently. I receive about 100 emails a day, all need a response, so please bear with me if you don't get an immediate response. Keep fighting and don't let them drown you out.
Paul H
-
I can see bitterness, but i am at a loss to think how someone could be jealous of a mass murderer, or supporter of or against a mass murderer?
Oh I can see right through some people,Justice. :) The " Boss " suit,champagne and lobster for instance.What's that got to do with anything ? ::)
-
August 20th. Here is the message:
Re: (No subject)
« Sent to: JackiePreece on: August 20, 2014, 05:03:PM »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »ReplyQuoteDelete
Hi Jackie
I'm keeping a low profile at present, I have sustained a lot of pressure off the establishment and the cops, they have done their utmost to get the book banned and they don't know what is in it! They even tried to kill me off on the internet, hoping someone would come forward claiming to know details of the book. No one else, other than publisher and solicitor does. If we make it into print, it won't be out until next year now. Still a few battles to fight yet I would think.
You can contact me at [email protected] its the email address most people come through and gets checked most frequently. I receive about 100 emails a day, all need a response, so please bear with me if you don't get an immediate response. Keep fighting and don't let them drown you out.
Paul H
so august the 20th hes still a bamber supporter.
and the book was finished in march.
-
so august the 20th hes still a bamber supporter.
and the book was finished in march.
The message certainly conveys the impression that he was still a Bamber supporter. However, he had stated the opposite to other members before that date. It is very strange.
-
Correction, Harrison "says" it's Jeremy. But who's to say that Harrison is not lying? Oh I forgot there are some who have spoken to him a few times and therefore are authorities on whether he's an honest man or not. ::) In my book it's the easyist think in the world to sling mug and accuse others of something. There will always be some who will believe it.
jeremy is in no postion to do that and harrision knows it.
-
August 20th. Here is the message:
Re: (No subject)
« Sent to: JackiePreece on: August 20, 2014, 05:03:PM »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »ReplyQuoteDelete
Hi Jackie
I'm keeping a low profile at present, I have sustained a lot of pressure off the establishment and the cops, they have done their utmost to get the book banned and they don't know what is in it! They even tried to kill me off on the internet, hoping someone would come forward claiming to know details of the book. No one else, other than publisher and solicitor does. If we make it into print, it won't be out until next year now. Still a few battles to fight yet I would think.
You can contact me at [email protected] its the email address most people come through and gets checked most frequently. I receive about 100 emails a day, all need a response, so please bear with me if you don't get an immediate response. Keep fighting and don't let them drown you out.
Paul H
Does he write for Jackanory by any chance?
-
He's calling everyones bluff,I would think,as he gives nothing away. To say the police have been on his back as well,tells me that he's been non too kind in his description of the fiasco that was the investigation. Ah well,it takes one to know one I suppose and the truth always surfaces in the end.
-
August 20th. Here is the message:
Re: (No subject)
« Sent to: JackiePreece on: August 20, 2014, 05:03:PM »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »ReplyQuoteDelete
Hi Jackie
I'm keeping a low profile at present, I have sustained a lot of pressure off the establishment and the cops, they have done their utmost to get the book banned and they don't know what is in it! They even tried to kill me off on the internet, hoping someone would come forward claiming to know details of the book. No one else, other than publisher and solicitor does. If we make it into print, it won't be out until next year now. Still a few battles to fight yet I would think.
You can contact me at [email protected] its the email address most people come through and gets checked most frequently. I receive about 100 emails a day, all need a response, so please bear with me if you don't get an immediate response. Keep fighting and don't let them drown you out.
Paul H
I think we may have a clue where he says that he's keeping a low profile and gives the reasons. He then goes on to say that only his publisher and solicitor know what the book says. He's hardly going to give ANY hint to WHOEVER contacted him when he doesn't know them fro the man in the moon. His guardedness is further established when he gives the generic email address and explains that the response time may be lengthy. Why would he NOT wish someone well with their personal fight? It's quite a separate thing from his personal feelings.
-
I think we may have a clue where he says that he's keeping a low profile and gives the reasons. He then goes on to say that only his publisher and solicitor know what the book says. He's hardly going to give ANY hint to WHOEVER contacted him when he doesn't know them fro the man in the moon. His guardedness is further established when he gives the generic email address and explains that the response time may be lengthy. Why would he NOT wish someone well with their personal fight? It's quite a separate thing from his personal feelings.
That is certainly one view of this, but there are other possibilities.
-
The message certainly conveys the impression that he was still a Bamber supporter. However, he had stated the opposite to other members before that date. It is very strange.
Perhaps he was just responding to the tone of the correspondent. He isn't their best friend. Perhaps he was simply being polite.
-
Perhaps he was just responding to the tone of the correspondent. He isn't their best friend. Perhaps he was simply being polite.
Perhaps.
-
That is certainly one view of this, but there are other possibilities.
There are indeed and much will depend on what the correspondent said in their introductory communication. What the reply appears to be is generic. One wonders if it may have been a "round robin". I note that he says he receives "hundreds" of emails. True? Wishful thinking? or a reason/an excuse for not taking it further?
-
in the message the authruitys are trying to get the back banned but they dont know whats in it.
now if they dont whats in it how could they get it banned and why would they want to.
-
in the message the authruitys are trying to get the back banned but they dont know whats in it.
now if they dont whats in it how could they get it banned and why would they want to.
Nugs, as I'm not "the authorities" I can't answer for them because I don't know what they may THINK they know and I'm not the recipient of any information they may have..................nor do I have any knowledge of the source, all of which are variables which need consideration.
-
in the message the authruitys are trying to get the back banned but they dont know whats in it.
now if they dont whats in it how could they get it banned and why would they want to.
He might mean the book has been challenged not banned, cannot think of many books banned before publication? Could it be someone challenged certain parts of the book?
-
to get a book banned you need a legal reason and if you don't know whats in the book how can you find a legal reason.
-
He might mean the book has been challenged not banned, cannot think of many books banned before publication? Could it be someone challenged certain parts of the book?
Justice, that sounds reasonable. We're not talking about Salmun Rushdie here, are we and I very much doubt that there's anything in it which will threaten National security.
-
to get a book banned you need a legal reason and if you don't know whats in the book how can you find a legal reason.
At a guess he would have to get certain peoples permission before he could write about them? He would then have to tell them what he would be writing?
-
you dont need anybodys permission to write about them if you did nothing critical would ever get written.
-
you dont need anybodys permission to write about them if you did nothing critical would ever get written.
How come then, that newspapers and authors get sued then?
-
its up to the person who feels defamed to sue the newspaper is not obliged to get there permission to print anything.
nggb dident give the express permission to write about him neither did Jackie but they still did.
-
Which is why I'm going to ask about any apology coming forthwith for having their names dragged through the mire. If I'd been the recipient of such a letter then I'd have immediately got in touch with the two who were named to offer my apologies. It's got to be the done thing,hasn't it ?
-
its up to the person who feels defamed to sue the newspaper is not obliged to get there permission anything.
nggb dident give the express permission to write about him neither did Jackie but they still did.
I honestly don't know how it works, as you said before you have to be careful esp with the Leverson inquiry, maybe this has made people think a bit more what they write? Is mentioning Ngb and Jackie liabel and not mentioning full names? Not sure.
-
well what i cant see is that the establishment would try and ban his book. i mean banning a book is a big step.
how would they justify banning it.
-
well what i cant see is that the establishment would try and ban his book. i mean banning a book is a big step.
how would they justify banning it.
I've just had a thought, I might be wrong. But there is a barring of news reports on Jeremy here in England, could that same barr be affecting his book? :-\ :-\ :-\
-
I honestly don't know how it works, as you said before you have to be careful esp with the Leverson inquiry, maybe this has made people think a bit more what they write? Is mentioning Ngb and Jackie liabel and not mentioning full names? Not sure.
Justice, I'm not certain that Jackie's name was ACTUALLY mentioned.
-
I've just had a thought, I might be wrong. But there is a barring of news reports on Jeremy here in England, could that same barr be affecting his book? :-\ :-\ :-\
well thats news to me when did that happen.
-
Bambers wasn't in the news much anyway. So why a ban? Where did you read that, Patti?
-
From the official website: I said ban, but maybe I meant blanket...
"Jeremy Bamber has a legal team in place for his application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, all of whom are experienced with a proven track record in human rights cases and complex criminal appeals. They include a Solicitor, Barrister and QC all of whom give their time pro-bono. Jeremy does not require any further legal representation. There is currently a blanket ban on new information being released into the media, which is under review. Jeremy has a further two lawyers who work on his sentencing and prison law. Jeremy’s legal teams do not engage with media in any form. If you have legal or media enquiries"
-
It could mean new evidence I am not completely sure... :-\
-
There are indications that there is some form of injunction in place preventing publication of allegations against certain people. It is suggested that it is some form of anonymised superinjunction which means that even reporting the existence of the injuction is prohibited. I have no direct knowledge of this so I do not know if it is correct information, and if I did know I might be precluded from posting the information. Certainly legal issues have prevented or at least delayed the publication of two books dealing with the case.
-
i think it means the capaghn team cant release anything the media
-
i think it means the capaghn team cant release anything the media
I think it means that the campaign team have decided not to release information about the new submissions. In the past they have publicised the basis for the submissions but that policy has changed.
-
so theres no legal reason that anything cant be published then.
-
so theres no legal reason that anything cant be published then.
If there is an injunction it will prevent publication of certain things, but it could not be wide enough to prevent any discussion of the case.
-
who could get an injunction i doubt if a court would be wiling to grant one to the campaghn team.
-
who could get an injunction i doubt if a court would be wiling to grant one to the campaghn team.
I agree and I do not think that the campaign team are suggesting that they have obtained an injunction. An injunction could have been obtained by a police officers or officers involved in the case, by one or more of the relatives or by Julie Mugford. My guess is that it is police officers.
-
August 20th. Here is the message:
Re: (No subject)
« Sent to: JackiePreece on: August 20, 2014, 05:03:PM »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »ReplyQuoteDelete
Hi Jackie
I'm keeping a low profile at present, I have sustained a lot of pressure off the establishment and the cops, they have done their utmost to get the book banned and they don't know what is in it! They even tried to kill me off on the internet, hoping someone would come forward claiming to know details of the book. No one else, other than publisher and solicitor does. If we make it into print, it won't be out until next year now. Still a few battles to fight yet I would think.
You can contact me at [email protected] its the email address most people come through and gets checked most frequently. I receive about 100 emails a day, all need a response, so please bear with me if you don't get an immediate response. Keep fighting and don't let them drown you out.
Paul H
Well! If he had that information from the authorities and the cops and they tried to get him killed off on the internet, then why does he blame Bamber and his "disciples" for sending the death threat letter? Surely the obvious people to look to are those who tried to get the book banned?
-
I agree and I do not think that the campaign team are suggesting that they have obtained an injunction. An injunction could have been obtained by a police officers or officers involved in the case, by one or more of the relatives or by Julie Mugford. My guess is that it is police officers.
Neil, after 30 years, I imagine that many who were in a position of command will have moved on in one way or another!!!!. I believe it's customary for police to retire at 55 so even those who were new recruits at the time must be getting to their "sell by" date.
-
This bit I find intriguing,
They even tried to kill me off on the internet
Which appears to imply that someone put out rumours that he was dead? If that is so then Jackie is certainly in the clear of putting out that rumour since she is the one he sent the email to.
As ngb has said, it looks as if a super injunction has been put in place to stop him mentioning certain people? I hate these injunctions and super injunctions because it seems as if they are a luxury only to be enjoyed by the rich or the influencial. >:( It might also prevent vital information being published that the general public ought to know?
-
Neil, after 30 years, I imagine that many who were in a position of command will have moved on in one way or another!!!!. I believe it's customary for police to retire at 55 so even those who were new recruits at the time must be getting to their "sell by" date.
It may not be a policeman. It may be a politician, a judge or even someone who still holds sway over other people?
-
Well Harrison thinks it was Jeremy.
Are you saying that a crank with no interest in the case found out Harrison was releasing a book in August 2015 and decided to send threatening letters ?
Well now that you mention it the pm he sent to Jackie mentions that the authorities and the police have tried to prevent him publishing the book and have even tried to "kill him off" on the internet. So that to my mind points away from Jackie from having any involvement of the letter.
-
Another reason why Carol Ann Lee looked to Australia to have her book published. Seems strange.
-
This bit I find intriguing, Which appears to imply that someone put out rumours that he was dead? If that is so then Jackie is certainly in the clear of putting out that rumour since she is the one he sent the email to.
As ngb has said, it looks as if a super injunction has been put in place to stop him mentioning certain people? I hate these injunctions and super injunctions because it seems as if they are a luxury only to be enjoyed by the rich or the influencial. >:( It might also prevent vital information being published that the general public ought to know?
the great thing about super injunctions is they actually get the information out quicker.
i would imagene he wouldent be telling people the content of the book anyway becouse once they knew they wouldent buy it.
-
Maybe Bible John isn't Peter Tobin afterall ? PH reckoned that Bible John was a cop,or an ex-cop,but Peter Tobin wasn't. This Bible John lived/frequented Glasgow I think.
-
Well now that you mention it the pm he sent to Jackie mentions that the authorities and the police have tried to prevent him publishing the book and have even tried to "kill him off" on the internet. So that to my mind points away from Jackie from having any involvement of the letter.
I never said Jackie did. But an extract in the Express article does round it down
Before anyone asks. I do not work in publishing.
-
I never said Jackie did. But an extract in the Express article does round it down
Before anyone asks. I do not work in publishing.
No you didn't. I was answering your statement that "Harrison said Jeremy did". I was in fact pointing out that Harrison appears to have enemies other that supposed Bamber supporters.
-
I wonder if there's been a few sleepless nights here and there. ;D ;D.
-
Another reason why Carol Ann Lee looked to Australia to have her book published. Seems strange.
if there was an injuction on the book how could he give a date for it to be published.
-
if there was an injuction on the book how could he give a date for it to be published.
He gave a date of this August past remember and now he's putting it out that it is next August. I wonder what's so special about August?
-
He gave a date of this August past remember and now he's putting it out that it is next August. I wonder what's so special about August?
Well next August marks 30 years since the tragedy.
-
Well next August marks 30 years since the tragedy.
Yes but what did this August mark?
-
Yes but what did this August mark?
Don't know,Mr G.
I've just looked at a remark by Carole Ann Lees' book " Blood Guilt " which was due out in April,and someone has written that " there's usually a state gagging order " on this type of book,and also that the police are known to spy on such publications to make sure that public opinion remains on the side of the police,like the Hillsborough case and Jimmy Savile,rendering a Bambergate for any publication that appears about this case.
-
My God,it makes you wonder !!
-
Mr Harrison was also contacted by a woman who works for an Essex-based firm which publishes magazines for the public sector, including one called Counter-Terror Business aimed at the police, the military and the intelligence services.
She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments.
However, Mr Harrison said he became suspicious and contacted the woman's employers - PSI Ltd - to alert them to a potential breach of security.
One week later, the letter arrived at his home on the sparsely populated island of Sanday. One of the lines reads: "You dodged one bullet but keep checking over your shoulder, Jeremy is still watching you and is waiting.
"You see how we are working with the public sector to support Jeremy Bamber."
-
Don't know,Mr G.
I've just looked at a remark by Carole Ann Lees' book " Blood Guilt " which was due out in April,and someone has written that " there's usually a state gagging order " on this type of book,and also that the police are known to spy on such publications to make sure that public opinion remains on the side of the police,like the Hillsborough case and Jimmy Savile,rendering a Bambergate for any publication that appears about this case.
is that a pro guilt book.
-
No idea what anyone does for a job. Feel free to eliminate yourself from the equation.
-
There is already a thread about this,but you're not happy until you create your OWN,are you ? Gawd !
You expect others to follow your threads but when someone happens to produce another thread,you rarely go on it.
-
is that a pro guilt book.
I rather think so,nugs.
-
so why would the police try and stop that coming out.
-
Serves them right. ;D ;D ;D
Andrew Hunter hadn't finished his book because I think he had a stroke.It would have been interesting to have seen if the same applied to that one.
-
Is John Whittingdale still MP for Maldon ?
-
No idea what anyone does for a job. Feel free to eliminate yourself from the equation.
why have you re-posted the article and what do you mean by the above question?
Be clearer or it sounds like you are making accusations.
-
why have you re-posted the article and what do you mean by the above question?
Be clearer or it sounds like you are making accusations.
I am beginning to think that all Adam is here for is attention for himself. Negative or positive, he doesnt give a hoot, as long as there is attention of some sort.
I didn´t understand the last sentence either, but couldn´t be arsed to ask.
-
why have you re-posted the article and what do you mean by the above question?
Be clearer or it sounds like you are making accusations.
I, too, felt it was a tad suggestive.
-
Mr Harrison was also contacted by a woman who works for an Essex-based firm which publishes magazines for the public sector, including one called Counter-Terror Business aimed at the police, the military and the intelligence services.
She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments.
However, Mr Harrison said he became suspicious and contacted the woman's employers - PSI Ltd - to alert them to a potential breach of security.
One week later, the letter arrived at his home on the sparsely populated island of Sanday. One of the lines reads: "You dodged one bullet but keep checking over your shoulder, Jeremy is still watching you and is waiting.
"You see how we are working with the public sector to support Jeremy Bamber."
Adam you really are a bit gullible and naive concerning this. What Harrison wrote in his email to Jackie clearly shows that he has many enemies who would love to see his book banned. What an ingeniousay to kill two birds with one stone so to speak. To warn off Harrison and also to implicate Bamber supporters. Perfick. ;)
-
No idea what anyone does for a job. Feel free to eliminate yourself from the equation.
That won't stop wild speculation on the part of the guilters. They will accuse anyone they don't like.
-
Is John Whittingdale still MP for Maldon ?
Yes lookout he is.
-
Adam you really are a bit gullible and naive concerning this. What Harrison wrote in his email to Jackie clearly shows that he has many enemies who would love to see his book banned. What an ingeniousay to kill two birds with one stone so to speak. To warn off Harrison and also to implicate Bamber supporters. Perfick.
This is what Harrison wrote.
Gullible ? From the man who thinks Jeremy is innocent and was rang up by Neville after Sheila grabbed a loaded rifle and ran upstairs.
Yeah right.
-
Adam you really are a bit gullible and naive concerning this. What Harrison wrote in his email to Jackie clearly shows that he has many enemies who would love to see his book banned. What an ingeniousay to kill two birds with one stone so to speak. To warn off Harrison and also to implicate Bamber supporters. Perfick. ;)
Says the man who thinks Jeremy is innocent and Neville ran downstairs to phone Jeremy after Sheila started shooting people upstairs.
If you can't find a suitable answer to what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy, you have to say he's guilty. Simple.
-
well capaghn team seem theres an injunction of sorts on someone from someone.
-
as we have gone back to making wild acusations id like to say i think adam did.
-
This is what Harrison wrote.
Gullible ? From the man who thinks Jeremy is innocent and was rang up by Neville after Sheila grabbed a loaded rifle and ran upstairs.
Yeah right.
Learn to think sideways Adam or you will always be gullible.
-
Yes lookout he is.
Thanks for that Mr G. He's a friend of the relatives and visits WHF when he can. A guilty supporter of course,so there's a certain amount of clout there ?
I won't say anything here,but there are skeletons in his cupboard,as a family,that is.
-
Thanks for that Mr G. He's a friend of the relatives and visits WHF when he can. A guilty supporter of course,so there's a certain amount of clout there ?
I won't say anything here,but there are skeletons in his cupboard,as a family,that is.
I nearly ran him over once. ;D
-
I nearly ran him over once. ;D
Nearly ? ;D ;D
-
Thanks for that Mr G. He's a friend of the relatives and visits WHF when he can. A guilty supporter of course,so there's a certain amount of clout there ?
I won't say anything here,but there are skeletons in his cupboard,as a family,that is.
well there arnt many mps who havent.
i think i know what your hinting at.
-
Strange how it's those people who have an axe to grind who are quick to blame others. Self-satisfying justification I imagine,for their own shortcomings. I avoid these type like the plague. Whiter than white my eye.
-
I nearly ran him over once. ;D
oh well better luck next time.
-
is this what yur refering to lookout.
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/charles-napier-is-arrested/
-
is this what yur refering to lookout.
http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/charles-napier-is-arrested/
Yes nugs,that's the one.
-
Surely you're not implicating John Whittingdale in this are you?
-
The reason these things are kept quiet,is obvious !! Can of worms springs to mind. :)
-
Surely you're not implicating John Whittingdale in this are you?
No Mr G,but he should have been pushing his hardest for answers,whether the police were unwilling was no excuse.
-
When the book was deemed to be innocent linked, he had threats and his mail hacked, now it's the other way, he gets more threats. You can't win!
That kind of fits in to what I was trying to say about the position he might be in. There is probably a disparate bunch of conflicting people with one common factor - for whatever reason, they are probably against the book.
The book should spare nobody in my view. Though if it turns out to be convincing in terms of guilt, many will be off the hook because when it comes down to it, the majority of people will only care that the right person is in prison by fair means or foul.
Since I havent read the the book, I do not know in advance how convinced I will be. Which is a bit of a conundrum as the waiting time has basically killed off a lot of interest in matters.
-
i think he probely has got new evedence but i doubt it will prove anything beyound doubt that sounds like hype to me.
-
i think he probely has got new evedence but i doubt it will prove anything beyound doubt that sounds like hype to me.
I dont know but watching for the release of these three books is like watching footballers trying to set and avoid an offside trap. I suppose if one of the authors has an alleged trump card then the other two might be wary of publishing?
-
googles pauls Harrison jack the ripper mystery solved.
-
I dont know but watching for the release of these three books is like watching footballers trying to set and avoid an offside trap. I suppose if one of the authors has an alleged trump card then the other two might be wary of publishing?
Am not sure, he may have a trump card and that would be fine, at least we would all know for sure but think MD has claimed in other books that he will prove without doubt who committed crimes but the evidence is never conclusive. :-\ Unless indisputable, one persons proof is another persons possibility therefore we still don't know who Jack the Ripper was etc.
I thought all books are held up because of an injunction which may stop any discussion about a person or persons who form an important part of the argument?? :-\ :-\
-
it would help if we could find out who this injunction. is from.
-
why adam is so keen this on somone i am not sure.
-
Am not sure, he may have a trump card and that would be fine, at least we would all know for sure but think MD has claimed in other books that he will prove without doubt who committed crimes but the evidence is never conclusive. :-\ Unless indisputable, one persons proof is another persons possibility therefore we still don't know who Jack the Ripper was etc.
I thought all books are held up because of an injunction which may stop any discussion about a person or persons who form an important part of the argument?? :-\ :-\
The evidence against Jeremy is conclusive, that is why he lost his appeals.
The fact Jeremy supporters like you refuse to accept it as being conclusive means very little.
Proving the evidence isn't conclusive requires refuting it. Jeremy supporters can't do that though thus instead resort to distortion such as bogus tales of Sheila having victim blood on her back that was the result of back spatter from murdering the victims with her gown on backwards. The more spectacular tales like this were never made at trial or on appeal they are entirely made up. Some of the less spectacular ones were made on appeal but were rejected as meritless. I'm not sure what is worse, raising claims already rejected or entirely fabricated ones.
There won't be anything new. There might be a more comprehensive discussion of the evidence that convicted Jeremy but won't be new evidence in the book.
-
he must have somthing if sombodys gone to the trouble of getting an injunction on him assuming they have.
-
The evidence against Jeremy is conclusive, that is why he lost his appeals.
The fact Jeremy supporters like you refuse to accept it as being conclusive means very little.
Proving the evidence isn't conclusive requires refuting it. Jeremy supporters can't do that though thus instead resort to distortion such as bogus tales of Sheila having victim blood on her back that was the result of back spatter from murdering the victims with her gown on backwards. The more spectacular tales like this were never made at trial or on appeal they are entirely made up. Some of the less spectacular ones were made on appeal but were rejected as meritless. I'm not sure what is worse, raising claims already rejected or entirely fabricated ones.
There won't be anything new. There might be a more comprehensive discussion of the evidence that convicted Jeremy but won't be new evidence in the book.
There's GOT to be something new or it wouldn't even be considered !!
-
Have any of these authors seen Sheilas' medical records ? I think not !
-
he must have somthing if sombodys gone to the trouble of getting an injunction on him assuming they have.
I'll make you a bet that if his book ever is actually written that the only evidence he brings to bear regarding Jeremy's guilt will be evidence brought up at trial or on appeal.
Even if he goes off into Jeremy's foreign travels and supposed crime in those jurisdictions it would not be evidence regarding the murders he was convicted of. That is the kinds of things being bandied about as being explored by some writers. It is stuff not directly relevant to the murders.
No one on either side of the aisle is going to find any truly new evidence. They just try to put a different spin on old evidence like the spin on Bonnett's log to try to say it proved a call made by Nevill. It was the same old evidence just spun a different way.
-
depends what you call evedence no doubt he think its evedence but it wont be tested in court.
-
depends what you call evedence no doubt he think its evedence but it wont be tested in court.
It doesn't mean it is new evidence. He could simply highlight the evidence used to convict not all of which has been discussed in detail anywhere except at trial.
People are assuming it will be new evidence.
-
It doesn't mean it is new evidence. He could simply highlight the evidence used to convict not all of which has been discussed in detail anywhere except at trial.
People are assuming it will be new evidence.
It HAS to be NEW evidence or they won't entertain it at all. Nothing cobbled from previous submissions.
-
It HAS to be NEW evidence or they won't entertain it at all. Nothing cobbled from previous submissions.
It has to be new evidence to be successfully raised on appeal. We are talking about a book though not appellate submisisons. There is no requirement for evidence presented in a book to be new and indeed the source of the evidence will be that already in the record.
-
It has to be new evidence to be successfully raised on appeal. We are talking about a book though not appellate submisisons. There is no requirement for evidence presented in a book to be new and indeed the source of the evidence will be that already in the record.
So it'll be the same old,same old. I can't see there being anything different unless the authors have first-hand knowledge of something,and of that I wouldn't think so,unless there's a third party who was involved in the investigation.
-
well at the end of the day if he has hes not going to tell anyone what it is.
i mean no proffesnoil auther would do that i mean he wants to sell the book
-
So it'll be the same old,same old. I can't see there being anything different unless the authors have first-hand knowledge of something,and of that I wouldn't think so,unless there's a third party who was involved in the investigation.
At BEST it could be a more thoroughly detailed explanation of the evidence against Jeremy.
SOME people who support Jeremy are ignorant of the full evidence against him and believe myths and this could thus sway their opinion by dispelling those myths and presenting in detail the case against him.
Those who are on his side because of bias will not change no matter how many times the myths are dispelled or how many times the evidence in full is brought to bear. They will continue to ignore it though they can't refute it.
Nothing is going to convince his diehard supporters of his guilt so the book will never do such.
It will at best stand in the way of propagandizing to a new crop of people.
It might very well attack his past defenders, idendify lies they tell for him and thus actually attack Jerey's supporters more than just generally busting myths. We don' know if he will do that or not but I have a feeling he will based on somethings I have seen.
It might not touch upon the evidence that convicted him in any greater detail than past works did in which case it will be even less interesting and just more of the same old.
The notion he might find some truly new evidence I find not plausible. We shall see.
-
well at the end of the day if he has hes not going to tell anyone what it is.
i mean no proffesnoil auther would do that i mean he wants to sell the book
Which is also why they usually frame their books as having new information. It is a sales pitch. Look at news articles. How often do the headlines actually match the evidence mad ein the article? It is a bait and switch.
-
At BEST it could be a more thoroughly detailed explanation of the evidence against Jeremy.
SOME people who support Jeremy are ignorant of the full evidence against him and believe myths and this could thus sway their opinion by dispelling those myths and presenting in detail the case against him.
Those who are on his side because of bias will not change no matter how many times the myths are dispelled or how many times the evidence in full is brought to bear. They will continue to ignore it though they can't refute it.
Nothing is going to convince his diehard supporters of his guilt so the book will never do such.
It will at best stand in the way of propagandizing to a new crop of people.
It might very well attack his past defenders, idendify lies they tell for him and thus actually attack Jerey's supporters more than just generally busting myths. We don' know if he will do that or not but I have a feeling he will based on somethings I have seen.
It might not touch upon the evidence that convicted him in any greater detail than past works did in which case it will be even less interesting and just more of the same old.
The notion he might find some truly new evidence I find not plausible. We shall see.
the way I read his posts on here was he could prove that the silencer evidence that was produced in court was false and that was why it was an MOJ. Now although it has been discussed many times I don't think that has been "proved" before, then he went on to say that it does not prove that JB is innocent.
Now if that is shown then JB has no more to lose as he is already in Jail . But EP could be in big trouble.
-
the way I read his posts on here was he could prove that the silencer evidence that was produced in court was false and that was why it was an MOJ. Now although it has been discussed many times I don't think that has been "proved" before, then he went on to say that it does not prove that JB is innocent.
Now if that is shown then JB has no more to lose as he is already in Jail . But EP could be in big trouble.
A logical reading of his flip then would be he failed to find any evidence to challenge the silencer evidence and will rely on it to suggest Jerey is guilty.
I hope his book does get published sometimes soon so we could see. My interest is waning I hope he would do it before I stop caring at all.
-
A logical reading of his flip then would be he failed to find any evidence to challenge the silencer evidence and will rely on it to suggest Jerey is guilty.
I hope his book does get published sometimes soon so we could see. My interest is waning I hope he would do it before I stop caring at all.
I agree - I can see no point in delaying until August 2015 . If the legal problems are sorted then publish now.
-
A logical reading of his flip then would be he failed to find any evidence to challenge the silencer evidence and will rely on it to suggest Jerey is guilty.
I hope his book does get published sometimes soon so we could see. My interest is waning I hope he would do it before I stop caring at all.
There is no injunction, not sure where that has come from? But the article stated that the book will be released next August. It will be 30 years since the murders and I assume that's why the date was chosen.
-
There is no injunction, not sure where that has come from? But the article stated that the book will be released next August. It will be 30 years since the murders and I assume that's why the date was chosen.
I have seen publication dates moved repeatedly and even to never see publication despite insisting it was coming so I will believe it when I see it.
I also will not believe that any new evidence has been discovered until I actually see it. People seem to have a habit of repackaging old evidence as new though it is not new at all. If they admit they have nothing new there will be less interest in their work than there otherwise would be.
-
The evidence against Jeremy is conclusive, that is why he lost his appeals.
The fact Jeremy supporters like you refuse to accept it as being conclusive means very little.
Proving the evidence isn't conclusive requires refuting it. Jeremy supporters can't do that though thus instead resort to distortion such as bogus tales of Sheila having victim blood on her back that was the result of back spatter from murdering the victims with her gown on backwards. The more spectacular tales like this were never made at trial or on appeal they are entirely made up. Some of the less spectacular ones were made on appeal but were rejected as meritless. I'm not sure what is worse, raising claims already rejected or entirely fabricated ones.
Absolute rubbish
What about the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford Four and numerous other MOJ
There is NO conclusive evidence or the CCRC wouldn't have allowed an application
The only reason the case hasn't reached the court of appeal is because the ccrc keep moving the goalposts
Better try next time skippy
There won't be anything new. There might be a more comprehensive discussion of the evidence that convicted Jeremy but won't be new evidence in the book.
-
There is no injunction, not sure where that has come from? But the article stated that the book will be released next August. It will be 30 years since the murders and I assume that's why the date was chosen.
How do you know?
-
Absolute rubbish
What about the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford Four and numerous other MOJ
There is NO conclusive evidence or the CCRC wouldn't have allowed an application
The only reason the case hasn't reached the court of appeal is because the ccrc keep moving the goalposts
Better try next time skippy
There won't be anything new. There might be a more comprehensive discussion of the evidence that convicted Jeremy but won't be new evidence in the book.
The rubbish from you.
Other MOJs in no way refute the evidence used to convict Jeremy.
You yourself have raised nothing but lies and myths to try to refute the conviction. You have never presented anything rational let alone substantial to challenge the evidence that convicted Jeremy. You just ignore it.
Nor does the CCRC considering an application estbalish there is any merit to the claims. Indeed they ended up completely rejecting all of the claims mad ein 2009 so thoroughly that the defense won't even release the application and decision publicly because they don't want anyone to see how bad the smackdown was. The only application actually advanced was the DNA claims that the COA shredded. The other claims tha tpiggybacked the DNA claims were rejected as frivolous claims that the Court said never shoudl have been able to reach it.
-
How do you know?
To MY knowledge, nothing I've seen, suggests that there is one. The most I've seen mentioned is a "blanket ban." Who has introduced the possibility of an injunction?
-
There is no injunction, not sure where that has come from? But the article stated that the book will be released next August. It will be 30 years since the murders and I assume that's why the date was chosen.
Just to make it absolutely clear, I do not believe there will be any new evidence
I believe The author to be a prolific liar
Ngb has copies of every email sent regarding the author in question and at no time did I offer any kind of sensitive information
I do not and have not EVER had access to email addresses
I can arrange advertising but I have NO access
The Scottish newspaper was given false information
-
How do you know?
The notion of an injunction sounds ridiculous and as if invented to garner attention to try to suggest the book will be worth reading because it is so groundbreaking an injunction had been declared.
I don't wonder whether it will ever be published because of some alleged injunction I wonder about lack of interest or the finished product being poor.
-
The notion of an injunction sounds ridiculous and as if invented to garner attention to try to suggest the book will be worth reading because it is so groundbreaking an injunction had been declared.
I don't wonder whether it will ever be published because of some alleged injunction I wonder about lack of interest or the finished product being poor.
It does sound ridiculous.
The comment "media blanket ban" is the campaign team saying they aren't releasing information to the media.
-
There is no injunction, not sure where that has come from? But the article stated that the book will be released next August. It will be 30 years since the murders and I assume that's why the date was chosen.
If that is true then why was THIS August first chosen?
-
Cart before the horse syndrome.
-
If that is true then why was THIS August first chosen?
Because he didn't know how many times the launch date would be changed? I can't see anything sinister in it. Stuff happens. We're not always in control.
-
The notion of an injunction sounds ridiculous and as if invented to garner attention to try to suggest the book will be worth reading because it is so groundbreaking an injunction had been declared.
I don't wonder whether it will ever be published because of some alleged injunction I wonder about lack of interest or the finished product being poor.
An injunction was only one thought that someone here during this discussion. If you trace back you will see that that was only the reason it was brought up. It was nothing that anybody concerning the book had suggested.
I think PH said in his pm to Jackie that the authorities were trying to stop him publishing the book. But that came from himself not from anyone here or any demented supporter or even the campaign team. So let's nip that one in the but before some over zealous guilter starts accusing anyone again and forms a lynch mob.
-
Because he didn't know how many times the launch date would be changed? I can't see anything sinister in it. Stuff happens. We're not always in control.
April I was answering Caroline's post who said that it was going to be published next August because that would be the 30th anniversary of Bamber's conviction. I replied that if that was so, then why was the intended date of publication THIS August past? Personally I just think he's stalling and if he's not careful as scipio said people will just lose interest altogether?
-
An injunction was only one thought that someone here during this discussion. If you trace back you will see that that was only the reason it was brought up. It was nothing that anybody concerning the book had suggested.
I think PH said in his pm to Jackie that the authorities were trying to stop him publishing the book. But that came from himself not from anyone here or any demented supporter or even the campaign team. So let's nip that one in the but before some over zealous guilter starts accusing anyone again and forms a lynch mob.
Quite honestly Grahame, I don't know ANYONE here who DOES think there is one although I've seen the word bandied around this afternoon. However, when it was stated that there WAS NO INJUNCTION, Neil asked "How do you know that" which can only say one of two things A. From where and whom did you get that information or B. You don't know everything.
-
I don't think there would be an injuction , because to do that you would need to know specifically what is in the book and presumably that is not known.
-
I don't think there would be an injuction , because to do that you would need to know specifically what is in the book and presumably that is not known.
As only his publisher and solicitor are privy to that knowledge, it's highly unlikely, Jan.
-
How do you know?
Because the article states that the book is coming out next August, it mentions nothing about an injunction and I imagine the reason next August was considered is because it's the 30 year Anniversary.
-
If that is true then why was THIS August first chosen?
I have no idea but probably it needed 'some' rewriting then further reviewing to include whatever it is he found out.
-
It does sound ridiculous.
The comment "media blanket ban" is the campaign team saying they aren't releasing information to the media.
I'd go with that - if things keep getting leaked, I guess that doesn't help with submissions.
-
Quite honestly Grahame, I don't know ANYONE here who DOES think there is one although I've seen the word bandied around this afternoon. However, when it was stated that there WAS NO INJUNCTION, Neil asked "How do you know that" which can only say one of two things A. From where and whom did you get that information or B. You don't know everything.
Neil was quite correct in what he said. We, in fact nobody would know if there was an injunction even if there was one. His question was quite a legitimate one and also a legal one, because if an injunction was taken out on this book then it would be illegal to even mention the fact.
I don't think that Neil actually believes there is one? The only dramatic language used in connection with the publication of this book is that which has been put about by Harrison himself. First we have that dramatic pm to Jackie where he complains that the authorities have been hounding him trying to stop publication, then we get his dramatic claim that he had received a death threat against him if he did go ahead and publish it. In fact all these alleged people who have been threatening him have come from him and him alone. The actual people to have suffered persecution are those whom he has implicated causing these people to be accused by some on here with absolutely no proof whatsoever and all this upset and unjustified persecution of these individuals on here has come from this man alone. Personally I think it is all just hype on his part?
-
Neil was quite correct in what he said. We, in fact nobody would know if there was an injunction even if there was one. His question was quite a legitimate one and also a legal one, because if an injunction was taken out on this book then it would be illegal to even mention the fact.
I don't think that Neil actually believes there is one? The only dramatic language used in connection with the publication of this book is that which has been put about by Harrison himself. First we have that dramatic pm to Jackie where he complains that the authorities have been hounding him trying to stop publication, then we get his dramatic claim that he had received a deaty threat against him if he did go ahead and publish it. In fact all these alleged people who have been threatening him have come from him and him alone. The actual people to have suffered persecution are those whom he has implicated causing these people to be accused by some on here with absolutely no proof whatsoever and all this upset and unjustified persecution of these individuals on here has come from this man alone. Personally I think it is all just hype on his part?
OK, fine - believe what you like but there is nothing to even suggest there is any kind of injunction. If you don't know what's in the book, you can't really talk about it so what would be the point of an injunction. I think if there was one, he'd have said so in the article.
-
OK, fine - believe what you like but there is nothing to even suggest there is any kind of injunction. If you don't know what's in the book, you can't really talk about it so what would be the point of an injunction. I think if there was one, he'd have said so in the article.
Caroline I have said myself that I do not believe that there is not an injunction. But you cannot deny the fact that all this has originated from Harrison himself. He is the person of interest here, nobody else.
-
Caroline I have said myself that I do not believe that there is not an injunction. But you cannot deny the fact that all this has originated from Harrison himself. He is the person of interest here, nobody else.
The idea of an injunction came from here but personally, I don't understand all the speculation, just wait until next August and buy the book if you're interested, if not - then don't. PH's profession is as an author - he didn't come here to make friends, he came to help with his research. He doesn't really owe any of us anything - me included.
-
PH states that it's a controversial new book looking at several areas of crucial evidence which includes why the murder weapon was moved several times while expert forensics were photographing " in the aftermath of the bloodbath ". Jeremy had complained that police had contaminated the actual crime scene and the telephone log which wasn't used at the trial,which appears to support the claim that it was Sheila who'd carried out the shooting.
PH goes on to say that it's not for him to say that Jeremy is innocent, but the conviction is unsound. "There has been a MOJ,of that I'm sure ".
He had been in touch with Jeremy on a weekly basis last year,as well as interviewing friends and relatives.
-
The idea of an injunction came from here but personally, I don't understand all the speculation, just wait until next August and buy the book if you're interested, if not - then don't. PH's profession is as an author - he didn't come here to make friends, he came to help with his research. He doesn't really owe any of us anything - me included.
I think we have no choice but wait til next August, as this August when the book was due to be published has come and gone. Personally I for one will not hold my breath over it and if it is eventually published I may or may not buy it if I haven't lost all interest in it by then? I might even be dead by the time it's published? Who cares?
-
I think we have no choice but wait til next August, as this August when the book was due to be published has come and gone. Personally I for one will not hold my breath over it and if it is eventually published I may or may not buy it if I haven't lost all interest in it by then? I might even be dead by the time it's published? Who cares?
Grahame, if it hadn't been for all the Hoo Haa that's been going on here, I'd have forgotten all about it :)
-
I think we have no choice but wait til next August, as this August when the book was due to be published has come and gone. Personally I for one will not hold my breath over it and if it is eventually published I may or may not buy it if I haven't lost all interest in it by then? I might even be dead by the time it's published? Who cares?
Quite a lot of people given all of the speculation. But those are the options, buy it or don't buy it.
-
Grahame, if it hadn't been for all the Hoo Haa that's been going on here, I'd have forgotten all about it :)
Me too April. ;D
-
Quite a lot of people given all of the speculation. But those are the options, buy it or don't buy it.
Well I don't think it is the actual book they're speculating about but all the rubbish about authorities trying to stop him and the alleged death threats that people are arguing about?
-
The notion of an injunction sounds ridiculous and as if invented to garner attention to try to suggest the book will be worth reading because it is so groundbreaking an injunction had been declared.
I don't wonder whether it will ever be published because of some alleged injunction I wonder about lack of interest or the finished product being poor.
My thoughts exactly.
-
What can he write about that hasn't already been written ?
-
What can he write about that hasn't already been written ?
I'm beginning to feel as if there's an undercurrent of old fashioned cattiness running through this topic. I can remember back to when MD/PH first joined and how excited we were at the thought of a new book. Now it seems nobody can find a good word to say about it.
-
I'm beginning to feel as if there's an undercurrent of old fashioned cattiness running through this topic. I can remember back to when MD/PH first joined and how excited we were at the thought of a new book. Now it seems nobody can find a good word to say about it.
Most such people were probably supporters excited at the prospect of another pro-Bamber book who changed their view upon it no longer being pro-Bamber.
Unless the book will contain excerpts of significant testimony it probably won't add anything not seen before so will not be very exciting from the prospect of someone who accepts the existing evidence in the case.
-
I'm beginning to feel as if there's an undercurrent of old fashioned cattiness running through this topic. I can remember back to when MD/PH first joined and how excited we were at the thought of a new book. Now it seems nobody can find a good word to say about it.
No,not catiness. If you were to see some of my posts back then, I didn't have as much to say as everyone else did. Mine was more cautious optimism rather than catiness,because I was puzzled then as to what he could possibly write about that hadn't already been written.
-
I'm beginning to feel as if there's an undercurrent of old fashioned cattiness running through this topic. I can remember back to when MD/PH first joined and how excited we were at the thought of a new book. Now it seems nobody can find a good word to say about it.
personally I think its more to do with the newspaper article and the accusations it made and forum members being drawn into the article.
If he had come on here ( which he did in a way ) and infer he had changed stance on the outcome of his research I don't think there would have been much fuss tbh.
-
personally I think its more to do with the newspaper article and the accusations it made and forum members being drawn into the article.
If he had come on here ( which he did in a way ) and infer he had changed stance on the outcome of his research I don't think there would have been much fuss tbh.
Jan, he came here as a professional author and everyone knew that - no one has to admit to what stance they have. Some choose to but whatever people believe is their own business and for them to reveal or not.
-
Most such people were probably supporters excited at the prospect of another pro-Bamber book who changed their view upon it no longer being pro-Bamber.
Unless the book will contain excerpts of significant testimony it probably won't add anything not seen before so will not be very exciting from the prospect of someone who accepts the existing evidence in the case.
I think that's a fair assessment.
-
personally I think its more to do with the newspaper article and the accusations it made and forum members being drawn into the article.
If he had come on here ( which he did in a way ) and infer he had changed stance on the outcome of his research I don't think there would have been much fuss tbh.
Jan, the mistake was with the forum in seeming to think that this guy was everyone's best friend and that he owed some sort of loyalty to us. He was a professional author using us to research material for his book and he explained this from the word go. I don't believe it was necessary for him to tell us anything regarding a change of stance -which must have taken quite a bit of re-writing- which may be one of the reasons for the delay in publication.
-
personally I think its more to do with the newspaper article and the accusations it made and forum members being drawn into the article.
If he had come on here ( which he did in a way ) and infer he had changed stance on the outcome of his research I don't think there would have been much fuss tbh.
Jan,I honestly don't think he had a stance,he was sort of half and half. It was just a question of waiting for his book,and his own personal take on the case. I don't think you can do justice to a book like this unless you can get hold of unseen documentation. Interviewing/word of mouth isn't always the way to go,where there's obvious bias for or against.
What nobody up tp now has gone into,are the long-term effects of Sheilas' illness,etc,simply because her records have never been available,as without those you only get half a picture,Jeremys' half. As the judge remarked," It's either Sheila or Jeremy ".
-
I'm beginning to feel as if there's an undercurrent of old fashioned cattiness running through this topic. I can remember back to when MD/PH first joined and how excited we were at the thought of a new book. Now it seems nobody can find a good word to say about it.
Well I of course can't speak for anybody else, but the reason I lost interest what when this article was published in a Scottish newspaper about him receiving death threats and then when I read the pm he sent to Jackie which read as if he was being a bit paranoid. We were all interested in his "new book" when he was being friendly with everyone. Suddenly he started to be vindictive. In my opinion it was not the fact that he appaently changed his stance but rather his accusations concerning certain people and his breaking his trust on confidentiality with certain folk.
-
Mr Harrison was also contacted by a woman who works for an Essex-based firm which publishes magazines for the public sector, including one called Counter-Terror Business aimed at the police, the military and the intelligence services.
She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments.
However, Mr Harrison said he became suspicious and contacted the woman's employers - PSI Ltd - to alert them to a potential breach of security.
One week later, the letter arrived at his home on the sparsely populated island of Sanday. One of the lines reads: "You dodged one bullet but keep checking over your shoulder, Jeremy is still watching you and is waiting.
"You see how we are working with the public sector to support Jeremy Bamber."
No letter in show in the newspaper and a disgraceful lie saying I was going to give PH access to a database
Then to accuse Jeremy of sending a threatening letter
A serious author what a joke
If anyone needs confirmation of the deceit that has gone on please contact Ngb
-
He needs to be punished if he made up the letter to cause pain to Jeremy
My hope is he ends up paying huge damages for what stories he told the Scottish Press
-
Mr Harrison was also contacted by a woman who works for an Essex-based firm which publishes magazines for the public sector, including one called Counter-Terror Business aimed at the police, the military and the intelligence services.
She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments.
However, Mr Harrison said he became suspicious and contacted the woman's employers - PSI Ltd - to alert them to a potential breach of security.
One week later, the letter arrived at his home on the sparsely populated island of Sanday. One of the lines reads: "You dodged one bullet but keep checking over your shoulder, Jeremy is still watching you and is waiting.
"You see how we are working with the public sector to support Jeremy Bamber."
No letter in show in the newspaper and a disgraceful lie saying I was going to give PH access to a database
Then to accuse Jeremy of sending a threatening letter
A serious author what a joke
If anyone needs confirmation of the deceit that has gone on please contact Ngb
Jackie I for one agree with you that this man has lied and I do not believe that such a letter was received by him. The article that was written was full of lies and insinuations. If I had the money I would sue this man for you for defamation of character. In my opinion this article is disgraceful.
-
He needs to be punished if he made up the letter to cause pain to Jeremy
My hope is he ends up paying huge damages for what stories he told the Scottish Press
Hang Jeremy, the article is damaging to you personally. I see yourself as being the one condemned and accused by clueless people on these forums just posting all kinds of rubbish just in order to throw mud at you. Nothing at all is mentioned about the pm he sent you. My estimation of the man has been seriously damaged by his baseless insinuations of both you and Neil. A thoroughly disgusting fellow if you ask me.
-
Jackie I for one agree with you that this man has lied and I do not believe that such a letter was received by him. The article that was written was full of lies and insinuations. If I had the money I would sue this man for you for defamation of character. In my opinion this article is disgraceful.
Grahame, it's very generous of you, but as the report only states that"Mr Harrison was contacted by a woman........................" wouldn't it be rather difficult?
-
Thanks Grahame this has affected Ngb, me and Jeremy and what I don't understand is how this person thinks he can get away with it.
He has rung my company numerous times sometimes 3 times a day
God knows how this has affected Jeremy
-
Grahame, it's very generous of you, but as the report only states that"Mr Harrison was contacted by a woman........................" wouldn't it be rather difficult?
Unbelievable comment
-
Grahame, it's very generous of you, but as the report only states that"Mr Harrison was contacted by a woman........................" wouldn't it be rather difficult?
So what are you trying to say April? That Jackie is the death threat letter writer? Because that is exactly what was picked up on this forum, And what is your explanation of Harrison's "kind and encouraging" pm to Jackie? If he was "suspicious" as the article said, then why would he write her such and encouraging pm? Surely it is much more likely that Neil upset him on the forum and that he has been seething about it over the days and then quite like magic this threatening letter appears?
-
So what are you trying to say April? That Jackie is the death threat letter writer? Because that is exactly what was picked up on this forum, And what is your explanation of Harrison's "kind and encouraging" pm to Jackie? If he was "suspicious" as the article said, then why would he write her such and encouraging pm? Surely it is much more likely that Neil upset him on the forum and that he has been seething about it over the days and then quite like magic this threatening letter appears?
Grahame, as I said yesterday, I very much doubt that we would have known anything about this had Jackie not announced to us that she'd been contacted by PH who wanted to be friends with her. What we saw here appeared little more than a "round robin." It was a polite and friendly, but quite impersonal response to contact previously made.
-
Grahame, as I said yesterday, I very much doubt that we would have known anything about this had Jackie not announced to us that she'd been contacted by PH who wanted to be friends with her. What we saw here appeared little more than a "round robin." It was a polite and friendly, but quite impersonal response to contact previously made.
So April what have you got to say about his lies to the Scottish press
Is that ok then
You would buy a book off this person?
-
Grahame, as I said yesterday, I very much doubt that we would have known anything about this had Jackie not announced to us that she'd been contacted by PH who wanted to be friends with her. What we saw here appeared little more than a "round robin." It was a polite and friendly, but quite impersonal response to contact previously made.
I thought the first time we knew about it was MD posting on the forum asking "Who is this woman"?
-
I thought the first time we knew about it was MD posting on the forum asking "Who is this woman"?
That was Jackie's topic he posted in, the first we heard about it was Jackie saying MD tried to be-friend her and that he had contacted her first. NGB proved this to be false, she'd actually contacted him.
IF PH was lying - then why did Jackie's employer say this?
"Clive Beer, business development director of PSI Ltd, added that the employee who offered to give Mr Harrison 100,000 public sector email addresses had been "severely rebuked" and was "hanging on to her job by a thread".
He said: "She was trying to help him along and became slightly overzealous. She is a sales agent and has no access to any of our database information. All of the emails are in the public domain.""
-
Just to remind members. THIS was Jackie's PM to PH
Posts: 2629
View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline) (No subject) « Sent to: Mason Doyle on: August 01, 2014, 11:05:PM » « You have forwarded or responded to this message. » ReplyQuoteDelete Mason,
I need to be in contact with you because I want to start a big campaign when your new book comes out.
I work for a publisher in Loughton and we run 5 different magayzines
One called Government Business.
I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing
I will send you my work details, so you can see what I do
Incidentally the owner of my company lives in Maldon
Jackie
---------------------
Which is what the article says.
-
Just to remind members of the encouraging pm PH sent to Jackie. This does in no way show that he either dissaproved of anything Jackie said to him, neither does it indicate any suspicion on his part.
Re: (No subject)
« Sent to: JackiePreece on: August 20, 2014, 05:03:PM »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »ReplyQuoteDelete
Hi Jackie
I'm keeping a low profile at present, I have sustained a lot of pressure off the establishment and the cops, they have done their utmost to get the book banned and they don't know what is in it! They even tried to kill me off on the internet, hoping someone would come forward claiming to know details of the book. No one else, other than publisher and solicitor does. If we make it into print, it won't be out until next year now. Still a few battles to fight yet I would think.
You can contact me at [email protected] its the email address most people come through and gets checked most frequently. I receive about 100 emails a day, all need a response, so please bear with me if you don't get an immediate response. Keep fighting and don't let them drown you out.
Paul H
-
Just to remind members of the encouraging pm PH sent to Jackie. This does in no way show that he either dissaproved of anything Jackie said to him, neither does it indicate any suspicion on his part.
Re: (No subject)
« Sent to: JackiePreece on: August 20, 2014, 05:03:PM »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »ReplyQuoteDelete
Hi Jackie
I'm keeping a low profile at present, I have sustained a lot of pressure off the establishment and the cops, they have done their utmost to get the book banned and they don't know what is in it! They even tried to kill me off on the internet, hoping someone would come forward claiming to know details of the book. No one else, other than publisher and solicitor does. If we make it into print, it won't be out until next year now. Still a few battles to fight yet I would think.
You can contact me at [email protected] its the email address most people come through and gets checked most frequently. I receive about 100 emails a day, all need a response, so please bear with me if you don't get an immediate response. Keep fighting and don't let them drown you out.
Paul H
If I remember correctly Paul Harrison wrote a post on the forum which sadly appears to have been deleted, with the words, "Who is this woman?" referring to Jackie. If he didn't know who she was why then send her a pm encouraging her to keep fighting and don't let them drown you out? I smell a rat as there are obvious contradictions in what he says?
-
well he might of forgot i suppose.
-
have you made a compliant jackie.
-
Grahame, it's very generous of you, but as the report only states that"Mr Harrison was contacted by a woman........................" wouldn't it be rather difficult?
There is no need to name someone to be in danger of being sued for libel. It is sufficient if the person is clearly identifiable.
-
The three threads dealing with this matter have now been merged.
-
lord mcalpine wasnt named he still sued you dont have to name somone to get sued you just have to imply the fact its not a derect acusation doesnt mean it isnt libel.
-
There is no need to name someone to be in danger of being sued for libel. It is sufficient if the person is clearly identifiable.
exactly so jackie has grounds to sue.
-
Just to remind members of the encouraging pm PH sent to Jackie. This does in no way show that he either dissaproved of anything Jackie said to him, neither does it indicate any suspicion on his part.
Re: (No subject)
« Sent to: JackiePreece on: August 20, 2014, 05:03:PM »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »ReplyQuoteDelete
Hi Jackie
I'm keeping a low profile at present, I have sustained a lot of pressure off the establishment and the cops, they have done their utmost to get the book banned and they don't know what is in it! They even tried to kill me off on the internet, hoping someone would come forward claiming to know details of the book. No one else, other than publisher and solicitor does. If we make it into print, it won't be out until next year now. Still a few battles to fight yet I would think.
You can contact me at [email protected] its the email address most people come through and gets checked most frequently. I receive about 100 emails a day, all need a response, so please bear with me if you don't get an immediate response. Keep fighting and don't let them drown you out.
Paul H
Choice of wording is interesting but it is possible for Jeremy Bamber to have been framed by police and prosecution witnesses while still having had involvement in the crime. That appears to be what is being suggested with regards to this book and PH's stance.
I suppose it is possible for PH to encourage somebody else to fight against an MOJ in the technical sense of the term, while personally retaining a belief that the right person is behind bars anyway. It comes back to the age old argument on here postulated by the likes of Ray Hollingsworth, Horsey Dave and many others. The police 'moulded' the evidence to convict a guilty Bamber. AKA a fit-up. The whole case is dodgy from start to finish and therfore nobody involved wants the book to be published.
-
Least of all EP. This is the way I see it. Too much involved.
As the saying goes,what goes around comes around---eventually.
Where is there a whistle-blower when you need one ?
If there'd been even the slightest hint that Jeremy had committed this crime,it would have spread round each of the prisons like wildfire,but that hasn't happened in a place where news travels far more quickly than it does outside of the gates.
-
An interesting detail in the article is the suggestion that Paul Harrison contacted the publishing company following the offer from Jackie to assist in publicising his forthcoming book, because he was concerned about possible security breaches. However, Jackie made that offer first on 1st August in a PM. Paul Harrison responded by PM on 20th August. It was only after Jackie started a thread here on 19th September that he decided to contact her employer. The article is somewhat misleading in this respect. In reality it would appear that Paul Harrison's decision to contact the publisher was motivated more by a desire to get back at Jackie than by any concern about a potential security breach.
He also tried to get back at me following his ban here, but that is another story.
-
Choice of wording is interesting but it is possible for Jeremy Bamber to have been framed by police and prosecution witnesses while still having had involvement in the crime. That appears to be what is being suggested with regards to this book and PH's stance.
I suppose it is possible for PH to encourage somebody else to fight against an MOJ in the technical sense of the term, while personally retaining a belief that the right person is behind bars anyway. It comes back to the age old argument on here postulated by the likes of Ray Hollingsworth, Horsey Dave and many others. The police 'moulded' the evidence to convict a guilty Bamber. AKA a fit-up. The whole case is dodgy from start to finish and therfore nobody involved wants the book to be published.
I understand what you are saying , but if they had absolute proof there would have had no need to frame him would they ? So why or how could that absolute prrof been unearthed now?
And why would they have destroyed the forensic evidence that was not connected with the silencer?
-
if affter somone was convicted you found further proof they were guilty surely the best thing to do wouuld be to confront them with it in hope they would finnaly give up.
-
I understand what you are saying , but if they had absolute proof there would have had no need to frame him would they ? So why or how could that absolute prrof been unearthed now?
And why would they have destroyed the forensic evidence that was not connected with the silencer?
First of all, I'm not yet of the opinion that he was involved. However I am more open to that prospect than I was before.
Regarding the point you are asking, I suppose it depends on the definition of absolute proof. I have a feeling that this is going to be a subjective issue.
Maybe the solution to what really happened has been staring at us all along but somehow overlooked or barely touched upon. Or maybe that when the soloution is given it wont be strong enough for some people to change their stance. It seems to be that PH is saying it was strong enough to convince him.
-
to test this as proof you would have to have a retrial.
-
if affter somone was convicted you found further proof they were guilty surely the best thing to do wouuld be to confront them with it in hope they would finnaly give up.
or as I said before - hand it over to the authorities make it public ASAP to save any more appeal attempts and save the tax payers money.
-
It is clear to see PH reaction when things don't go his way.
Disgraceful is an underestimate and most of what has gone on has not even been posted on the open forum.
It is likely he pestered the Campaign Team for information and they got fed up with the demands.
I would expect anyone writing about a suspected MOJ would be an honest person as someone's life is the subject of the publication.
This book if ever published is unlikely to give an honest opinion on the case
-
well he might of forgot i suppose.
If that is so nugnug then why condemn Jackie if she forgot ?
-
This book if ever published is unlikely to give an honest opinion on the case
Even if it also dared to expose EP and the prosecution witnesses? Not that I'm saying it will do that. I have no info what the content will be in respect of these interested parties in the case.
-
Just to remind members. THIS was Jackie's PM to PH
Posts: 2629
View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline) (No subject) « Sent to: Mason Doyle on: August 01, 2014, 11:05:PM » « You have forwarded or responded to this message. » ReplyQuoteDelete Mason,
I need to be in contact with you because I want to start a big campaign when your new book comes out.
I work for a publisher in Loughton and we run 5 different magayzines
One called Government Business.
I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing
I will send you my work details, so you can see what I do
Incidentally the owner of my company lives in Maldon
Jackie
---------------------
Which is what the article says.
I think we can safely say that there is a massive difference in which the article said that he was offered access. I totally agree that Jackie said she had access. Jackie has been falsely represented in that article no matter how you look at.
Jackie's PM below:
"I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing"
as opposed to the article which reads below:
"She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments."
-
I think we can safely say that there is a massive difference in which the article said that he was offered access. I totally agree that Jackie said she had access. Jackie has been falsely represented in that article no matter how you look at.
Jackie's PM below:
"I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing"
as opposed to the article which reads below:
"She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments."
How terrible and twisted. Still Harrison did apparently tell us never to believe everything we read in the newspapers.
-
Clearly defamation isn't it? If that were me I'd be having my solicitor on to that. Jackie could have lost her job over it!
I agree, but solicitors cost money tyler. If it were me I'd be hopping mad and certainly have a solicitor send him a letter warning him of possible legal action.
In fact I am hopping mad about it now. I'm sick and tired of all this mud slinging at Jackie.
-
you might be able find one who would do it on spec.
-
you might be able find one who would do it on spec.
I spent half an hour with a solicitor once. She told me nothing I didn't know myself and it cost me £120.
-
If I was Jackie I would get someone who is good at drafting letters up and address it to the newspaper concerned. This has caused Jackie a great deal of unnecessary stress along with the added pressure regarding her position at work. I would insist on a written apology.
There is no doubt that the PM from Jackie did not say that and that PM was posted here on the 19th September.
Then if I was Jackie I would leave it at that, because her job is more important to her than any argument on a forum. :(
-
If I was Jackie I would get someone who is good at drafting letters up and address it to the newspaper concerned. This has caused Jackie a great deal of unnecessary stress along with the added pressure regarding her position at work. I would insist on a written apology.
There is no doubt that the PM from Jackie did not say that and that PM was posted here on the 19th September.
Then if I was Jackie I would leave it at that, because her job is more important to her than any argument on a forum. :(
I agree Patti. That is what I would do myself. How could anyone do that after offering them publicity for their book? Betrayal is a word that is quite inadequate to describe what Harrison did to Jackie. Personally I think I will boycot his book.
-
I agree Patti. That is what I would do myself. How could anyone do that after offering them publicity for their book? Betrayal is a word that is quite inadequate to describe what Harrison did to Jackie. Personally I think I will boycot his book.
Hi Mr Gee
We have to consider whether it was the reporter who got the wrong end of the stick or he was told a lie.
I would go to the source and that is the reporter, for he is the one that penned the article in the first place.
I'm going to buy his book... ;) :o lol
-
IMO - I still don't think it is right to publish accusations about Jackie or NGB , but if they wanted at least they would have some re-course
To accuse Jeremy outright , when he has no right to reply I don't think is right. I find the whole thing bizzare tbh.
-
IMO - I still don't think it is right to publish accusations about Jackie or NGB , but if they wanted at least they would have some re-course
To accuse Jeremy outright , when he has no right to reply I don't think is right. I find the whole thing bizzare tbh.
Yes Jan I agree, Jeremy has neither the means or the power and I hope that those that read the article can see it for what it is.... ;D
-
If I was Jackie I would get someone who is good at drafting letters up and address it to the newspaper concerned. This has caused Jackie a great deal of unnecessary stress along with the added pressure regarding her position at work. I would insist on a written apology.
There is no doubt that the PM from Jackie did not say that and that PM was posted here on the 19th September.
Then if I was Jackie I would leave it at that, because her job is more important to her than any argument on a forum. :(
I'm not sure that's good advice. Her correspondance with Paul Harrison has already almost cost Jackie her job, it wouldn't be wise to further contact him in any way
I do believe that a letter is being written and possible further action being taken becase of some of the relevations of the article although it doesn't have anything to do with the actual letter that was sent.
-
I'm not sure that's good advice. Her correspondance with Paul Harrison has already almost cost Jackie her job, it wouldn't be wise to further contact him in any way
I do believe that a letter is being written and possible further action being taken becase of some of the relevations of the article although it doesn't have anything to do with the actual letter that was sent.
Obviously you will be involved somewhere in this Mat
You are making posts as if you are in the authors confidence
No doubt you still support and believe everything PH has said
-
Obviously you will be involved somewhere in this Mat
You are making posts as if you are in the authors confidence
No doubt you still support and believe everything PH has said
I think you will have as much chance of finding the truth from the author as getting the truth from Mugford
In what?
I have nothing to do with Paul Harrison. I was weary of him before it was the popular thing to do. He threatened to sue me last Christmas. Have had no contact with him since.
-
I'm not sure that's good advice. Her correspondance with Paul Harrison has already almost cost Jackie her job, it wouldn't be wise to further contact him in any way
I do believe that a letter is being written and possible further action being taken becase of some of the relevations of the article although it doesn't have anything to do with the actual letter that was sent.
Hi Mat I have not suggested that she write to PH. I suggested that she gets profession to write a letter to the newspaper...No way would I suggest a letter to PH. We know this has come from the reporter therefore this is first port of call. A letter would encourage a full apology for the reporter may have had his facts incorrect. Then I would leave it at that. :)
-
In what?
I have nothing to do with Paul Harrison. I was weary of him before it was the popular thing to do. He threatened to sue me last Christmas. Have had no contact with him since.
Why did he threaten to sue you Mat?
-
Why did he threaten to sue you Mat?
He has threatened to sue a lot of people. I only found out a couple months back that the PM he had sent me threatening action had been sent to a few other people too. I felt quite special until I realised that. :-\
I do believe him and the paper on the letter though - would be a silly thing to make up and I don't think the paper would print without evidence.
Hi Mat I have not suggested that she write to PH. I suggested that she gets profession to write a letter to the newspaper...No way would I suggest a letter to PH. We know this has come from the reporter therefore this is first port of call. A letter would encourage a full apology for the reporter may have had his facts incorrect. Then I would leave it at that. :)
I know that. That's why I said contact him "in any way".
-
He has threatened to sue a lot of people. I only found out a couple months back that the PM he had sent me threatening action had been sent to a few other people too. I felt quite special until I realised that. :-\
I do believe him and the paper on the letter though - would be a silly thing to make up and I don't think the paper would print without evidence.
I know that. That's why I said contact him "in any way".
Mat you are not the only one he has threatened then!? Surely this in not the type of thing a gentleman would do. Why on earth would he want to threaten a man with a plunger? Ha!
It strikes me that if you cross this guy, he likes to issue threats...
Yes, I agree is would be a ludicrous thing to do to go to the press and tell such a tall story, but Jackie did not say she offered him access to emails, that part of that story is not true.
NGB posted her PM on here on the 19th and she clearly told him that she had access.
PH was claiming he was being threatened way before the 19th so why did he not make this an issue back then and go to the press.
Sorry Mat but its a publicity stunt which will make his book controversial hence a good selling point.
If he did receive a threat then all I can say is that he needed to take care of that threat by following it up. You can only fail if you have tried. Not to try means you have given up. ;D
I just want to add that if the death threat is real I hope someone catches the b*****d.
-
He has threatened to sue a lot of people. I only found out a couple months back that the PM he had sent me threatening action had been sent to a few other people too. I felt quite special until I realised that. :-\
I do believe him and the paper on the letter though - would be a silly thing to make up and I don't think the paper would print without evidence.
I know that. That's why I said contact him "in any way".
So PM lied about me and tried his best to get me the sack, yet you believe him about the threatening letter
Why then wasn't it posted in the paper and why didn't he report it to the police?
You say a paper wouldn't print something without evidence?
What evidence did they have of my messages?
PH had copies?
-
So PM lied about me and tried his best to get me the sack, yet you believe him about the threatening letter
Why then wasn't it posted in the paper and why didn't he report it to the police?
You say a paper wouldn't print something without evidence?
What evidence did they have of my messages?
PH had copies?
Jackie, you made an allegation that MD contacted you trying to befriend you. It turned out that YOU made first contact offering to help with promotion for his book. I think once you found out that his book was going the other way, you back tracked and said he contacted you. It is clear from the messages posted during that afternoon, that you initiated contact. I am sure NGB will confirm this? Everything else, stems from this!
-
Jackie, you made an allegation that MD contacted you trying to befriend you. It turned out that YOU made first contact offering to help with promotion for his book. I think once you found out that his book was going the other way, you back tracked and said he contacted you. It is clear from the messages posted during that afternoon, that you initiated contact. I am sure NGB will confirm this? Everything else, stems from this!
Define what you mean by everything else stems from this?
-
So far as I can gather,PH is still uncertain either way,which if you're writing a book about the crime,is the safest place to be. No commitment either way. Then leave it to the reader to decide for themselves.
-
Jackie, you made an allegation that MD contacted you trying to befriend you. It turned out that YOU made first contact offering to help with promotion for his book. I think once you found out that his book was going the other way, you back tracked and said he contacted you. It is clear from the messages posted during that afternoon, that you initiated contact. I am sure NGB will confirm this? Everything else, stems from this!
This thread is concerning the alleged death threat to PH, so are you inferring by those words that this alleged death threat is down to Jackie?
A good analogy to this is like someone offering to do someone else a good turn. But instead of that person being thankful for that good turn they say something like, "I thought that the good turn looked a bit suspicious so I contacted the bosses who employed that person and reported her"
The only strange bit in all this is that PH in the first instant asked Jackie to contact him and that she was to carry out her good work.
This alleged death threat is entirely divorced from the kind offer that Jackie gave to PH tp help him. Rather he has done a dastardly act and has implicated both her and ngb in this alleged death threat against him. The accused has the right to challenge their acuser and see proof that such a letter was sent in the first place. And if PH was taken to court he would be compelled to disclose this alleged letter so that it could be investigated fully.
-
Well said,Mr G. It's been the most despicable act of poison that I've ever read.
-
This thread is concerning the alleged death threat to PH, so are you inferring by those words that this alleged death threat is down to Jackie?
A good analogy to this is like someone offering to do someone else a good turn. But instead of that person being thankful for that good turn they say something like, "I thought that the good turn looked a bit suspicious so I contacted the bosses who employed that person and reported her"
The only strange bit in all this is that PH in the first instant asked Jackie to contact him and that she was to carry out her good work.
This alleged death threat is entirely divorced from the kind offer that Jackie gave to PH tp help him. Rather he has done a dastardly act and has implicated both her and ngb in this alleged death threat against him. The accused has the right to challenge their acuser and see proof that such a letter was sent in the first place. And if PH was taken to court he would be compelled to disclose this alleged letter so that it could be investigated fully.
Well, surely then, all that's necessary is for Jackie to produce that "first instant" to prove that he contacted her to make contact with him.
-
This thread is concerning the alleged death threat to PH, so are you inferring by those words that this alleged death threat is down to Jackie?
A good analogy to this is like someone offering to do someone else a good turn. But instead of that person being thankful for that good turn they say something like, "I thought that the good turn looked a bit suspicious so I contacted the bosses who employed that person and reported her"
The only strange bit in all this is that PH in the first instant asked Jackie to contact him and that she was to carry out her good work.
This alleged death threat is entirely divorced from the kind offer that Jackie gave to PH tp help him. Rather he has done a dastardly act and has implicated both her and ngb in this alleged death threat against him. The accused has the right to challenge their acuser and see proof that such a letter was sent in the first place. And if PH was taken to court he would be compelled to disclose this alleged letter so that it could be investigated fully.
Is that a question or an insinuation?
You weren't here when all of this started and it may have begun as a good intention but after finding out MD's book might not be the publication she expected, it turned into an attempt to discredit and employer obviously thinks she did something wrong or he wouldn't have indicated that she almost lost her job. If she wants to help Jeremy, why doesn't she just concentrate on campaigning?
-
This thread is concerning the alleged death threat to PH, so are you inferring by those words that this alleged death threat is down to Jackie?
A good analogy to this is like someone offering to do someone else a good turn. But instead of that person being thankful for that good turn they say something like, "I thought that the good turn looked a bit suspicious so I contacted the bosses who employed that person and reported her"
The only strange bit in all this is that PH in the first instant asked Jackie to contact him and that she was to carry out her good work.
This alleged death threat is entirely divorced from the kind offer that Jackie gave to PH tp help him. Rather he has done a dastardly act and has implicated both her and ngb in this alleged death threat against him. The accused has the right to challenge their acuser and see proof that such a letter was sent in the first place. And if PH was taken to court he would be compelled to disclose this alleged letter so that it could be investigated fully.
He didn't contact her first, she said he did but it was shown to be untrue. However, as April said, if she has a first contact PM lets see it.
-
Define what you mean by everything else stems from this?
If you hadn't tried to discredit him, he would have had no reason to mention the incident - because it wouldn't have happened.
-
Is that a question or an insinuation?
You weren't here when all of this started and it may have begun as a good intention but after finding out MD's book might not be the publication she expected, it turned into an attempt to discredit and employer obviously thinks she did something wrong or he would have indicated that she almost lost her job. If she wants to help Jeremy, why doesn't she just concentrate on campaigning?
Of course, had she gone to her employers, at the start, and put the proposition to them, to which they gave their sanction, she may not now be in the position in which she is.
-
Is that a question or an insinuation?
You weren't here when all of this started and it may have begun as a good intention but after finding out MD's book might not be the publication she expected, it turned into an attempt to discredit and employer obviously thinks she did something wrong or he wouldn't have indicated that she almost lost her job. If she wants to help Jeremy, why doesn't she just concentrate on campaigning?
No it's a fact and a question. This thread is about an alleged death threat to PH. Are ypu saying in your post that Jackie instigated the death threat?
-
Blame Julie Mugford and the relatives.
Will make a change.
-
If you hadn't tried to discredit him, he would have had no reason to mention the incident - because it wouldn't have happened.
From what I did see and that was the first post that PH made it was he who denied that he knew Jackie by asking, "Who is this woman?" Unfortunately his post was deleted so I can't prove what I saw. It was then that Jackie posted that she didn't contact he.
It nevertheless from her own pm appears thatshe did make first contact. But it was his aggression towards her in that post that instigated this and his vertual accusation of her sending this alleged death threat.
-
From what I did see and that was the first post that PH made it was he who denied that he knew Jackie by asking, "Who is this woman?" Unfortunately his post was deleted so I can't prove what I saw. It was then that Jackie posted that she didn't contact he.
It nevertheless from her own pm appears thatshe did make first contact. But it was his aggression towards her in that post that instigated this and his vertual accusation of her sending this alleged death threat.
The comment "who is this woman" obviously mean 'who the hell ......'? It's rhetorical.
-
No it's a fact and a question. This thread is about an alleged death threat to PH. Are ypu saying in your post that Jackie instigated the death threat?
I don't believe my post says that at all - I didn't even mention the death threat!! I said that if she hadn't tried to discredit him HERE then she would never have been associated with the article because there would have been no incident to mention!!
-
It all lies with the fault of the writer of that dreadful piece of defamation/slander/libel,whatever anyone would like to call it,very damaging to those concerned anyway.
I'd be right back at that " Sun " reporter with the answer !
-
One thing I will say, the reporter should have given Jackie a right of reply - he spoke to her boss and to NGB, I don't understand why he didn't ask for Jackie's side of things (re: the database stuff).
-
I don't believe my post says that at all - I didn't even mention the death threat!! I said that if she hadn't tried to discredit him HERE then she would never have been associated with the article because there would have been no incident to mention!!
This thread is about the alleged death threat. You said that Jackie instigated all this in the first place.
-
The comment "who is this woman" obviously mean 'who the hell ......'? It's rhetorical.
Sorry but I read it different. He was acting as if he was ignorant about her.
-
Well Caroline if he gave false information to a newspaper it could turn out to be very costly to him.
It's interesting that you like to defend someone that clearly threatens many people as shown in Mats post.
It's also interesting that you refer to the author as well respected, I would say that is not the case if people read what has been going on or Google his name.
I think most people on this forum have formed their own opinion of the author in question.
I am surprised you have not posted the letter sent from one of Jeremy's disciples as I am sure everyone on the forum is keen to see it
-
Sorry but I read it different. He was acting as if he was ignorant about her.
Yes, you're right. He was ignorant of her. He didn't know her from the man in the moon. That's EXACTLY what Caroline was saying.
-
Well Caroline if he gave false information to a newspaper it could turn out to be very costly to him.
It's interesting that you like to defend someone that clearly threatens many people as shown in Mats post.
It's also interesting that you refer to the author as well respected, I would say that is not the case if people read what has been going on or Google his name.
I think most people on this forum have formed their own opinion of the author in question.
I am surprised you have not posted the letter sent from one of Jeremy's disciples as I am sure everyone on the forum is keen to see it
Well respected by whom, her? She appears to be able to judge someone of good character just by talking to them a few times? ;D But as you said he appears to be in the habit of threatening people, even well respected people like ngb. We can only judge a person by what they actually do and not by what they profess.
-
Well Caroline if he gave false information to a newspaper it could turn out to be very costly to him.
It's interesting that you like to defend someone that clearly threatens many people as shown in Mats post.
It's also interesting that you refer to the author as well respected, I would say that is not the case if people read what has been going on or Google his name.
I think most people on this forum have formed their own opinion of the author in question.
I am surprised you have not posted the letter sent from one of Jeremy's disciples as I am sure everyone on the forum is keen to see it
You just don't know when to stop do you? I haven't seen the bloody letter and unlike 'everyone else' I have no wish to see it. I'm sick to death of hearing about you! If you hadn't tried to discredit PH on this forum you wouldn't have been in danger of losing your job and you couldn't have been mentioned in relation to the article because there would have been nothing to mention YOU are your own worst enemy and you do Bamber no favours whatsoever!!
-
Yes, you're right. He was ignorant of her. He didn't know her from the man in the moon. That's EXACTLY what Caroline was saying.
No Caroline said that his words were rhetorical, as if to say who the hell does this woman think she is? I said that he was asking who this woman was. If he didn't know who she was why then did he pm her encouraging her to keep up the good work. The trouble is some will not see the other side of this man or it appears the opposite side of the argument? As I am looking at both sides.
-
No Caroline said that his words were rhetorical, as if to say who the hell does this woman think she is? I said that he was asking who this woman was. If he didn't know who she was why then did he pm her encouraging her to keep up the good work.The trouble is some will not see the other side of this man or it appears the opposite side of the argument? As I am looking at both sides.
Yes, that's what I meant.
-
Well respected by whom, her? She appears to be able to judge someone of good character just by talking to them a few times? ;D But as you said he appears to be in the habit of threatening people, even well respected people like ngb. We can only judge a person by what they actually do and not by what they profess.
As you say, Grahame. We CAN only judge people by what they do. That means EVERYBODY by the same standards.
-
You just don't know when to stop do you? I haven't seen the bloody letter and unlike 'everyone else' I have no wish to see it. I'm sick to death of hearing about you! If you hadn't tried to discredit PH on this forum you wouldn't have been in danger of losing your job and you couldn't have been mentioned in relation to the article because there would have been nothing to mention YOU are your own worst enemy and you do Bamber no favours whatsoever!!
Well you are helping to keep the argument going Caroline by not accepting anything bad about him. Yet the fact that he is in the habit of threatening people, others other than Jackie unfortunately tells me rather a lot about the character of this man and that in my opinion he cannot be trusted. It wa he and not Jackie remember who insinuated that it was her and this insinuation was picked up very quickly by the less discerning of those amongst us. As far as I can see it is PH who is making all the threats here and your reluctance in wanting to see the letter says quite a lot? I personally would like to see it. In fact I would like to see all these accusations against Jackie go away and no doubt so would she? If you are sick and tired of hearing these false accusations flying around then I would suggest that you just didn't comment on it.
-
As you say, Grahame. We CAN only judge people by what they do. That means EVERYBODY by the same standards.
Don't direct it back to me April. I'm not the one who is falsely accusing Jackie of sending threatening letters.
-
Well you are helping to keep the argument going Caroline by not accepting anything bad about him. Yet the fact that he is in the habit of threatening people, others other than Jackie unfortunately tells me rather a lot about the character of this man and that in my opinion he cannot be trusted. It wa he and not Jackie remember who insinuated that it was her and this insinuation was picked up very quickly by the less discerning of those amongst us. As far as I can see it is PH who is making all the threats here and your reluctance in wanting to see the letter says quite a lot? I personally would like to see it. In fact I would like to see all these accusations against Jackie go away and no doubt so would she? If you are sick and tired of hearing these false accusations flying around then I would suggest that you just didn't comment on it.
She has just made one against me - but that's OK eh?
-
No Caroline said that his words were rhetorical, as if to say who the hell does this woman think she is? I said that he was asking who this woman was. If he didn't know who she was why then did he pm her encouraging her to keep up the good work. The trouble is some will not see the other side of this man or it appears the opposite side of the argument? As I am looking at both sides.
What would you do if an unknown to you person contacted you making you an offer that seemed to good to be true? Would you jump in with both feet or would you check them out?
-
You just don't know when to stop do you? I haven't seen the bloody letter and unlike 'everyone else' I have no wish to see it. I'm sick to death of hearing about you! If you hadn't tried to discredit PH on this forum you wouldn't have been in danger of losing your job and you couldn't have been mentioned in relation to the article because there would have been nothing to mention YOU are your own worst enemy and you do Bamber no favours whatsoever!!
Unfortunately Caroline who ever wrote the letter to try to make Jeremy look evil is a coward and I believe nearly everyone on this forum is of the opinion it's a stunt and probably a stunt that would make someone a lot of money at Jeremy's expense
I don't believe there is anyone on this forum that doesn't agree that if the letter was genuine they would not go to the police
-
She has just made one against me - but that's OK eh?
If she has threatened you then no that is not ok.
-
If she has threatened you then no that is not ok.
An accusation, not a threat!
-
An accusation, not a threat!
Then to accuse you without proof is wrong and I don't agree with it.
-
Well you are helping to keep the argument going Caroline by not accepting anything bad about him. Yet the fact that he is in the habit of threatening people, others other than Jackie unfortunately tells me rather a lot about the character of this man and that in my opinion he cannot be trusted. It wa he and not Jackie remember who insinuated that it was her and this insinuation was picked up very quickly by the less discerning of those amongst us. As far as I can see it is PH who is making all the threats here and your reluctance in wanting to see the letter says quite a lot? I personally would like to see it. In fact I would like to see all these accusations against Jackie go away and no doubt so would she? If you are sick and tired of hearing these false accusations flying around then I would suggest that you just didn't comment on it.
I'll bet there are more that he HASN'T threatened and as I'm one of THAT number, what conclusions about his character, going on speaking as one finds, should I draw from it.
-
I'll bet there are more that he HASN'T threatened and as I'm one of THAT number, what conclusions about his character, going on speaking as one finds, should I draw from it.
Whatever you want to April as no doubt you will?
-
Unfortunately Caroline who ever wrote the letter to try to make Jeremy look evil is a coward and I believe nearly everyone on this forum is of the opinion it's a stunt and probably a stunt that would make someone a lot of money at Jeremy's expense
I don't believe there is anyone on this forum that doesn't agree that if the letter was genuine they would not go to the police
The article states that he sought the advice of police.
-
Whatever you want to April as no doubt you will?
Because it's all I can do, Grahame. I can only judge from my own experience. You seem to think he should be judged through the eyes of others.
-
Because it's all I can do, Grahame. I can only judge from my own experience. You seem to think he should be judged through the eyes of others.
No April, I think he should tell the truth.
-
You just don't know when to stop do you? I haven't seen the bloody letter and unlike 'everyone else' I have no wish to see it. I'm sick to death of hearing about you! If you hadn't tried to discredit PH on this forum you wouldn't have been in danger of losing your job and you couldn't have been mentioned in relation to the article because there would have been nothing to mention YOU are your own worst enemy and you do Bamber no favours whatsoever!!
Are you saying, that if Jackie had not had a pop at MD on the open forum, he would not have disclosed the content of their private exchanges, to the newspaper?
-
Are you saying, that if Jackie had not had a pop at MD on the open forum, he would not have disclosed the content of their private exchanges, to the newspaper?
At best it was a betrayal of trust. I personally think that the article was a revenge attack on Neil and her for his ban from the forum?
And it obviously has had the predicted effect he wanted it to.
-
I just want to make something absolutely crystal clear
My boss told me the author had said I had sent him sensitive information
I did not and he obviously could NOT provide this
I believe the newspaper acted badly by printing information that was not true
The source was the author who fed this to the newspaper
I believe they both should be held responsible
-
I just want to make something absolutely crystal clear
My boss told me the author had said I had sent him sensitive information
I did not and he obviously could NOT provide this
I believe the newspaper acted badly by printing information that was not true
The source was the author who fed this to the newspaper
I believe they both should be held responsible
Have you contacted the newspaper Jackie?
-
At best it was a betrayal of trust. I personally think that the article was a revenge attack on Neil and her for his ban from the forum?
And it obviously has had the predicted effect he wanted it to.
Maybe he thought, that since the Pm's had been disclosed on the open forum, it was not betraying a trust to repeat them to the newspaper.
I wonder if, following the receipt of the letter, he would have revealed the content of the Pm's, even if they hadn't appeared on the forum. Caroline seems to be suggesting that he wouldn't have mentioned them. Caroline, is this a guess, or do you know for sure?
-
Maybe he thought, that since the Pm's had been disclosed on the open forum, it was not betraying a trust to repeat them to the newspaper.
I wonder if, following the receipt of the letter, he would have revealed the content of the Pm's, even if they hadn't appeared on the forum. Caroline seems to be suggesting that he wouldn't have mentioned them. Caroline, is this a guess, or do you know for sure?
If he hadn't mentioned the pm's he wouldn't have had a story to tell. Who is going to read about a death thread without him implying who he thought did it, and why did he bring ngb into it? I just think he was getting his own back myself?
-
Because it's all I can do, Grahame. I can only judge from my own experience. You seem to think he should be judged through the eyes of others.
Out of interest are you surprised at his treatment of Ngb ?
And do you think it is right that without proof he can implicate a person (JB) of a very serious criminal act , who has no right to reply, in a newspaper headline?
-
Someone made a good point a couple of pages back, about the original topic where Jackie claimed MD had contacted her first - where the PM's were first posted.
Mr Gee - did you actually even see that topic? I don't think you were here at the time.
Patti, did you see it? :-\
-
Out of interest are you surprised at his treatment of Ngb ?
And do you think it is right that without proof he can implicate a person (JB) of a very serious criminal act , who has no right to reply, in a newspaper headline?
Jan, all I can find, regarding Neil is ".........the letter names barrister Neil Bellis as one of his "protectors"........" so without knowing the context, I really don't feel justified in making ANY comment.
I can only believe that he felt really unnerved by what the letter said because it must be fairly obvious that someone who may feel himself close to release from a lengthy prison term, is hardly going to jeopardise that by issuing impotent threats.
Just a thought, though. It's only the letter's author who SAY'S the threats come from Jeremy. Words put in his mouth?
-
Someone made a good point a couple of pages back, about the original topic where Jackie claimed MD had contacted her first - where the PM's were first posted.
Mr Gee - did you actually even see that topic? I don't think you were here at the time.
Patti, did you see it? :-\
No Mat could you direct me to it please. :)
-
Someone made a good point a couple of pages back, about the original topic where Jackie claimed MD had contacted her first - where the PM's were first posted.
Mr Gee - did you actually even see that topic? I don't think you were here at the time.
Patti, did you see it? :-\
I read it. Caroline suggested that had this spat not occurred, Jackies name would not have been mentioned in the newspaper article. I wonder how she can be so sure.
-
No Mat could you direct me to it please. :)
It was deleted. It's just you seem to try and school people on what the accusations were - but you didn't actually see it? I saw it. I know what Jackie claimed in that topic. Not what it has been changed to over time but what actually happened and what is now being said happened are two things. :-\
I read it. Caroline suggested that had this spat not occurred, Jackies name would not have been mentioned in the newspaper article. I wonder how she can be so sure.
That's a question for Caroline, I guess. But I'd say that if Jackie hadn't of posted lies about MD on teh board, he wouldn't of had anything about her to add to the newpapers article, so the section about her couldn't have existed - it only existed because she'd tried to discredit him with the topic and would have gotten away with it if NGB hadn't of posted the actual conversation.
-
Jan, all I can find, regarding Neil is ".........the letter names barrister Neil Bellis as one of his "protectors"........" so without knowing the context, I really don't feel justified in making ANY comment.
I can only believe that he felt really unnerved by what the letter said because it must be fairly obvious that someone who may feel himself close to release from a lengthy prison term, is hardly going to jeopardise that by issuing impotent threats.
I meant really as that as well as the article the times when NGB made it quite clear why MD/PH was banned , because of the threats he had made. He did make that point clear on the forum as far as I was aware and that was before the article.
-
Jan, all I can find, regarding Neil is ".........the letter names barrister Neil Bellis as one of his "protectors"........" so without knowing the context, I really don't feel justified in making ANY comment.
I can only believe that he felt really unnerved by what the letter said because it must be fairly obvious that someone who may feel himself close to release from a lengthy prison term, is hardly going to jeopardise that by issuing impotent threats.
April as we are getting everything out in the open maybe you would like to post how many times your friend contacted the company I work for
How many days and how many times in a day?
-
I read it. Caroline suggested that had this spat not occurred, Jackies name would not have been mentioned in the newspaper article. I wonder how she can be so sure.
Perhaps it's because we were given the wrong impression about what the relationship consisted of.
-
It was deleted. It's just you seem to try and school people on what the accusations were - but you didn't actually see it? I saw it. I know what Jackie claimed in that topic. Not what it has been changed to over time but what actually happened and what is now being said happened are two things. :-\
That's a question for Caroline, I guess. But I'd say that if Jackie hadn't of posted lies about MD on teh board, he wouldn't of had anything about her to add to the newpapers article, so the section about her couldn't have existed - it only existed because she'd tried to discredit him with the topic and would have gotten away with it if NGB hadn't of posted the actual conversation.
The Pm's would have still existed. What would have stopped him sharing these with the newspaper?
-
The Pm's would have still existed. What would have stopped him sharing these with the newspaper?
Why can Jackie not release the original pm/email in which she says PH contacts her to ask her to make contact with him.
-
The Pm's would have still existed. What would have stopped him sharing these with the newspaper?
The PM's were just strange contact with the offer to promote his book, the behaviour on the board is what took the PM's to another level and made them more strange, which is when he contacted her employer.
I would have contacted the employer straight away to ask what was going on and if it was indeed legal. Esepcially when she inserted the line about one of the magazines being called "One called Government Business" as that seems to insinuate the help she could provide may go deep and I wouldn't want my book/publisher attatched to an offer that could make the deal look dodgy.
But then again, I feel like I am attempting to answer a point Caroline raised and her take on it may be different than mine.
-
Someone made a good point a couple of pages back, about the original topic where Jackie claimed MD had contacted her first - where the PM's were first posted.
Mr Gee - did you actually even see that topic? I don't think you were here at the time.
Patti, did you see it? :-\
Yes I did but it disappeared.
-
I read it. Caroline suggested that had this spat not occurred, Jackies name would not have been mentioned in the newspaper article. I wonder how she can be so sure.
All I can say is that if this is revenge for a spat on a forum were there was confusion over a couple of PM's then its pretty harsh way of getting revenge.
If we rewind back to the threatening letter it does not mention Jackie by name. This was thrown in for reasons only known to PH. However, the letter did make reference to NGB being Jeremy's protector and this is concerning. The whole drama unfolds to the point where the letter becomes unreal along with " you have already dodged one bullet" "Jeremy is watching you" "keep looking over your shoulder"
Anyone, in their right mind would have taken that letter to the police. What does he do? He talks to a contact from the police and goes to the press. He is none the wiser about whether or not he will face a bullet, because he has failed to take this matter seriously, and if he can't be serious then who can? ;D
-
All I can say is that if this is revenge for a spat on a forum were there was confusion over a couple of PM's then its pretty harsh way of getting revenge.
If we rewind back to the threatening letter it does not mention Jackie by name. This was thrown in for reasons only known to PH. However, the letter did make reference to NGB being Jeremy's protector and this is concerning. The whole drama unfolds to the point where the letter becomes unreal along with " you have already dodged one bullet" "Jeremy is watching you" "keep looking over your shoulder"
Anyone, in their right mind would have taken that letter to the police. What does he do? He talks to a contact from the police and goes to the press. He is none the wiser about whether or not he will face a bullet, because he has failed to take this matter seriously, and if he can't be serious then who can? ;D
I was once told to watch my back if Bamber ever gets out of prison by a member of this forum (NOT IT WASN'T JACKIE!!)- I didn't go to the police over it.
He went to a police contact. He doesn't believe anything will come of it, it was a type written letter.
The fact he didn't make a formal complaint to the police seems to be being used as an easy and lazy excuse to say the letter isn't real.
-
All I can say is that if this is revenge for a spat on a forum were there was confusion over a couple of PM's then its pretty harsh way of getting revenge.
If we rewind back to the threatening letter it does not mention Jackie by name. This was thrown in for reasons only known to PH. However, the letter did make reference to NGB being Jeremy's protector and this is concerning. The whole drama unfolds to the point where the letter becomes unreal along with " you have already dodged one bullet" "Jeremy is watching you" "keep looking over your shoulder"
Anyone, in their right mind would have taken that letter to the police. What does he do? He talks to a contact from the police and goes to the press. He is none the wiser about whether or not he will face a bullet, because he has failed to take this matter seriously, and if he can't be serious then who can? ;D
It also made reference to a female and her employer who he obviously was aware of. He didn't pick the name out of a hat.
-
It was deleted. It's just you seem to try and school people on what the accusations were - but you didn't actually see it? I saw it. I know what Jackie claimed in that topic. Not what it has been changed to over time but what actually happened and what is now being said happened are two things. :-\
That's a question for Caroline, I guess. But I'd say that if Jackie hadn't of posted lies about MD on teh board, he wouldn't of had anything about her to add to the newpapers article, so the section about her couldn't have existed - it only existed because she'd tried to discredit him with the topic and would have gotten away with it if NGB hadn't of posted the actual conversation.
Hey, I don't school anyone Mat. I have my own opinion like the rest of the members do on this forum. It is not my way to inflict any schooling to anybody.
I ma merely pointing out to everyone what Jackie said on the original PM and there was no offer to PH regarding 1000 emails at all. The article is clearly false on this, made up lies. If you can't see this then that is fine. But please do have a snap at me. I have done nothing wrong, nor has anyone on this forum. None of us are to blame for that article other than PH himself. :-\
-
I was once told to watch my back if Bamber ever gets out of prison by a member of this forum (NOT IT WASN'T JACKIE!!)- I didn't go to the police over it.
He went to a police contact. He doesn't believe anything will come of it, it was a type written letter.
The fact he didn't make a formal complaint to the police seems to be being used as an easy and lazy excuse to say the letter isn't real.
Who was it who told you to watch your back?
-
I was once told to watch my back if Bamber ever gets out of prison by a member of this forum (NOT IT WASN'T JACKIE!!)- I didn't go to the police over it.
He went to a police contact. He doesn't believe anything will come of it, it was a type written letter.
The fact he didn't make a formal complaint to the police seems to be being used as an easy and lazy excuse to say the letter isn't real.
I don't fully understand what you are saying here Mat....
If he did not go to the police surely we have the right to be suspicious! What has it gained by going to the press? I can only speculate, this what is happening now....
-
It also made reference to a female and her employer who he obviously was aware of. He didn't pick the name out of a hat.
He was clever enough not to name her April, but the implication was strong enough to those who knew who he meant.
-
Hey, I don't school anyone Mat. I have my own opinion like the rest of the members do on this forum. It is not my way to inflict any schooling to anybody.
I ma merely pointing out to everyone what Jackie said on the original PM and there was no offer to PH regarding 1000 emails at all. The article is clearly false on this, made up lies. If you can't see this then that is fine. But please do have a snap at me. I have done nothing wrong, nor has anyone on this forum. None of us are to blame for that article other than PH himself. :-\
Not blaming you are anyone for the article, certainly didn't say that.
What she says is
"I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing."
Now if you can't see that - then that is fine.
Who was it who told you to watch your back?
For the sake of forum harmony, best I not say. But the comment was "I'd watch my back with posts like that if Bamber is ever released."
-
I meant really as that as well as the article the times when NGB made it quite clear why MD/PH was banned , because of the threats he had made. He did make that point clear on the forum as far as I was aware and that was before the article.
Sorry Jan, I missed this. It was suffering from being last on the page :)
I can't recall what the spat was about which led to PH being banned, but at the end of it, both of them were displaying the sort of anger which only has one resolution.
-
Not blaming you are anyone for the article, certainly didn't say that.
What she says is
"I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing."
Now if you can't see that - then that is fine.
For the sake of forum harmony, best I not say. But the comment was "I'd watch my back with posts like that if Bamber is ever released."
LOL............I know I have seen it Mat. She is telling him that she has available to her a huge data base. Where dose that sentence indicate that she is offering it to him?
Who said that to you Mat. Pm me.
-
LOL............I know I have seen it Mat. She is telling him that she has available to her a huge data base. Where dose that sentence indicate that she is offering it to him?
Who said that to you Mat. Pm me.
Why else was she mentioning it? I have a colour printer at work, paper shredder, even a wireless keyboard and mouse. But I don't tell people about it when I email them.
She insinuated it Patti - it's very clear why.
Feel free to PM me and ask, Patti - but of course on the condition that it remains between us.
-
He was clever enough not to name her April, but the implication was strong enough to those who knew who he meant.
Then how did he know who was her employer, Patti? HE thought he knew who it was and so must the employer or he wouldn't have said she was hanging onto her job by a thread.
-
Who was it who told you to watch your back?
Grahame I imagine Mats threat is about as genuine as the PH one
-
Not blaming you are anyone for the article, certainly didn't say that.
What she says is
"I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing."
Now if you can't see that - then that is fine.
For the sake of forum harmony, best I not say. But the comment was "I'd watch my back with posts like that if Bamber is ever released."
Which does not equal: She sent a letter (written on a typewriter.... :P :P :P - who does that these days... must be a very old person) with death threats against me. Yet PH contacts a newspaper strongly indicating that Jackie, Jeremy and to some degree, NGB are behind it. He does that without any proof whatsoever.
Is that person posting on the forum now? I would like to know who says such things, I don´t care about "forum harmony". It is non existent as it is!
-
Which does not equal: She sent a letter (written on a typewriter.... :P :P :P - who does that these days... must be a very old person) with death threats against me. Yet PH contacts a newspaper strongly indicating that Jackie, Jeremy and to some degree, NGB are behind it. He does that without any proof whatsoever.
I didn't say that it did. :-\
-
Then how did he know who was her employer, Patti? HE thought he knew who it was and so must the employer or he wouldn't have said she was hanging onto her job by a thread.
She told him April in the PM she sent him. That PM was posted on here by NGB and NGB had to go back to the post because it revealed where she worked. NGB amended it. :-\
-
She told him April in the PM she sent him. That PM was posted on here by NGB and NGB had to go back to the post because it revealed where she worked. NGB amended it. :-\
That was the PM she accused an admin of hacking her account and sending. It was only when the actual PM was posted it became clear there had been no hack. Because as you say, the PM contained her work details and information no admin could know.
-
She told him April in the PM she sent him. That PM was posted on here by NGB and NGB had to go back to the post because it revealed where she worked. NGB amended it. :-\
Would that be the one which she said was in reply to his, in which he supposedly told her he wanted her to contact him?
-
That was the PM she accused an admin of hacking her account and sending. It was only when the actual PM was posted it became clear there had been no hack. Because as you say, the PM contained her work details and information no admin could know.
Mat I am not going round the houses with you on this. I have said what I think and that is that. I am not going to be drawn into any argument of who said where and when. What has happened has happened and there is nothing we can do about it. Only PH has that ability.
I feel that this is getting stressful for all the members on this forum and its causing unnecessary rifts.
-
Are you saying, that if Jackie had not had a pop at MD on the open forum, he would not have disclosed the content of their private exchanges, to the newspaper?
No! I'm saying her name couldn't have been drawn into ANYTHING because there would be nothing to draw her in.
-
Would that be the one which she said was in reply to his, in which he supposedly told her he wanted her to contact him?
No idea April, from what I gather it was her first to PH and he replied to her but then said he had no contact with her, but had told her to email him and murder archives.....I think his post was just as confusing.
Its like blinking question time on here lol
-
I read it. Caroline suggested that had this spat not occurred, Jackies name would not have been mentioned in the newspaper article. I wonder how she can be so sure.
Err because that's not what I meant at all - that's your slant. People are good at doing that here!! I have repeated several time now that if Jackie hadn't tried to discredit MD, her name couldn't have been mentioned, he would have had no reason to mention her.
-
No idea April, from what I gather it was her first to PH and he replied to her but then said he had no contact with her, but had told her to email him and murder archives.....I think his post was just as confusing.
Its like blinking question time on here lol
But was he telling a specific person, OR was it as I believe, a round robin? He didn't give a personal email address. He made it clear that he received 100's of emails. He said replies could be lengthy but don't give up. He said to keep up the good work and signed himself Paul H. This was an impersonal letter that could have been sent to ANY one of the senders of the 100's on emails he receives.
-
Err because that's not what I meant at all - that's your slant. People are good at doing that here!! I have repeated several time now that if Jackie hadn't tried to discredit MD, her name couldn't have been mentioned, he would have had no reason to mention her.
It's black and white and cannot be disputed PH lied to a newspaper
-
It's black and white and cannot be disputed PH lied to a newspaper
If you did nothing wrong why did your boss say you were hanging onto your job? Did he lie to the paper too?
-
Err because that's not what I meant at all - that's your slant. People are good at doing that here!! I have repeated several time now that if Jackie hadn't tried to discredit MD, her name couldn't have been mentioned, he would have had no reason to mention her.
He had her private messages, making inappropriate offers. What would stop him disclosing this information in order to bolster the story?
-
He had her private messages, making inappropriate offers. What would stop him disclosing this information in order to bolster the story?
Simply getting a few emails offering help to promote his book isn't weird - posting about him trying to befriend her on the open forum when he hadn't IS weird. I guess the latter made him question the motivation for the former and made him suspicious.
-
If you did nothing wrong why did your boss say you were hanging onto your job? Did he lie to the paper too?
That's got nothing to do with what we are discussing here
Does it look like I am hanging on by a thread to my job?
In Fact I had a letter after all this saying I was an asset to the company
I probably should have discussed the subject matter of the book with my boss in hindsight but I am clearly passionate about this moj
-
Simply getting a few emails offering help to promote his book isn't weird - posting about him trying to befriend her on the open forum when he hadn't IS weird. I guess the latter made him question the motivation for the former and made him suspicious.
They weren't just your run of the mill emails though, were they?
One of Jeremy's most loyal and pro active supporters had made quite an extraordinary offer. Could Harrison have resisted the temptation to include this information when he sold his story to the paper?
What was his motivation for going to the papers, do you think?
-
They weren't just your run of the mill emails though, were they?
One of Jeremy's most loyal and pro active supporters had made quite an extraordinary offer. Could Harrison have resisted the temptation to include this information when he sold his story to the paper?
What was his motivation for going to the papers, do you think?
You know who JP is but PH obviously didn't know anything about her other than she was a Bamber supporter. Like I said, the initial PM's weren't odd, the later post on the forum was.
How would I know his motivation? He was pissed off and spooked I expect. I have no contact with PH any more - he probably just wants to put the forum and everything associated with it - behind him.
-
You know who JP is but PH obviously didn't know anything about her other than she was a Bamber supporter. Like I said, the initial PM's weren't odd, the later post on the forum was.
How would I know his motivation? He was pissed off and spooked I expect. I have no contact with PH any more - he probably just wants to put the forum and everything associated with it - behind him.
Then I don´t understand why he mentions two people from this forum in the arrticle. The journalist couldn´t have known about Jackie and ngb unless PH told him about them.
-
You know who JP is but PH obviously didn't know anything about her other than she was a Bamber supporter. Like I said, the initial PM's weren't odd, the later post on the forum was.
How would I know his motivation? He was pissed off and spooked I expect. I have no contact with PH any more - he probably just wants to put the forum and everything associated with it - behind him.
You stated that he wouldn't have mentioned Jackie, had she not started a spat with him on here. I wondered how you knew that, that's all. I guess it was a throw a way line and I have read too much into.
-
So with that,he left a parting gift------------in the newspaper ! No mention of anyone on the red forum where he also got a ban. Strange,that.
-
You stated that he wouldn't have mentioned Jackie, had she not started a spat with him on here. I wondered how you knew that, that's all. I guess it was a throw a way line and I have read too much into it.
Yes.
-
So with that,he left a parting gift------------in the newspaper ! No mention of anyone on the red forum where he also got a ban. Strange,that.
Presumably no one from red contacted him.
-
Presumably no one from red contacted him.
Do we know that for absolute certainty ?
-
Do we know that for absolute certainty ?
Only that the implication is that he's getting revenge for Neil banning him. If such was true, would he not be seeking the same from whoever banned him from red?
-
Only that the implication is that he's getting revenge for Neil banning him. If such was true, would he not be seeking the same from whoever banned him from red?
So far as I saw,those on red didn't have a good word to say about NGB either,so that would have added to PH's angst towards him also.
-
So far as I saw,those on red didn't have a good word to say about NGB either,so that would have added to PH's angst towards him also.
Why are you so keen to see him as being out to get revenge on Neil?
-
Why are you so keen to see him as being out to get revenge on Neil?
Am I ? I hadn't noticed, as this is the first time I've mentioned NGB. I certainly didn't mention revenge either.
-
Can we please remember that we have a truce in place. Can we please leave the red forum out of this. Sometimes what we think might be better off just staying as thoughts.... ;D
-
Can we please remember that we have a truce in place. Can we please leave the red forum out of this. Sometimes what we think might be better off just staying as thoughts.... ;D
MY thoughts entirely ;)
-
I was once told to watch my back if Bamber ever gets out of prison by a member of this forum (NOT IT WASN'T JACKIE!!)- I didn't go to the police over it.
Who made this threat to you? I think you should say. When did this happen? Did you report it to a moderator?
-
I can't recall what the spat was about which led to PH being banned, but at the end of it, both of them were displaying the sort of anger which only has one resolution.
If you do not recall the "spat", how can you possibly make the above comment? Where did I display anger towards Paul Harrison? I was courteous at all times in my dealings with him. In response he bombarded me with aggressive emails, making demands, at a time I was not even online. I took the trouble to investigate the issue which led to his anger and I posted an accurate and unbiased report on what had happened. He then made threats against me and the forum and he repeated them to others. It was only after all this that I imposed a ban, not in anger but following calm reflection. I explained this here at the time.
You appear to wish to defend Paul Harrison at all costs, now suggesting that I was just as much at fault as him over this. It is almost tribal on here at times.
-
It is almost tribal on here at times.
I was thinking exactly same thing yesterday Neil. This thread seems to be highlighting split allegiances or maybe shifting allegiances.
-
Who made this threat to you? I think you should say. When did this happen? Did you report it to a moderator?
i think so to.
-
Who made this threat to you? I think you should say. When did this happen? Did you report it to a moderator?
I don't remember if I reported it. It was when I first joined the forum. I'll PM you because the person will jusrt deny it and it will lead to more problems.
Think people missed the main point behind my post though, wasn't that I was bothered by the comment, was saying that having had something like this said to me on the board I can understand why MD didn't go to the police, nothing the police could/would do.
-
the mods would of done somthing.
-
I don't remember if I reported it. It was when I first joined the forum. I'll PM you because the person will jusrt deny it and it will lead to more problems.
Think people missed the main point behind my post though, wasn't that I was bothered by the comment, was saying that having had something like this said to me on the board I can understand why MD didn't go to the police, nothing the police could/would do.
The day you joined the forum YOU sent me a threatening message
It was the same day Jeremy had his application to appeal turned down and you said on the open forum you already had prior knowledge of the decision
Ngb is most welcome to check that PM and can have my password anytime
-
the mods would of done somthing.
Yes, we would have acted if told of this. It is never acceptable to make threats, whether direct or veiled, by PM.
-
I was thinking exactly same thing yesterday Neil. This thread seems to be highlighting split allegiances or maybe shifting allegiances.
My sentiments too Roch, but i am sorry while ever you get posters refering to each other as guilters and innocence you will have it. Certain posters like to use it in a post?
-
My sentiments too Roch, but i am sorry while ever you get posters refering to each other as guilters and innocence you will have it. Certain posters like to use it in a post?
I think it might be a good idea to withdraw from saying Guiltiers' and innocenters' it causes a divide. Us and them, or them and us.,
Maybe we should have a poll to find out how the members feel about it.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
My sentiments too Roch, but i am sorry while ever you get posters refering to each other as guilters and innocence you will have it. Certain posters like to use it in a post?
Guilty M'lud :-[
-
Guilty M'lud :-[
Its a cheap way of not naming anyone dont you think?
-
Its a cheap way of not naming anyone dont you think?
Yes I think you are right there. It is.
-
I think it might be a good idea to withdraw from saying Guiltiers' and innocenters' it causes a divide. Us and them, or them and us.,
Maybe we should have a poll to find out how the members feel about it.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
Patti you have enough on your plate moderating this forum without added pressure my dear. Your doing it splendid though
-
The day you joined the forum YOU sent me a threatening message
It was the same day Jeremy had his application to appeal turned down and you said on the open forum you already had prior knowledge of the decision
Ngb is most welcome to check that PM and can have my password anytime
I didn't join the forum that day, so you're wrong for starters.
I didn't send you a threatening PM, I very likely told you to piss off accusing me of being other people.
NGB is welcome to check your account, Jackie. I don't really care.
Yes, we would have acted if told of this. It is never acceptable to make threats, whether direct or veiled, by PM.
It was very likely modded. Didn't mean in any way to give the impression that the comment was allowed to stand, but just that it was posted. It wasn't PM it was said on the open board.
-
I didn't join the forum that day, so you're wrong for starters.
I didn't send you a threatening PM, I very likely told you to piss off accusing me of being other people.
NGB is welcome to check your account, Jackie. I don't really care.
It was very likely modded. Didn't mean in any way to give the impression that the comment was allowed to stand, but just that it was posted. It wasn't PM it was said on the open board.
Sounds like you have had a bad day Mat.... :P
-
Sounds like you have had a bad day Mat.... :P
We all do from time to time. Laughed yesterday when you told us you had gone shopping with your top inside out! ;D
The worst I have done on a bad day was to bring two garbage bags on the subway! I was going to work and forgot to throw them in the bin outside at home! OHHHH, when I found out I had to get off and throw them away!!! 8) :o
-
I don't remember if I reported it. It was when I first joined the forum. I'll PM you because the person will jusrt deny it and it will lead to more problems.
Think people missed the main point behind my post though, wasn't that I was bothered by the comment, was saying that having had something like this said to me on the board I can understand why MD didn't go to the police, nothing the police could/would do.
If you knew who it was the police could do something if it was a direct threat to your life. When I went to the police about two abusers, one actually told me to expect a visit from him the police didn't do anything because they said he didn't actually saythat he was going to kill me. So probably if this person whoever he was said to you that you should watch your back if Bamber ever got out then the police wouldn't/couldn't do anything unless he actually threatened you that he was going to kill you, because Bamber is never likely to get out anyway? In any case I have never heard of him streaten anybody myself.
-
The day you joined the forum YOU sent me a threatening message
It was the same day Jeremy had his application to appeal turned down and you said on the open forum you already had prior knowledge of the decision
Ngb is most welcome to check that PM and can have my password anytime
I don't remember mat theatening you Jackie?
-
I think it might be a good idea to withdraw from saying Guiltiers' and innocenters' it causes a divide. Us and them, or them and us.,
Maybe we should have a poll to find out how the members feel about it.... ;D ;D ;D ;D
The guilters always use the word "supporters" which is just as divisive as the word guilters. So how are we going to describe each other. The divide is there in the first place and will not go away just because we use euphamisms.
-
If you do not recall the "spat", how can you possibly make the above comment? Where did I display anger towards Paul Harrison? I was courteous at all times in my dealings with him. In response he bombarded me with aggressive emails, making demands, at a time I was not even online. I took the trouble to investigate the issue which led to his anger and I posted an accurate and unbiased report on what had happened. He then made threats against me and the forum and he repeated them to others. It was only after all this that I imposed a ban, not in anger but following calm reflection. I explained this here at the time.
You appear to wish to defend Paul Harrison at all costs, now suggesting that I was just as much at fault as him over this. It is almost tribal on here at times.
I was on line at the time. It was expertly dealt with by NGB. It was all very fair, well balanced and transparent. It was quite obvious that NGB was making a great effort to be totally impartial.
I remember being rather surprised that Mason Doyle reacted in the way he did, towards NGB.
-
the big mystory to me is why he was bothred about what a few forum posters said about him online.
-
The guilters always use the word "supporters" which is just as divisive as the word guilters. So how are we going to describe each other. The divide is there in the first place and will not go away just because we use euphamisms.
I agree.
-
the big mystory to me is why bothred about what a few forum posters said about him online.
Yes, I thought that too.
-
I don't remember mat theatening you Jackie?
Grahame I will take a screenshot and send it to you
Maggie saw it immediately I got it
I forwarded it straight on
It was on the lines of watch your back
-
I agree.
Hi Neil, I think there are those members on here where these issues aren't just black and white? In my case for instance I believe there are other issues to be taken into consideration that would have had a bearing on the case. I am hoping (although not sure if I'll e alive next August?) that Harrison's book may iron out some of these issues concerning the police investigation?
-
Grahame I will take a screenshot and send it to you
Maggie saw it immediately I got it
I forwarded it straight on
It was on the lines of watch your back
I'm afraid I am not very good at remembering things like that. When people threaten me I usually take it with a pinch of salt and then dismiss it as being silly.
-
We all do from time to time. Laughed yesterday when you told us you had gone shopping with your top inside out! ;D
The worst I have done on a bad day was to bring two garbage bags on the subway! I was going to work and forgot to throw them in the bin outside at home! OHHHH, when I found out I had to get off and throw them away!!! 8) :o
LOL................. That's two NUTTA'S on the forum!
I laughed too Alias. The label was flapping down the seem. I was consciously trying to walk with a stiff arm in order to hide it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Neil, I think there are those members on here where these issues aren't just black and white? In my case for instance I believe there are other issues to be taken into consideration that would have had a bearing on the case. I am hoping (although not sure if I'll e alive next August?) that Harrison's book may iron out some of these issues concerning the police investigation?
Hope you are OK, Grahame!
-
Hope you are OK, Grahame!
I hope he is Alias..... :(
-
Grahame I will take a screenshot and send it to you
Maggie saw it immediately I got it
I forwarded it straight on
It was on the lines of watch your back
Oh, Grow up, Preece. You've been bitching and whining for years about the same old crap. Want me to ACTUALLY threaten you? If I ever drive past you I will beep my horn VERY LOUDLY and hurt your ears!!! ;D ;D
There, now you've got something to cry about.
-
What's up with you all? For goodness sakes. You know living in the past halts future growth. Grudges held form a platform to wager ill feeling and this is why we have so much unrest in the world....!
Can we all haunt one another tomorrow please....we could even change our avatar to scare people...Yiles!
I know I will shut up! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
<<< How's that , Patti? ;D
-
<<< How's that , Patti? ;D
Really scary....lol
-
I´m in!
-
It appears to me the posts are more about old grudges ,and posters who just like to stir things, rather than opinions on the letter and the article.
Some people seem to like and try and settle old scores without a thought about the people who have been drawn in to this , and whether a few posts and messages are justification for having their names ( directly or indirectly ) splashed across a newspaper and associated with what is after all a very serious criminal act of making a death threat.
I don't think it should be used for an excuse to stir up old arguments.
-
It's what they enjoy most,apparently,Jan. :(
-
What's up with you all? For goodness sakes. You know living in the past halts future growth. Grudges held form a platform to wager ill feeling and this is why we have so much unrest in the world....!
Can we all haunt one another tomorrow please....we could even change our avatar to scare people...Yikes!
I know I will shut up! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It appears to me the posts are more about old grudges ,and posters who just like to stir things, rather than opinions on the letter and the article.
Some people seem to like and try and settle old scores without a thought about the people who have been drawn in to this , and whether a few posts and messages are justification for having their names ( directly or indirectly ) splashed across a newspaper and associated with what is after all a very serious criminal act of making a death threat.
I don't think it should be used for an excuse to stir up old arguments.
Jan
It was a serious threat and at the time Mats friends on the red were sending taxis and Indian meals to my home and laughing about it on the red forum after they had done it
Don't under estimate some people
-
Jan
It was a serious threat and at the time Mats friends on the red were sending taxis and Indian meals to my home and laughing about it on the red forum after they had done it
Don't under estimate some people
Mat has always been given a hard time over his decision to post on Johns forum, yet other members from here have done exactly the same.
-
Mat has always been given a hard time over his decision to post on Johns forum, yet other members from here have done exactly the same.
You were not threatened though were you Neil.
I only bought it up again because he has now come up with a 'story' that he was threatened
-
You were not threatened though were you Neil.
I only bought it up again because he has now come up with a 'story' that he was threatened
I can understand why you've brought it up. I was just talking generally. It seems that quite a few from here have ended up over there, yet it's only Mat that I've seen repeatedly criticised for doing so.
I've always thought that it's a little unfair on him.
-
I can understand why you've brought it up. I was just talking generally. It seems that quite a few from here have ended up over there, yet it's only Mat that I've seen repeatedly criticised for doing so.
I've always thought that it's a little unfair on him.
I have been criticised too.
-
Hope you are OK, Grahame!
I am at the moment Alias, thanks. ;D
-
I am at the moment Alias, thanks. ;D
Good! :)
-
I have been criticised too.
Sorry Alias, I missed that. Were you nasty about us? Bet you weren't :)
-
Mr. Gee glad to hear you are well.
-
Mr G,you're needed here for however long this lot is going to take. :) So take heed.
-
Sorry Alias, I missed that. Were you nasty about us? Bet you weren't :)
I was totally and utterly obnoxious! :P ;)
-
I was totally and utterly obnoxious! :P ;)
;D
-
I was totally and utterly obnoxious! :P ;)
No you weren't, I was.......Still am.
-
No you weren't, I was.......Still am.
So we have that in common! ;) ;)
-
I can understand why you've brought it up. I was just talking generally. It seems that quite a few from here have ended up over there, yet it's only Mat that I've seen repeatedly criticised for doing so.
I've always thought that it's a little unfair on him.
Thanks Neil! The annoying thing is the same people that BASH me for being a member of the red forum are the ones who ATTACKED me when I wasn't a member there and someone was posting there with my username. I joined the red forum with the username ACTUALMAT - so the imposter would stop getting me into trouble on here.
I didn't even know what the red forum was - I had to ask Grahame for a link.
Many members have had accounts on both forums, including Jackie. I don't know who she means by "My friends" sending her taxis/takeaways - but my only friends on the red forum are Andrea and Shona.
-
Patti - you're very quick to delete my posts in response to Jackie. But it's a shame you don't delete hers.
-
Patti - you're very quick to delete my posts in response to Jackie. But it's a shame you don't delete hers.
I have removed several posts made by Jackie Mat, please note the word removed and not deleted. I try to be balanced and fair and as a moderator yourself you should know that your post was doomed to be removed.
Chill man! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Actually, now that I think about it. Grahame told me all about the take-aways and taxis had sent to her home.
So I wasn't even a member here when it happened, nevermind a member of the red forum.
Can't blame me.
-
Is that better? I took out the naughty word.
-
Is that better? I took out the naughty word.
If you removed the last line it would be more acceptable Mat. Come on you know its wrong. :'(
-
Actually, now that I think about it. Grahame told me all about the take-aways and taxis had sent to her home.
So I wasn't even a member here when it happened, nevermind a member of the red forum.
Hated by who exactly?
I love Shona
Carry on showing yourself up
-
Hated by who exactly?
I love Shona
Carry on showing yourself up
The people you claim sent taxi's and take-aways to your house. Or are you saying they did it because they like you?
-
I give up! This is so childish at times. Anymore and I will lock the thread. Its spoils it for those who genuinely want to debate.
-
I give up! This is so childish at times. Anymore and I will lock the thread. Its spoils it for those who genuinely want to debate.
I shouldn't have to keep defending rubbish that apparently happened on this forum or the red forum before I was even a member, Patti.
-
Night Patti, I have two horses waiting for breakfast at 6.30 am
-
Night Patti, I have two horses waiting for breakfast at 6.30 am
Really? Night Jackie. Tomorrow is another day, yeah! ;)
-
Hated by who exactly?
I love Shona
Carry on showing yourself up
You WHAT? ???
-
Shameless attempt to get publicity for his book.
-
Got it in one,lebaleb. Some people will do anything for attention,and I have a name for them--------------
-
I was on line at the time. It was expertly dealt with by NGB. It was all very fair, well balanced and transparent. It was quite obvious that NGB was making a great effort to be totally impartial.
I remember being rather surprised that Mason Doyle reacted in the way he did, towards NGB.
Thank you Neil.
-
Thank you Neil.
I have to agree with Neil here. I thought that you handled it brilliantly ngb.
-
Took a peek at the reviews on Amazon re; Paul Harrison's last book 'Dancing with the Devil' about the Bible John murders. They dont seem to be very good. Readers talk of lots of 'padding' in the book and at hints towards who the author believes responsible but no evidence to back it up. There are also complaints about 'nothing new' being revealed in the book.
-
Took a peek at the reviews on Amazon re; Paul Harrison's last book 'Dancing with the Devil' about the Bible John murders. They dont seem to be very good. Readers talk of lots of 'padding' in the book and at hints towards who the author believes responsible but no evidence to back it up. There are also complaints about 'nothing new' being revealed in the book.
I read similar with his " findings " about the real Jack the Ripper. ::) Even that was wrong !!
-
I read similar with his " findings " about the real Jack the Ripper. ::) Even that was wrong !!
Oh dear :(
-
Did he not say he travelled to Canada for research for his book?
Well I guess there is only one reason he would do that .
But did he manage to secure any meeting? That we do not know do we?
-
Did he not say he travelled to Canada for research for his book?
Well I guess there is only one reason he would do that .
But did he manage to secure any meeting? That we do not know do we?
If he offered her £25,000 I bet he would? ;)
-
I read similar with his " findings " about the real Jack the Ripper. ::) Even that was wrong !!
Perhaps these sort of books are aimed at those new to the case, rather than the initiated.
I would be very surprised if Harrison manages to provide anything even approaching new evidence, in Bambers case.
Were it not for the 30 year aspect, I wonder if this book would ever see the light of day.
Whatever happens, I can't help but feel that it will be an anti climax.
-
Perhaps these sort of books are aimed at those new to the case, rather than the initiated.
I would be very surprised if Harrison manages to provide anything even approaching new evidence, in Bambers case.
Were it not for the 30 year aspect, I wonder if this book would ever see the light of day.
Whatever happens, I can't help but feel that it will be an anti climax.
Neil,he's got no chance of finding anything. Half the stuff is mothballed anyway and what isn't,is classed as confidential,i.e.Sheilas' case notes. Only Jeremy and his solicitor are privy to these.
-
Did he not say he travelled to Canada for research for his book?
Well I guess there is only one reason he would do that .
But did he manage to secure any meeting? That we do not know do we?
He said here that she did not want to be interviewed.
-
Nor would she give any press interviews at any time.? Speaks volumes to me.
-
He said here that she did not want to be interviewed.
so nothing new to be put in the book in that respect then.
-
Took a peek at the reviews on Amazon re; Paul Harrison's last book 'Dancing with the Devil' about the Bible John murders. They dont seem to be very good. Readers talk of lots of 'padding' in the book and at hints towards who the author believes responsible but no evidence to back it up. There are also complaints about 'nothing new' being revealed in the book.
I thought you had read ALL of PH's books? Isn't that what you said when he joined?
-
Wrong Paul Harrison,Mat.
-
I have decided to seek legal advice regarding the newspaper article.
If there is a way I can take legal action without risk I will.
Then if any money was paid I would like to put the money somewhere it could be used for Jeremy. Maybe Ngb could look after the money as he has the expertise how the money could be used
It would be nice to think something good could come out of such a nasty newspaper article
I don't know how I stand with a case against PH or the newspaper or both
-
I have decided to seek legal advice regarding the newspaper article.
If there is a way I can take legal action without risk I will.
Then if any money was paid I would like to put the money somewhere it could be used for Jeremy. Maybe Ngb could look after the money as he has the expertise how the money could be used
It would be nice to think something good could come out of such a nasty newspaper article
I don't know how I stand with a case against PH or the newspaper or both
Well by naming your employers he did not exactly make it difficult for your name to be found and "associated " you indirectly with a death threat that he made it quite clear he was accusing Jeremy of - so I guess it is a matter of trying to establish whether legally you have any recourse .
-
I have decided to seek legal advice regarding the newspaper article.
If there is a way I can take legal action without risk I will.
Then if any money was paid I would like to put the money somewhere it could be used for Jeremy. Maybe Ngb could look after the money as he has the expertise how the money could be used
It would be nice to think something good could come out of such a nasty newspaper article
I don't know how I stand with a case against PH or the newspaper or both
I could look after the money for you Jackie. I could put it into a box here called "petty cash". :)
-
I could look after the money for you Jackie. I could put it into a box here called "petty cash". :)
;D ;D
-
Well by naming your employers he did not exactly make it difficult for your name to be found and "associated " you indirectly with a death threat that he made it quite clear he was accusing Jeremy of - so I guess it is a matter of trying to establish whether legally you have any recourse .
Jackie does in theory have legal recourse. Because she is identifiable and is clearly linked in to an allegation of a serious criminal offence she could sue the newspaper for libel. In my assessment she would have reasonable prospects of success. However, proceedings for libel are eye wateringly expensive. Apart from the costs of solicitor and counsel there is the risk of losing and having to pay the costs of the other side. Newspapers tend to fight libel actions as they hope that the individual will be deterred from continuing by continually rising costs.
-
Ngb do you think anyone would work on a conditional fee arrangement
It's not about the money it's the principle and any money might help Jeremy with his case as long as it was controlled
-
He didn't link her to the letter. He mentioned the strange letter and then went on to talk about OTHER online attempts to get at him such as the claim he was dead and the strange contact from Jackie.
If Jackie wants to waste her time and money, then let her. But she isn't going to get anywhere, she DID send the emails.
-
Ngb do you think anyone would work on a conditional fee arrangement
It's not about the money it's the principle and any money might help Jeremy with his case as long as it was controlled
It might be possible but I think it would be difficult to get a legal team to take the case on a CFA.
-
He didn't link her to the letter. He mentioned the strange letter and then went on to talk about OTHER online attempts to get at him such as the claim he was dead and the strange contact from Jackie.
If Jackie wants to waste her time and money, then let her. But she isn't going to get anywhere, she DID send the emails.
Jackie sent PMs, not emails as suggested by PH, but that is not the issue here. There was a clear link if you read the article - "a week later...". I agree it is not conclusive but in my view there is sufficient innuendo (which is good enough in defamation).
-
He didn't link her to the letter. He mentioned the strange letter and then went on to talk about OTHER online attempts to get at him such as the claim he was dead and the strange contact from Jackie.
If Jackie wants to waste her time and money, then let her. But she isn't going to get anywhere, she DID send the emails.
Good luck to her, i am no legal expert but i thought the email exchange between the two of them would scupper any chance of libel?
-
Good luck to her, i am no legal expert but i thought the email exchange between the two of them would scupper any chance of libel?
No, that would have no bearing on it.
-
No, that would have no bearing on it.
Thanks for that Ngb and that shows why i am no legal expert, so as i say good luck to Jackie.
-
Thanks for that Ngb and that shows why i am no legal expert, so as i say good luck to Jackie.
Also ngb said they were pm's and not emails.
-
Also ngb said they were pm's and not emails.
I gathered that after i had written my post, but Ngb had already posted.
-
He didn't link her to the letter. He mentioned the strange letter and then went on to talk about OTHER online attempts to get at him such as the claim he was dead and the strange contact from Jackie.
If Jackie wants to waste her time and money, then let her. But she isn't going to get anywhere, she DID send the emails.
He did, but it was subtle and not direct. I think that Jackie may have a problem being successful in a case against the paper or PH.
What PH did made me lose any trust in him, and I will have nothing to do with him or his books! He achieved that - and I can´t be the only one.
-
No, that would have no bearing on it.
Been reading Ngb and it says this, Unfortunately, defamation of character claims are extremely difficult to be proven in the court of law, In order to win the claim, you are going to need to prove that the false statement has always ruined your reputation. How hard is it to prove your reputation has been ruined?
-
He didn't link her to the letter. He mentioned the strange letter and then went on to talk about OTHER online attempts to get at him such as the claim he was dead and the strange contact from Jackie.
If Jackie wants to waste her time and money, then let her. But she isn't going to get anywhere, she DID send the emails.
was it you he threatened to sue by pm as well ?
-
How about internet stalking ? Isn't this an offence ?
-
was it you he threatened to sue by pm as well ?
He did.
-
He did.
Why?
-
I have decided to seek legal advice regarding the newspaper article.
If there is a way I can take legal action without risk I will.
Then if any money was paid I would like to put the money somewhere it could be used for Jeremy. Maybe Ngb could look after the money as he has the expertise how the money could be used
It would be nice to think something good could come out of such a nasty newspaper article
I don't know how I stand with a case against PH or the newspaper or both
Jackie there is no need to pay anyone. You could take out what they call "Small Claims" in order to do this you must first of all determine whether or not this can be sorted outside of a court. The first step in to make contact with the newspaper. You can ask for an apology which can be published in the paper concerned....
You could stretch that further by asking for compensation or a donation made to charity or campaign. The article made you stressful and very close to losing your employment. Not only that there is a finger pointing exercise to consider as well.
The first steps are required and if there in no joy, then its the small claims.....The last I heard it cost less than a tenner....to take a small claim out. Its another option as opposed to getting a solicitor and barrister involved.
I always represent myself and I am in no way blowing my own trumpet...but, I won my case based on research. The barrister for the opposition congratulated me and shook my hand. The judge gave me everything I asked for and after 10 long years of fighting he wanted to know why I had not been offered what I had asked for 10 years earlier. The judge also in my favour said the matter will be never be accepted in court in the future. It was an amazing time, but a stressful one, but at the end of the day I fought for what was right and proved that it was justified. What I fought for had no baring on what I really thought, it was the right thing to do and I knew that and so did the judge. What I did was to relinquish all responsibility and place that into professional hands. :-\
-
Why?
He didn't like his plunger ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jackie there is no need to pay anyone. You could take out what they call "Small Claims" in order to do this you must first of all determine whether or not this can be sorted outside of a court. The first step in to make contact with the newspaper. You can ask for an apology which can be published in the paper concerned....
You could stretch that further by asking for compensation or a donation made to charity or campaign. The article made you stressful and very close to losing your employment. Not only that there is a finger pointing exercise to consider as well.
The first steps are required and if there in no joy, then its the small claims.....The last I heard it cost less than a tenner....to take a small claim out. Its another option as opposed to getting a solicitor and barrister involved.
I always represent myself and I am in no way blowing my own trumpet...but, I won my case based on research. The barrister for the opposition congratulated me and shook my hand. The judge gave me everything I asked for and after 10 long years of fighting he wanted to know why I had not been offered what I had asked for 10 years earlier. The judge also in my favour said the matter will be never be accepted in court in the future. It was an amazing time, but a stressful one, but at the end of the day I fought for what was right and proved that it was justified. What I fought for had no baring on what I really thought, it was the right thing to do and I knew that and so did the judge. What I did was to relinquish all responsibility and place that into professional hands. :-\
Hi Patti but Jackie was not close to losing her job?
Does it look like I am hanging on by a thread to my job?
In Fact I had a letter after all this saying I was an asset to the company
-
Hi Patti but Jackie was not close to losing her job?
Does it look like I am hanging on by a thread to my job?
In Fact I had a letter after all this saying I was an asset to the company
Hi Justice :)
No, but that is not what reported in the newspaper....It said this: "severely rebuked" and was "hanging on to her job by a thread". ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Justice :)
No, but that is not what reported in the newspaper....It said this: "severely rebuked" and was "hanging on to her job by a thread". ;D ;D ;D ;D
But Jackie is denying this on an open forum? In order to win the claim, you are going to need to prove that the false statement has always ruined your reputation.
-
No Patti, the article didn't make her almost lose her job. The EMAILS/PMs she sent did. How can it have been the article? Her employer spoke in the article that she almost lost her job because of the emails, so her warning at work obviously came before the article.
-
He did.
uncomfortable questions ? protection of reputation?
-
uncomfortable questions ? protection of reputation?
I can't even remember to be honest. It was 11 months ago and I didn't pay much attention to it. I didn't even read the full PM because it was so long.
Didn't like something I posted from what I remember.
-
No Patti, the article didn't make her almost lose her job. The EMAILS/PMs she sent did. How can it have been the article? Her employer spoke in the article that she almost lost her job because of the emails, so her warning at work obviously came before the article.
what ever you believe about the emails and pms and the interpretation of them, the forum debate was the type of thing that happens ALL the time on forums . Many of us have been the subject of threats ( me for example as you know being reported to the police ??? for aiding you in an argument)
But I have seen nothing that justified the naming and implication of Jackie and Ngb in the press.
How would you have felt if it was you , in the same article about a death threat?
I still feel that old arguments are colouring opinion about what has happened.
Unless I have missed something I can not see the justification for publication of that article
-
I can't even remember to be honest. It was 11 months ago and I didn't pay much attention to it. I didn't even read the full PM because it was so long.
Didn't like something I posted from what I remember.
I think you asked about Brett.
-
I think you asked about Brett.
I think that was after he had PM'd me tbh.
-
Cutting through all the crap and dealing with this on a human level......what Harrison did to Jackie was pretty rotten. It was a really cheap trick. Sorry Susan!
-
Ha Ha Neil not even sure what he did or did not do to anyone as I read the article in the Sunday Express I really have become confused with pm's/emails and I am totally lost and that is the honest truth this is why I have not been saying much. I am sure what ever advice she gets from ngb it will be right and she should act on it.
-
No Patti, the article didn't make her almost lose her job. The EMAILS/PMs she sent did. How can it have been the article? Her employer spoke in the article that she almost lost her job because of the emails, so her warning at work obviously came before the article.
But the article claims she did and if that is not the case then the article is misleading. I can't understand how anyone can't see through the article to be honest. He did not have to implicate anyone. The letter he is supposedly to have received was anonymous and threatened his life or was that also misleading?
There was no reason to mention a PM from Jackie was there? What was his reason for disclosing it? Once you have answered that then there is only one conclusion and that was to implicate her and her connections to NGB and Jeremy Bamber....
Deduced from it what you want, that is your entitlement. But, its not the way I see it unfortunately. Many unanswered questions derives from the article which is aimed at this forum and its members....???????????
-
Cutting through all the crap and dealing with this on a human level......what Harrison did to Jackie was pretty rotten. It was a really cheap trick. Sorry Susan!
Words spoken with a level head Neil....and, I agree with you. :) :) :)
-
But the article claims she did and if that is not the case then the article is misleading.
Her BOSS says she almost lost her job. It's a quote from her boss. If you can't see that it's because you don't want to.
-
what ever you believe about the emails and pms and the interpretation of them, the forum debate was the type of thing that happens ALL the time on forums . Many of us have been the subject of threats ( me for example as you know being reported to the police ??? for aiding you in an argument)
But I have seen nothing that justified the naming and implication of Jackie and Ngb in the press.
How would you have felt if it was you , in the same article about a death threat?
I still feel that old arguments are colouring opinion about what has happened.
Unless I have missed something I can not see the justification for publication of that article
Hi Jan, that's a great post and I wholeheartedly agree.
-
Her BOSS says she almost lost her job. It's a quote from her boss. If you can't see that it's because you don't want to.
Yes I know Mat....Its not a case that I don't want to see it, I know that is what was said in the article. I'm not denying that. Do you think I am?
I think you are misunderstanding me..
Based on what the article said and what her boss had said is not what is in contention here. The article is solely responsible for her to come close to losing her job. Or is it that she (forgive the word she) has never come close to losing her job at all....Is the article misleading or has she been really reprimanded. If it is the latter then surely the article its self has caused unnecessary stress and worry towards her. It matters not that she is claiming otherwise, the fact remains. :D
-
what ever you believe about the emails and pms and the interpretation of them, the forum debate was the type of thing that happens ALL the time on forums . Many of us have been the subject of threats ( me for example as you know being reported to the police ??? for aiding you in an argument)
But I have seen nothing that justified the naming and implication of Jackie and Ngb in the press.
How would you have felt if it was you , in the same article about a death threat?
I still feel that old arguments are colouring opinion about what has happened.
Unless I have missed something I can not see the justification for publication of that article
I totally agree with you Jan. A really sensible post, but then again all your posts are that way inclined. ;D
-
Thank you Jan, Patti and Neil
Since I first started to publicise this case on Twitter I have had so many bad things done to me and said about and things set up to make me look bad that it seems I am some kind of threat to the PEOPLE who want to keep Jeremy in prison
But this time it's been taken to a whole new level
I believe PH gave the paper false information and then the paper printed the wrong information
Maybe SOMEDAY panicked when they saw where I worked
Someone was definately determined to get me sacked
First the numerous phone calls to my company and then the newspaper article
Who could lose the most if Jeremy's conviction was overturned?
Where was the letter sent from?
Once again someone is determined to sabotage Jeremy's next attempt to get his case to the appeal court
It's disgraceful and it's disgraceful that Ngb has been dragged into things again
It must grate on a number of people that Ngb is at the end of the phone whenever Jeremy needs him
-
Yes I know Mat....Its not a case that I don't want to see it, I know that is what was said in the article. I'm not denying that. Do you think I am?
I think you are misunderstanding me..
Based on what the article said and what her boss had said is not what is in contention here. The article is solely responsible for her to come close to losing her job. Or is it that she (forgive the word she) has never come close to losing her job at all....Is the article misleading or has she been really reprimanded. If it is the latter then surely the article its self has caused unnecessary stress and worry towards her. It matters not that she is claiming otherwise, the fact remains. :D
Would you not have to produce a written warning letter if you had been reprimanded patti, when Jackie clearly states she had a letter saying she was an asset after the article was published?
-
Would you not have to produce a written warning letter if you had been reprimanded patti, when Jackie clearly states she had a letter saying she was an asset after the article was published?
She seems to be basically saying that what her boss told the newspaper isn't true. :o
-
She seems to be basically saying that what her boss told the newspaper isn't true. :o
Thats how i read it as well Matt
-
She seems to be basically saying that what her boss told the newspaper isn't true. :o
No I didn't, it's how you interpret things, how many times do you think a company needs to be rung before they get fed up? you were not in the meetings, I totally understand why they were fed up
Obviously the whole thing (the lies) was investigated
I have said as much as I am saying because a solicitor will be given everything and I will take their advice
-
Would you not have to produce a written warning letter if you had been reprimanded patti, when Jackie clearly states she had a letter saying she was an asset after the article was published?
Hi Justice
It depend who you work for and their policies. Where I worked in government there are two avenues. One is a written warning and the other is dismissal. There are no verbal warnings. However, some companies do adapt to a verbal before a written then a final..It depends on their own guidance and polices.
It might be that Jackie is an asset to the company...to be fair it is not for us to scrutinize. I would say to Jackie this...Please be aware of what you write and stay mindful and I would recommend that to anyone whether they think they are anonymous or not...There is always someone out there Justice, to make your life a misery because you made a mistake....
Some people thrive on taking matters away from the forums in order to lose peoples their jobs. They stalk you, get to know who you are then bingo! :o
-
She seems to be basically saying that what her boss told the newspaper isn't true. :o
Well maybe he decided after talking to her that her job was not at threat?
I bet they were not happy , for whatever reason , of having their company name associated with the article. Perhaps that was a gut initial reaction and then they changed their minds.
I don't really see that's any of our business.
-
I don't really see that's any of our business.
Well it has been printed in the press, and Jackie has spoken of it. The article is also being used to try and damage Mason who was a member of this forum - and now the people are nit-picking the article to try and dirty MD's name... yet these are the same people that had basically thrown themselves at him to sit in his lap when he first came to the forum.
-
Hi Justice
It depend who you work for and their policies. Where I worked in government there are two avenues. One is a written warning and the other is dismissal. There are no verbal warnings. However, some companies do adapt to a verbal before a written then a final..It depends on their own guidance and polices.
It might be that Jackie is an asset to the company...to be fair it is not for us to scrutinize. I would say to Jackie this...Please be aware of what you write and stay mindful and I would recommend that to anyone whether they think they are anonymous or not...There is always someone out there Justice, to make your life a misery because you made a mistake....
Some people thrive on taking matters away from the forums in order to lose peoples their jobs. They stalk you, get to know who you are then bingo! :o
Thanks and good post Patti
-
Well it has been printed in the press, and Jackie has spoken of it. The article is also being used to try and damage Mason who was a member of this forum - and now the people are nit-picking the article to try and dirty MD's name... yet these are the same people that had basically thrown themselves at him to sit in his lap when he first came to the forum.
Good post Matt, if its none of our buisness dont post it on a forum to discuss just do it.
-
Thanks and good post Patti
Thank you Justice. Do you play bingo? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Thank you Justice. Do you play bingo? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Been to Mecca a few times but dont like it? Am i leading into something lol.
-
Well it has been printed in the press, and Jackie has spoken of it. The article is also being used to try and damage Mason who was a member of this forum - and now the people are nit-picking the article to try and dirty MD's name... yet these are the same people that had basically thrown themselves at him to sit in his lap when he first came to the forum.
So you think its fine that he went to the press and decided who the letter was from, without proof, made allegations and dragged NGB and Jackie into it then?
If it dirtys his name then I think it his decision to go to the press that has done that.
Personally I think by the time the book comes out it will all be forgotten - but then of course he will be able to add it to the final publication to emphasise his conclusion.
-
So you think its fine that he went to the press and decided who the letter was from, without proof, made allegations and dragged NGB and Jackie into it then?
If it dirtys his name then I think it his decision to go to the press that has done that.
Personally I think by the time the book comes out it will all be forgotten - but then of course he will be able to add it to the final publication to emphasise his conclusion.
I believe the letter to be genuine and in that case he has every right to do what he wanted with it.
-
So you think its fine that he went to the press and decided who the letter was from, without proof, made allegations and dragged NGB and Jackie into it then?
If it dirtys his name then I think it his decision to go to the press that has done that.
Personally I think by the time the book comes out it will all be forgotten - but then of course he will be able to add it to the final publication to emphasise his conclusion.
He didn't name the person who sent the letter, he just said that it was a disciple of Bamber that sent it. he didn't name names.
-
Well it has been printed in the press, and Jackie has spoken of it. The article is also being used to try and damage Mason who was a member of this forum - and now the people are nit-picking the article to try and dirty MD's name... yet these are the same people that had basically thrown themselves at him to sit in his lap when he first came to the forum.
Mat.
PH was the one that went to the press. He did not involve the police. The damage was not only to PH Mat. It involved others and it implicated others.
If that letter was real then there were no need to shower suspicion on members that post on this forum or involve the Admin on this forum....
What PH fails to tell us in that article is who or where the other threats came from....He fails to tell us who in the establishment is making threats, who in the police force is making threat and it goes on and on all because he is writing a book on Bamber.....No other author was met with such threats....so why him?
I can tell you though that PH and myself got on rather well and we even exchanged a PM on the 19th....where he thanked me for my support. So I no there were no grudges between us. Its just that since he went to the press I have lost the respect that I had for him. Had he gone to the police then my opinion of him would have stayed the same....I have doubts. :-\
-
He didn't name the person who sent the letter, he just said that it was a disciple of Bamber that sent it. he didn't name names.
But that is implicating Jeremy by association . It may not have been true. If he has proof that is true then fair enough but then if he did have he could give it to the police.
It could have been someone trying to get at Jeremy and this forum - in other words someone who believes he is guilty. Or other people who are going to be implicated in a MOJ in the book.
-
Mat.
PH was the one that went to the press. He did not involve the police. The damage was not only to PH Mat. It involved others and it implicated others.
If that letter was real then there were no need to shower suspicion on members that post on this forum or involve the Admin on this forum....
What PH fails to tell us in that article is who or where the other threats came from....He fails to tell us who in the establishment is making threats, who in the police force is making threat and it goes on and on all because he is writing a book on Bamber.....No other author was met with such threats....so why him?
I can tell you though that PH and myself got on rather well and we even exchanged a PM on the 19th....where he thanked me for my support. So I no there were no grudges between us. Its just that since he went to the press I have lost the respect that I had for him. Had he gone to the police then my opinion of him would have stayed the same....I have doubts. :-\
He said the letter was postmarked in Essex, I didn't see him mention that he had received threats from the establishment or the Police, im confused here ???
Also, I don't think NGB doesn't comes across badly in that article. He clearly states that he doesn't agree with the letter being sent. He also said that some people can be quite fanatical regarding Bamber, and to wait until his book comes out, then form an opinion. No, I don't NGB looks bad in that article at all.
-
But that is implicating Jeremy by association . It may not have been true. If he has proof that is true then fair enough but then if he did have he could give it to the police.
It could have been someone trying to get at Jeremy and this forum - in other words someone who believes he is guilty. Or other people who are going to be implicated in a MOJ in the book.
If he is implicating Bamber there's not a lot anyone can do about it. Bamber is serving a whole life tarrif, I think the law states you cant defame someone who is already in prison, but don't quote me on that!! Im not sure, will have to look it up.
-
I think its somebody with a grudge against PH himself. I don't think its anyone with a grudge against Jackie or NGB. IMO
-
If he is implicating Bamber there's not a lot anyone can do about it. Bamber is serving a whole life tarrif, I think the law states you cant defame someone who is already in prison, but don't quote me on that!! Im not sure, will have to look it up.
Exactly.
you don't have to look it up.
-
He said the letter was postmarked in Essex, I didn't see him mention that he had received threats from the establishment or the Police, im confused here ???
Also, I don't think NGB doesn't comes across badly in that article. He clearly states that he doesn't agree with the letter being sent. He also said that some people can be quite fanatical regarding Bamber, and to wait until his book comes out, then form an opinion. No, I don't NGB looks bad in that article at all.
He said the above in messages . the establishment and the police were trying to stop him publishing the book even though they did not know what was in it.
-
He didn't name the person who sent the letter, he just said that it was a disciple of Bamber that sent it. he didn't name names.
Hi Andrea
But, if it was anonymous he would not know who had sent the letter. It could have been any nutter on this planet. But, the letter mentions NGB as being Jeremy's protector so the journalist sort NGB out and rang him. I take it NGB was quite taken aback with it all and NGB'S professionalism shone through.
PH had said he had been having threats form the establishment etc prior to the article Andrea....but he fails to name them. He told us this on the on the forum. Someone had even sent John an email to tell him he had died.....by the name of Scott? The mind boggles.... :-\
-
Maybe threats is the wrong word :-X
-
Mat.
PH was the one that went to the press. He did not involve the police. The damage was not only to PH Mat. It involved others and it implicated others.
If that letter was real then there were no need to shower suspicion on members that post on this forum or involve the Admin on this forum....
What PH fails to tell us in that article is who or where the other threats came from....He fails to tell us who in the establishment is making threats, who in the police force is making threat and it goes on and on all because he is writing a book on Bamber.....No other author was met with such threats....so why him?
I can tell you though that PH and myself got on rather well and we even exchanged a PM on the 19th....where he thanked me for my support. So I no there were no grudges between us. Its just that since he went to the press I have lost the respect that I had for him. Had he gone to the police then my opinion of him would have stayed the same....I have doubts. :-\
I agree , when he came on the forum he seemed fine . And to be fair I was sarcastic about the book only because of penadtic posts by a certain person . But IF PH confirms that there was technically a MOJ and he PROVES JB is guilty - then fair enough - it will in some ways be justification of what some people have been saying even if the end result is not what we thought. And I for one would be grateful because it would save hours of my time posting on here ( as much as I love you all!)
As long as it is not the same argument as Bob W , which as far as I can see is a load of rubbish.
-
Hi Andrea
But, if it was anonymous he would not know who had sent the letter. It could have been any nutter on this planet. But, the letter mentions NGB as being Jeremy's protector so the journalist sort NGB out and rang him. I take it NGB was quite taken aback with it all and NGB'S professionalism shone through.
PH had said he had been having threats form the establishment etc prior to the article Andrea....but he fails to name them. He told us this on the on the forum. Someone had even sent John an email to tell him he had died.....by the name of Scott? The mind boggles.... :-\
I wasn't privvy to what has been sent in messages. I'm forming my opinions on the newspaper article.
-
I agree , when he came on the forum he seemed fine . And to be fair I was sarcastic about the book only because of penadtic posts by a certain person . But IF PH confirms that there was technically a MOJ and he PROVES JB is guilty - then fair enough - it will in some ways be justification of what some people have been saying even if the end result is not what we thought. And I for one would be grateful because it would save hours of my time posting on here ( as much as I love you all!)
As long as it is not the same argument as Bob W , which as far as I can see is a load of rubbish.
Hi Jan
From the onset with PH I was never under the impression that he leaned toward Jeremy being innocent his main belief was to identify the corruption surrounding the case. That is more or less what he told me. So I was never under the impression that he thought Jeremy to be innocent. Yet, I imagine I was mislead I suppose, into thinking that he swayed towards Jeremy.
For the life of me I cannot justify why he went to the press with such an article. If he had not done so them my opinion of him would be the same as it were prior to it.
Anyway, I am tired out.....I need my beauty sleep lol Night Jan/All. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Jan
From the onset with PH I was never under the impression that he leaned toward Jeremy being innocent his main belief was to identify the corruption surrounding the case. That is more or less what he told me. So I was never under the impression that he thought Jeremy to be innocent. Yet, I imagine I was mislead I suppose, into thinking that he swayed towards Jeremy.
For the life of me I cannot justify why he went to the press with such an article. If he had not done so them my opinion of him would be the same as it were prior to it.
Anyway, I am tired out.....I need my beauty sleep lol Night Jan/All. ;D ;D ;D ;D
The article indicates that he sought advice from the police, it also indicates that he "knew the investigation wouldn't get anywhere". (I guess because he can't prove who sent it and was told this). Perhaps he went to the press in order to highlight the incident and to send out a message to the sender! There seems to be an accusation that he made the whole thing up? Why would he? It's not going to promote a book that isn't due out until August and why would he be interested in bringing down this forum? It has a lot of members but only a handful that post. Doesn't make sense, he'd have far more to lose than gain!!
-
In last years Scottish Sunday Mail,the news about the book was described as being a controversial one based on the innocence of Jeremy,saying that he was WRONGLY convicted ??
PH had spent eight years researching his book with interviews with relatives and friends,and studying court transcripts,besides numerous visits/conversations with Jeremy himself,as this he was doing on a weekly basis.
-
The article indicates that he sought advice from the police, it also indicates that he "knew the investigation wouldn't get anywhere". (I guess because he can't prove who sent it and was told this). Perhaps he went to the press in order to highlight the incident and to send out a message to the sender! There seems to be an accusation that he made the whole thing up? Why would he? It's not going to promote a book that isn't due out until August and why would he be interested in bringing down this forum? It has a lot of members but only a handful that post. Doesn't make sense, he'd have far more to lose than gain!!
Hi Caroline
The article indicates that he sought advice form a contact from the police meaning that he spoke to someone who was a policeman. He does not say directly that he entered the police station waving an anonymous letter making death threats.
I am off two minds about all of this. I can agree with you that it might be unlikely that he made the whole thing up; however, I do have have my doubts of which I am entitled to have, like you are entitled to believe that the letter was drafted up by someone who knows NGB...and the only people that know NGB are people who post on this forum, the red forum and the campaign team. Therefore the letter has to have come from someone on here, the or the campaign team. I doubt a letter would ever be sent by one of the campaign team to be honest.
It is not for us to decide who but straight away there were accusations that is was a female member of this forum. If PH does not know who the letter is from then why are the minority of this forum making silly accusations that is was Jackie.
The letter could have come from anyone, but its more likely that it is someone who uses the forums.
Perhaps he did go to the press to highlight the incident, but why highlight the PM from Jackie and name her employer? Do you honestly think that is the right thing to do? :)
-
The article indicates that he sought advice from the police, it also indicates that he "knew the investigation wouldn't get anywhere". (I guess because he can't prove who sent it and was told this). Perhaps he went to the press in order to highlight the incident and to send out a message to the sender! There seems to be an accusation that he made the whole thing up? Why would he? It's not going to promote a book that isn't due out until August and why would he be interested in bringing down this forum? It has a lot of members but only a handful that post. Doesn't make sense, he'd have far more to lose than gain!!
He said a contact in Scotland Yard, he did not say the police.
There are many staff at Scotland Yard that are NOT the police
He tries to give the impression he was scared but does NOT say he contacted the police
-
Hi Patti,the answer is in my above post which referred being to the book as being controversial. In other words,he thinks that Jeremy is indeed innocent,which would indeed spark a protest from some quarters who imagined that the book would have formed his guilt.
-
The article indicates that he sought advice from the police, it also indicates that he "knew the investigation wouldn't get anywhere". (I guess because he can't prove who sent it and was told this). Perhaps he went to the press in order to highlight the incident and to send out a message to the sender! There seems to be an accusation that he made the whole thing up? Why would he? It's not going to promote a book that isn't due out until August and why would he be interested in bringing down this forum? It has a lot of members but only a handful that post. Doesn't make sense, he'd have far more to lose than gain!!
Clearly PH lied to the newspaper here
Why would he lie Caroline?
It's here in black and white where he says what I offered him
-
The said headlines for that newspaper,read," Book Cop I'll Show Bambers Innocence ".
-
This was stated in July of last year.Had he finished the book ?
-
He said a contact in Scotland Yard, he did not say the police.
There are many staff at Scotland Yard that are NOT the police
He tries to give the impression he was scared but does NOT say he contacted the police
I must have read it wrong i thought he said police Scotland?
-
I must have read it wrong i thought he said police Scotland?
He did say he contacted Police Scotland. He doesn't mention Scotland Yard.
-
He did say he contacted Police Scotland. He doesn't mention Scotland Yard.
Thanks Andrea i thought i was reading wrong.
-
I must have read it wrong i thought he said police Scotland?
My mistake
-
Thanks Andrea i thought i was reading wrong.
Why do you think PH lied to the newspaper?
-
He didn't name the person who sent the letter, he just said that it was a disciple of Bamber that sent it. he didn't name names.
This article goes to prove that the pen is mightier than the sword and he knew it.
Strange though that those who were in support of him are now against him and those who were against him cannot see that they are doing exactly the same as they are accusing his former supporters of. ::) I suppose that's just the thinking of prejudice? Except in this instance the libel cannot be seen by the accusers.
-
Lookout you are correct about the article in 2013 - but I think it was bad reporting
the headline said book cop I will show bambers innocent / innocence?
but it read as follows
controversial new book claims that Jeremy Bamber was wrongly convicted for murdering his family.
Bamber was jailed for killing five members of his family - including his six-year-old twin nephews - in Essex in 1985 and later told that he would never be released.
But he claims his mentally ill sister Sheila Caffell shot her mum, dad and sons before turning the gun on herself.
Paul Harrison, a former policeman who lives on Sanday in Orkney, has been in touch with Bamber, now 52, on an almost weekly basis.
He has spent eight years researching his book Dead Bodies Don't Move, studying court transcripts and police files, interviewing relatives and friends and has had many conservations with Bamber.
Harrison said: "It is not for me to say Jeremy is innocent, but his conviction is unsound
. There has been a miscarriage of justice
, of that I'm sure."
The book will look at several areas of crucial evidence including why the murder weapon was moved several times in photographs taken by forensics experts in the aftermath of the bloodbath? Bamber also claims that police contaminated the crime scene and a telephone log, not used at his trial, appears to support his claim that Sheila carried out the shooting.
The document suggests that the father Nevill Bamber phoned police to say his daughter had gone "berserk
". This was JULY 2013
So he was still not willing to commit except to say that JB should not have been convicted on the evidence used in court.
I would assume that he would be with holding his ace card for the book.
So now it looks like he is saying he was framed in some way for "the noble cause" . And we have heard that a lot over the last few months.
Well I guess he has information none of us are privy to . So the sooner he publishes the better.
-
This was stated in July of last year.Had he finished the book ?
Hi Lookout I do wish you could copy and paste....lol Its so easy to do.
Are you searching within the newspaper? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I must have read it wrong i thought he said police Scotland?
Hi Justice he did say a contact in police Scotland. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
This article goes to prove that the pen is mightier than the sword and he knew it.
Strange though that those who were in support of him are now against him and those who were against him cannot see that they are doing exactly the same as they are accusing his former supporters of. ::) I suppose that's just the thinking of prejudice? Except in this instance the libel cannot be seen by the accusers.
I think that is just natural instinct to be fair - polarised views by different posters . Egos . We all want to have an end to all the going round in circles . He was very friendly when he was on here , And to be fair I think we heard the words MOJ and ASSUMED it would prove that JB was innocent.
Now we know that in his opinion that is not true then we know we were incorrect in our assumptions.
IMO I still think it was mis-judgement to drag other people in on the article and accuse a man who has no right to reply. He could have just published the letter if he wanted to but I still don't think he knows who it is from and that is what he should have said. There are plenty of people who still want JB to stay inside whatever the book says.
-
Hi Lookout I do wish you could copy and paste....lol Its so easy to do.
Are you searching within the newspaper? ;D ;D ;D ;D
I just did that for lookout :)
-
Thanks for that Jan.
I'd like to know why it isn't due out for over another 12 months ??
-
He said the letter was postmarked in Essex, I didn't see him mention that he had received threats from the establishment or the Police, im confused here ???
Also, I don't think NGB doesn't comes across badly in that article. He clearly states that he doesn't agree with the letter being sent. He also said that some people can be quite fanatical regarding Bamber, and to wait until his book comes out, then form an opinion. No, I don't NGB looks bad in that article at all.
Hi Andrea. In his pm to Jackie where he encouraged her to keep up the good work he mentioned that he had everyone, the police and the establishment try and stop his investigation and indeed even the publication of his book.
So here we have other parties who he has mentioned as being against him. (This pm to Jackie was posted on here by ngb) I just wonder as he appears to have other enemies trying to prevent him publishing, that these enemies might be trying to kill two birds with one stone. Him (he said that they have tried to kill him off on the internet) and also to shift the blame of their threat onto both Jackie, ngb and indeed the "devil incarnate" Bamber himself.
What makes me think this? Well, the obvious. That both Jackie and Bamber are being accepted by their opponents on here as the most likely culprits. But I personally see these accusers and both shallow thinkers, naive and crass.
-
The letter could have been passed to anyone to post in Essex. Plain envelope containing said letter to someone known in Essex,and hey presto. You don't have to live there.
-
Clearly PH lied to the newspaper here
Why would he lie Caroline?
It's here in black and white where he says what I offered him
That was definitely a lie on his part Jackie, or indeed the newspaper who printed the article (as they always need to sensationalise things) as he was not offered "access". He was offered publicity.
-
Hi Andrea. In his pm to Jackie where he encouraged her to keep up the good work he mentioned that he had everyone, the police and the establishment try and stop his investigation and indeed even the publication of his book.
So here we have other parties who he has mentioned as being against him. (This pm to Jackie was posted on here by ngb) I just wonder as he appears to have other enemies trying to prevent him publishing, that these enemies might be trying to kill two birds with one stone. Him (he said that they have tried to kill him off on the internet) and also to shift the blame of their threat onto both Jackie, ngb and indeed the "devil incarnate" Bamber himself.
What makes me think this? Well, the obvious. That both Jackie and Bamber are being accepted by their opponents on here as the most likely culprits. But I personally see these accusers and both shallow thinkers, naive and crass.
I haven't seen anyone accuse Jackie of being the author of the letter PH received.
I am only commenting on the newspaper article, I wasn't privy to private messages sent on here or otherwise.
-
He did say he contacted Police Scotland. He doesn't mention Scotland Yard.
He had "A" contact "IN" Police Scotland.
-
He had "A" contact "IN" Police Scotland.
Yes, I know.
-
Hi Andrea. In his pm to Jackie where he encouraged her to keep up the good work he mentioned that he had everyone, the police and the establishment try and stop his investigation and indeed even the publication of his book.
So here we have other parties who he has mentioned as being against him. (This pm to Jackie was posted on here by ngb) I just wonder as he appears to have other enemies trying to prevent him publishing, that these enemies might be trying to kill two birds with one stone. Him (he said that they have tried to kill him off on the internet) and also to shift the blame of their threat onto both Jackie, ngb and indeed the "devil incarnate" Bamber himself.
What makes me think this? Well, the obvious. That both Jackie and Bamber are being accepted by their opponents on here as the most likely culprits. But I personally see these accusers and both shallow thinkers, naive and crass.
The "keep up the good work" is the round robin equivalent of the formal "Yours sincerely" or over familiar "Love from." It was the appropriate sign off to a Jeremy supporter.
-
Why do you think PH lied to the newspaper?
Hi Jackie i honestly don't know but i really do feel for you and always admired your passion and drive. Press are press and take advantage of any opportunity and sometimes we set ourselves up with our drive and passion and i mean that in a very nice way Jackie.
-
The letter could have been passed to anyone to post in Essex. Plain envelope containing said letter to someone known in Essex,and hey presto. You don't have to live there.
If you think about it lookout it is an Essex based crime and it is mostly Essex people who know about it. My friend who lived in Boston Lincs had never heard of Bamber. So logically it is not surprising that it had an Essex postmark. He is rather silly in publishing that really unless he was putting a bit of weight behind his insinuations.
-
Hi Justice he did say a contact in police Scotland. ;D ;D ;D ;D
Thanks Patti, by the way you asked me about bingo lol its had me puzzled?
-
"Mr Harrison said he began researching the case suspecting there may have been a miscarriage of justice but has since come to the conclusion that the police got the right man.
The anonymous letter - written with a typewriter and posted in Essex last month - warns: "Jeremy is close to getting out now and he will not allow you to harm or deny him the opportunity to gain the freedom he deserves.
"He may still be inside but Mr super cop he's still a powerful man and ... he is influential with people outside who he will have destroy you and whatever claims you try to make in your book or anyone else that obstructs his path to freedom come to that.
"We will make sure he gets his way and do what it takes so back off, Jeremy's going to get you."
The Criminal Cases Review Commission - the justice watchdog for England, Wales and Northern Ireland - is considering a third bid for an appeal, based on new claims of contaminated evidence"
In view of the last comment on this section of the article which by the way clearly accuses JB of instigating the threat via a third person, then I hope that the writer has given his "proof " of guilt to the CCRC . Because it will save the tax payers a lot of money and the CCRC a lot of time. Because if he is correct, then there is a matter of morals here as well as being an author of a book.
-
I haven't seen anyone accuse Jackie of being the author of the letter PH received.
I am only commenting on the newspaper article, I wasn't privy to private messages sent on here or otherwise.
Well there are a lot who accused Jackie on this very thread if you care to trace back you will see them. They include mat and john from the red forum. Jogn is of course the owner of the red forum and mat I believe is a moderator. So you must have seen the accusaqtions and insinuations against her on both forums and not to be clued in that it is Jackie they are talking about, well? ???
Yeah, that's a copy and paste. Read the whole thing if you get chance.
Letter sent from Essex. Putting two and two together it's obvious who has sent this letter to Paul. And she needs removing from this forum.
Not a supporter of Bamber at all, more damaging than anything else.
You may believe whatever Jackie tells you, Grahame - but those who have been stalked by her now that this is HER behaviour.
The letter was even postmarked from where she lives.
Who attacks people who say ANYTHING negative about Bamber?
Who often takes forum/internet matters into the real world?
Who had a spat with Paul Harrison?
Who lives in Essex?
You may know members that fit into one or more of those catergories - but there is only ONE person who fits into them all.
Frankly, I think your judgement is off on this.
But I see that john's posts have been deleted, so I can't post those.
-
If you think about it lookout it is an Essex based crime and it is mostly Essex people who know about it. My friend who lived in Boston Lincs had never heard of Bamber. So logically it is not surprising that it had an Essex postmark. He is rather silly in publishing that really unless he was putting a bit of weight behind his insinuations.
It's a real cobbled-up affair Mr G and could have been written by a child. It's not a bit " adult-like ".
As I've said before,some people will do anything for attention.
-
Well there are a lot who accused Jackie on this very thread if you care to trace back you will see them. They include mat and john from the red forum. Jogn is of course the owner of the red forum and mat I believe is a moderator. So you must have seen the accusaqtions and insinuations against her on both forums and not to be clued in that it is Jackie they are talking about, well? ???
Grahame, I don't spend that much time on the forums to be honest, so if people are casting aspersions I have probably not seen them.
I'm sure there are a few people under suspicion regarding this threat that PH received.
-
Grahame, I don't spend that much time on the forums to be honest, so if people are casting aspersions I have probably not seen them.
I'm sure there are a few people under suspicion regarding this threat that PH received.
Just modified my post Andrea.
-
Just modified my post Andrea.
Well, I cant speak for them.
As I said theres probably a few under suspicion.
-
Just a thought i don't know if it has been discussed, would PH have been within his rights to show the exchange of pms or emails in full in the article and then show names if it was a revenge attack?
-
How is that Paul commenting on NGB? He says the LETTER mentions NGB. The second part of you quote "shocked by the fact he had been highlighted in this way" is NGB speaking. In fairness to you, Grahame, you're blinded by blinkers - friendship.
I doubt it. The creep went to the trouble of using a type writer, meaning they were nervous about their handwriting being matched/seen. They likely just stuck a stamp on it and put it in a post box.
I wonder what blinkers you are blinkered by? I am looking at this thing in a logical way and all I can see is Jackie being persecuted by some when in fact she is most probably innocent of these these accusations? Unfortunately your way of thinking of this was way too cack handed and you are twisting this so called "evidence" which is in fact nothing but presumption on your part in order to falsely accuse an innocewnt person. I am thoroughly amazed and disgusted by these unfounded prejudiced accusations on your part. Totally, totally biased.
-
Well, I cant speak for them.
As I said theres probably a few under suspicion.
I was only answering you post Andrea. Nothing else.
-
Just a thought i don't know if it has been discussed, would PH have been within his rights to show the exchange of pms or emails in full in the article and then show names if it was a revenge attack?
He didn't need to. As you can see insinuation is enough to cast suspicions and being a writer I am sure he is a master at insinuation?
-
Thanks Patti, by the way you asked me about bingo lol its had me puzzled?
Justice I mentioned bingo....please don't worry about it. My sense of humor evolves when I'm in tight corner...lol ;D ;D ;D
-
I wonder what blinkers you are blinkered by? I am looking at this thing in a logical way and all I can see is Jackie being persecuted by some when in fact she is most probably innocent of these these accusations? Unfortunately your way of thinking of this was way too cack handed and you are twisting this so called "evidence" which is in fact nothing but presumption on your part in order to falsely accuse an innocewnt person. I am thoroughly amazed and disgusted by these unfounded prejudiced accusations on your part. Totally, totally biased.
Forgive me for saying so Grahame, but where emotion is concerned, logic very often takes second place. Jackie is your friend. You, very loyally, are defending her. Most of us seem not to know that Jackie so our "logic" is likely to be somewhat different from yours, but it doesn't make it LESS logical.
-
Forgive me for saying so Grahame, but where emotion is concerned, logic very often takes second place. Jackie is your friend. You, very loyally, are defending her. Most of us seem not to know that Jackie so our "logic" is likely to be somewhat different from yours, but it doesn't make it LESS logical.
April are you saying that you believe Jackie might be guilty of writing the letter simply because she is not your friend? Or am I guilty of not reading your post correctly? :-\
-
He didn't need to. As you can see insinuation is enough to cast suspicions and being a writer I am sure he is a master at insinuation?
I know he did not need to. My question is could he if he wanted, would he have a right to publish names and full exchanges?
-
Forgive me for saying so Grahame, but where emotion is concerned, logic very often takes second place. Jackie is your friend. You, very loyally, are defending her. Most of us seem not to know that Jackie so our "logic" is likely to be somewhat different from yours, but it doesn't make it LESS logical.
No April. Jackie maybe my friend, but I am more the friend of truth and justice and logic should at least should tell you that to insinuate that Jackie wrote this alleged letter is entirely wrong. How can I get through to you people that if it were you yourself who was being accused I would still go down the same logical route. A person in this country is always presumed innocent until proved guilty and that is what I am doing. Indeed if we were to take up mat's way of reasoning then no doubt we would be back in the days of the witch trials where people were found guilty by insinuation.
But April you have unknowingly or knowingly just accused me of prejudice and judged mat as being the sound reasoner.
-
I know he did not need to. My question is could he if he wanted, would he have a right to publish names and full exchanges?
Sometimes less is more. ;)
-
Justice I mentioned bingo....please don't worry about it. My sense of humor evolves when I'm in tight corner...lol ;D ;D ;D
Ha ha i thought you spotted me some while back before the local bingo hall shut lol. Now i could tell you a story about that bingo hall another time?
-
Ha ha i thought you spotted me some while back before the local bingo hall shut lol. Now i could tell you a story about that bingo hall another time?
Hahaha I never play bingo Justice...can never understand the upside down lady...lol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I know he did not need to. My question is could he if he wanted, would he have a right to publish names and full exchanges?
My guess is if they had previously been aired in full on a public forum - then yes- as long as they were published in full and not "picked out" in isolation?
If they were only by pm , then I am not sure.
-
April are you saying that you believe Jackie might be guilty of writing the letter simply because she is not your friend? Or am I guilty of not reading your post correctly? :-\
Patti, this thread seems to have created paranoia in everybody :o I think, that because of what passed between them and was subsequently aired on this forum, Jackie has placed herself in a very difficult position.
It's quite plain, from the wording of the correspondence, that it was she who made the first approach to PH, NOT as she would have us believe, he approaching her out of the blue. WHY WOULD HE? Surely then, one would have to be totally naive if it didn't cross one's mind that if she was capable of one little "fib" she COULD be capable of a second. Had she kept her mouth shut and NOT mentioned the first incident -I can only think that the temptation to brag overcame common sense- we wouldn't have been able to link it to what subsequently happened.
As I said, Grahame is a loyal friend of Jackie. SOME of us have been subjected to a Jackie who is quite OTHER than the one Grahame knows, a Jackie who slams with blind fury and without proof into ANYONE who she believes has gone against Jeremy. Of COURSE we're going to see it differently. Do you REALLY believe I'd suggest her capable of writing such a letter because she's not my friend?
-
Clearly PH lied to the newspaper here
Why would he lie Caroline?
It's here in black and white where he says what I offered him
He had/has no reason to lie - your PM mentioned a data base and you gave him your login details, perhaps he was confused by exactly what you were offering? Also the article uses the word 'potentially' so he isn't actually saying you were offering access, just that there may have been a potential. Your boss mentions that you had/have no access to any of the data bases so why tell him you did?
-
No April. Jackie maybe my friend, but I am more the friend of truth and justice and logic should at least should tell you that to insinuate that Jackie wrote this alleged letter is entirely wrong. How can I get through to you people that if it were you yourself who was being accused I would still go down the same logical route. A person in this country is always presumed innocent until proved guilty and that is what I am doing. Indeed if we were to take up mat's way of reasoning then no doubt we would be back in the days of the witch trials where people were found guilty by insinuation.
But April you have unknowingly or knowingly just accused me of prejudice and judged mat as being the sound reasoner.
Grahame, if it was my integrity being called into question, I'd be horrified. However, if I'd previously implicated myself, I'd have lost the right to take the moral high ground. Has it occurred to you that you've just accused me of what you say I MAY have accused you :)
-
April
I am slightly surprised - because this comment could be applied to people who give evidence in court trials
"totally naive if it didn't cross one's mind that if she was capable of one little "fib" she COULD be capable of a second"
And I thought for example if someone was guilty of physical violence - it does not mean they are guilty of murder?
And just because someone had lied or committed a minor crime it does not mean they are capable of perjury?
I know that is painting a much bigger picture , but you do get where I am coming from?
BTW -I am absolutely not friends with anyone on here :)
-
Patti, this thread seems to have created paranoia in everybody :o I think, that because of what passed between them and was subsequently aired on this forum, Jackie has placed herself in a very difficult position.
It's quite plain, from the wording of the correspondence, that it was she who made the first approach to PH, NOT as she would have us believe, he approaching her out of the blue. WHY WOULD HE? Surely then, one would have to be totally naive if it didn't cross one's mind that if she was capable of one little "fib" she COULD be capable of a second. Had she kept her mouth shut and NOT mentioned the first incident -I can only think that the temptation to brag overcame common sense- we wouldn't have been able to link it to what subsequently happened.
As I said, Grahame is a loyal friend of Jackie. SOME of us have been subjected to a Jackie who is quite OTHER than the one Grahame knows, a Jackie who slams with blind fury and without proof into ANYONE who she believes has gone against Jeremy. Of COURSE we're going to see it differently. Do you REALLY believe I'd suggest her capable of writing such a letter because she's not my friend?
I am not Jackie. What I proposed is true. But whatever Jackie has said and done although I agree those who have not known the history behind her passionate posts against others it does appear that she may accuse some of insincerity.
But you must realise the abuse that she has herself received at the hands of some of those here who do in fact remember was so great and unjust that I had to go to Chelmsford police not only with regard to these ignorant abusers but also concerning a woman police officer who unjustly decided to take sides with her opponents in another incident just because that police officer was "friends" with her opponents.
As I said before and again emphasise that even if the person was an opponent or enemy of miner I would still take the same course of action and defend that person against such unjust accusations as Jackie has received. It does not depend upon friendship but justice and fairness. Indeed I have had some spats with Jackie myself as has ngb. She has often gone against my advice and has probably drawn criticism and damage to herself. As did Keira when she was on the forum and consequently brought down people's wrath upon her.
But in spite of her "passionate" stand on this case I believe that logical deduction and judgment must be maintained and she should not be judged by others just because they are her enemies or don't like her. All I have seen in the early posts of this thread was just plain prejudicial accusation by some who don't like her anyway. There was nothing logical about their judgment of her at all. Indeed I was called "blinkered" and prejudiced because I stood up for justice against what could only be termed as a "lynch mob". Law was introduced to put an end to that kind of thing. In spite of what you may think of Jackie or me we must take that logical course of action where a person is counted innocent until proven guilty. Not to turn to unfounded accusaqtions and libellous remarks just because things "appear" to be so in our thinking.
Indeed that is one thing that makes me not rush over to the guilty side. Because of those who are so eager to prove Bamber guilty with such an evil passion that it turns them to abuse of those who do not agree with themselves, to the extent that they are counted fools by themselves. Almost by reflex I rewject such people simply because of this near evil glee in condemning someone they don't even know and probably were still running around in nappies at the time of the murders and cannot possibly know the mind of Bamber or Sheila. But this does not stop them deliberating loquaciously on this subject.
-
April
I am slightly surprised - because this comment could be applied to people who give evidence in court trials
"totally naive if it didn't cross one's mind that if she was capable of one little "fib" she COULD be capable of a second"
And I thought for example if someone was guilty of physical violence - it does not mean they are guilty of murder?
And just because someone had lied or committed a minor crime it does not mean they are capable of perjury?
I know that is painting a much bigger picture , but you do get where I am coming from?
BTW -I am absolutely not friends with anyone on here :)
Jan, thanks for the above. Something to get my teeth in :D
From an objective position, OF COURSE it can't be said that someone capable of physical violence is capable of murder. However, from a SUBJECTIVE position, ie as one of that person's victims of violence, HOW could we, in all honesty, speaking from our personal experience, say that X could never kill someone?
We can only bring to the table our own experiences, so whilst we say "Innocent until proved guilty" it's very difficult to leave them at the door. They have a tendency to become the voice that whispers "Yes, but....." and "What if..." in our ears.
-
Grahame, if it was my integrity being called into question, I'd be horrified. However, if I'd previously implicated myself, I'd have lost the right to take the moral high ground. Has it occurred to you that you've just accused me of what you say I MAY have accused you :)
No I have not accused you of anything April. All I am asking is that you think logically about these accusations. Perhaps you see a mirror there somewhere so you decided to thow it back in my face?
-
He had/has no reason to lie - your PM mentioned a data base and you gave him your login details, perhaps he was confused by exactly what you were offering? Also the article uses the word 'potentially' so he isn't actually saying you were offering access, just that there may have been a potential. Your boss mentions that you had/have no access to any of the data bases so why tell him you did?
So PH was confused when he told my company I had sent him sensitive information which he couldn't provide?
Then he was further confused when he told the newspaper the same story
How much was he paid by the newspaper Caroline?
I take it you have asked him ?
-
He had/has no reason to lie - your PM mentioned a data base and you gave him your login details, perhaps he was confused by exactly what you were offering? Also the article uses the word 'potentially' so he isn't actually saying you were offering access, just that there may have been a potential. Your boss mentions that you had/have no access to any of the data bases so why tell him you did?
Caroline I have just looked back and it does not mention any login details..Where have you got that from?
Her boss claimed that the access to 100.000 emails are in the public domain yet he claims Jackie has no access to them??? The whole thing is confusing imo
-
So PH was confused when he told my company I had sent him sensitive information which he couldn't provide?
Then he was further confused when he told the newspaper the same story
How much was he paid by the newspaper Caroline?
I take it you have asked him ?
I said 'perhaps' because from your PM it is confusing what you were offering! And your boss states you have no access to any of their data bases so why did you even mention it in the PM?
I have had no contact with PH over this, I suspect he has had enough of anything to do with the forum.
-
Caroline I have just looked back and it does not mention any login details..Where have you got that from?
Her boss claimed that the access to 100.000 emails are in the public domain yet he claims Jackie has no access to them??? The whole thing is confusing imo
Jackie did indeed send PH a PM with her work login details and it was posted on this forum.
Her boss said that the addresses are in the public domain, not their data bases.
-
Patti, this thread seems to have created paranoia in everybody :o I think, that because of what passed between them and was subsequently aired on this forum, Jackie has placed herself in a very difficult position.
It's quite plain, from the wording of the correspondence, that it was she who made the first approach to PH, NOT as she would have us believe, he approaching her out of the blue. WHY WOULD HE? Surely then, one would have to be totally naive if it didn't cross one's mind that if she was capable of one little "fib" she COULD be capable of a second. Had she kept her mouth shut and NOT mentioned the first incident -I can only think that the temptation to brag overcame common sense- we wouldn't have been able to link it to what subsequently happened.
As I said, Grahame is a loyal friend of Jackie. SOME of us have been subjected to a Jackie who is quite OTHER than the one Grahame knows, a Jackie who slams with blind fury and without proof into ANYONE who she believes has gone against Jeremy. Of COURSE we're going to see it differently. Do you REALLY believe I'd suggest her capable of writing such a letter because she's not my friend?
April it is not very often I disagree with you, but on this occasion I do. Jackie has not placed herself in any position at all PH has done that with the article its self.
I can agree that Jackie made first contact, but I can also go with the fact that she may have forgotten that she had made initial contact. It appears that there were some confusion and even PH himself quoted that he had not made contact with her when he clearly did. Maybe both of them had forgotten. But, this is not the issue. The issue is the newspaper article where he mentions a woman from this forum told him:
"She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments."
When in effect she actually told this:
"I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing"
You see how this has been twisted....
Jackie has not placed herself in an awkward position PH has....
Sorry April, but this is how I see it....sat on the fence looking in, trying my hardest to see both sides... :)
-
Jackie did indeed send PH a PM with her work login details and it was posted on this forum.
Her boss said that the addresses are in the public domain, not their data bases.
Not on the PM's that I have seen Caroline...Was this on the 19th?
-
April it is not very often I disagree with you, but on this occasion I do. Jackie has not placed herself in any position at all PH has done that with the article its self.
I can agree that Jackie made first contact, but I can also go with the fact that she may have forgotten that she had made initial contact. It appears that there were some confusion and even PH himself quoted that he had not made contact with her when he clearly did. Maybe both of them had forgotten. But, this is not the issue. The issue is the newspaper article where he mentions a woman from this forum told him:
"She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments."
When in effect she actually told this:
"I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing"
You see how this has been twisted....
Jackie has not placed herself in an awkward position PH has....
Sorry April, but this is how I see it....sat on the fence looking in, trying my hardest to see both sides... :)
Why mention the data base at all? Her boss claims she doesn't even have any access to such info. She offered her login details so it's not surprising that PH wasn't clear on what was being offered.
-
Not on the PM's that I have seen Caroline...Was this on the 19th?
It was posted by NGB when he looked into Jackie's claim about PH contacting her first.
-
Our database does NOT contain email addresses
But we run email campaigns for companies if they want to promote a book for instance
For a lot of money someone can have advertising sent by email to all of out contacts
The customer never sees the list of emails and I do not either
I just arrange dates and times when a solus email campaign happens
I have never seen sensitive information
For obvious reasons
-
April it is not very often I disagree with you, but on this occasion I do. Jackie has not placed herself in any position at all PH has done that with the article its self.
I can agree that Jackie made first contact, but I can also go with the fact that she may have forgotten that she had made initial contact. It appears that there were some confusion and even PH himself quoted that he had not made contact with her when he clearly did. Maybe both of them had forgotten. But, this is not the issue. The issue is the newspaper article where he mentions a woman from this forum told him:
"She offered to give him access to a database of over 100,000 email addresses, including potentially sensitive contacts within the Home Office and other government departments."
When in effect she actually told this:
"I have available to me a huge database of over 100,000 email address and I could probably give you loads of free advertising and marketing"
You see how this has been twisted....
Jackie has not placed herself in an awkward position PH has....
Sorry April, but this is how I see it....sat on the fence looking in, trying my hardest to see both sides... :)
Patti, I can only base my opinion on what I observed from the correspondence -I would apply the same principle to ANY correspondence- and what we were told way other than the correspondence stated. I can can see that you're being very diplomatic, but fences are known to have splinters. Do take care that something vital doesn't get pierced ;)
-
It was posted by NGB when he looked into Jackie's claim about PH contacting her first.
It does not say that Caroline....I have looked. I would not lie to you. She gives NGB her login details not PH... :)
BTW Jackie never mentioned a data base PH did.
-
Patti, I can only base my opinion on what I observed from the correspondence -I would apply the same principle to ANY correspondence- and what we were told way other than the correspondence stated. I can can see that you're being very diplomatic, but fences are known to have splinters. Do take care that something vital doesn't get pierced ;)
I'm not sure how to take that April....
Would you apply the same observation if you were one of those that supported JB being innocent? Honest answer please April?
-
I'm not sure how to take that April....
Would you apply the same observation if you were one of those that supported JB being innocent? Honest answer please April?
Patti, I actually have no need to know the names of those responsible for correspondence. By reading what one person says to another it's easy enough to deduce what's going on. This negates any need to be a supporter of OR detractor of either party.
On a personal level of whether I'd apply the same observation if I was a Jeremy supporter the most honest answer I can give is I HOPE I would. I THINK I may be more detached from the case, than some. I've never, I suppose because I didn't build a relationship with PH, regarded him as being "one of us," but rather as someone who'd sit on the sidelines and gather information and I suppose for this reason, I don't have the same feeling, as do some, of being personally let down and betrayed, but it's hypothetical anyway, because NONE of us knows what the book contains. If it screams from the roof tops that Jeremy is innocent, it's only HIS opinion, and I don't see Jeremy being released because of it.
I'm sorry you didn't know how to take my comment about splinters. I've sat on enough fences to know what they feel like :)
-
Patti, I actually have no need to know the names of those responsible for correspondence. By reading what one person says to another it's easy enough to deduce what's going on. This negates any need to be a supporter of OR detractor of either party.
On a personal level of whether I'd apply the same observation if I was a Jeremy supporter the most honest answer I can give is I HOPE I would. I THINK I may be more detached from the case, than some. I've never, I suppose because I didn't build a relationship with PH, regarded him as being "one of us," but rather as someone who'd sit on the sidelines and gather information and I suppose for this reason, I don't have the same feeling, as do some, of being personally let down and betrayed, but it's hypothetical anyway, because NONE of us knows what the book contains. If it screams from the roof tops that Jeremy is innocent, it's only HIS opinion, and I don't see Jeremy being released because of it.
I'm sorry you didn't know how to take my comment about splinters. I've sat on enough fences to know what they feel like :)
Thank you for your honesty April.
I never felt let down by PH personally. I liked the guy and still do, but I don't appreciate that he should mention a female in that article and in my opinion it planted a seed in the mind of the readers that would be of the opinion that she was involved in the plot of sending a death threat.
I'm not sure if anyone is aware of this, but I do believe that Jackie and Jeremy do talk and have not done so for a few years. Maybe Jackie could confirm this. :)
-
It does not say that Caroline....I have looked. I would not lie to you. She gives NGB her login details not PH... :)
BTW Jackie never mentioned a data base PH did.
I have a SEEN the PM in question, it was posted here by NGB - you obviously weren't here at the time. Jackie KNOWS she gave PH her login details - ask her.
-
I have a SEEN the PM in question, it was posted here by NGB - you obviously weren't here at the time. Jackie KNOWS she gave PH her login details - ask her.
To be clear you are saying Jackie gave her "work" log in details to PH.
Not her log in details for this forum?
-
To be clear you are saying Jackie gave her "work" log in details to PH.
Not her log in details for this forum?
Yes.
-
Yes.
I did see the posts floating around and did not see that - I only saw her offer her log in details from here so her pms could be checked
So I would not like to comment on that , especially as that is a very serious allegation , and from an employers point of view could result in dismissal.
-
I did see the posts floating around and did not see that - I only saw her offer her log in details from here so her pms could be checked
So I would not like to comment on that , especially as that is a very serious allegation , and from an employers point of view could result in dismissal.
Hence the reason why her boss said her job was on the line. But it's not an allegation, the PM was posted and it will be still here somewhere. Both Jackie and NGB can confirm that she did give PH her work login details and others will have seen it too.
-
I did see the posts floating around and did not see that - I only saw her offer her log in details from here so her pms could be checked
So I would not like to comment on that , especially as that is a very serious allegation , and from an employers point of view could result in dismissal.
I did not see her offer her work log in details either? She offered her forum password to ngb so that he could check her messages.
-
I did not see her offer her work log in details either? She offered her forum password to ngb so that he could check her messages.
Sorry Tyler, but she did give him her work details. I'm sure Jackie will confirm it.
-
I have a SEEN the PM in question, it was posted here by NGB - you obviously weren't here at the time. Jackie KNOWS she gave PH her login details - ask her.
No need to shout!lol It does not say that at all. I have no idea where you got that from. All she says is that I will send you my work details....it never mentions a login.
I suppose it helps me to say the above because I have access to the post that NGB posted. :-\
-
No need to shout!lol It does not say that at all. I have no idea where you got that from. All she says is that I will send you my work details....it never mentions a login.
I suppose it helps me to say the above because I have access to the post that NGB posted. :-\
There were two messages posted, the second one actually contained her login details. NGB and Jackie can both confirm it - I'm not making it up Patti, it was posted here by NGB who took out the sensitive parts of the email (user name and password) before posting it.
-
Sorry Tyler, but she did give him her work details. I'm sure Jackie will confirm it.
Caroline you have not replied to my message where I asked if PH got paid for the lies he put in the paper and if they have misquoted him has he made a complaint against the newspaper
-
There were two messages posted, the second one actually contained her login details. NGB and Jackie can both confirm it - I'm not making it up Patti, it was posted here by NGB who took out the sensitive parts of the email (user name and password) before posting it.
Once again Caroline PH did not have access to ANY sensitive information Or I am sure he would have put it in the newspaper wouldn't he
-
Caroline you have not replied to my message where I asked if PH got paid for the lies he put in the paper and if they have misquoted him has he made a complaint against the newspaper
Actually, I did reply to it - I said I haven't had any contact with PH over this and have no idea if he was paid or not. But now you are here - can you now confirm that you gave PH your WORK login details?
-
Once again Caroline PH did not have access to ANY sensitive information Or I am sure he would have put it in the newspaper wouldn't he
I'm not saying he did and the article clearly states that. However, you did give him your work login details, correct?
-
It was posted by NGB when he looked into Jackie's claim about PH contacting her first.
Could I remind you that Jackie has been quite open about this and that her pm's are only on the open forum because she gave permission for him to do so. Indeed no one would be able to critisise her if it were not for her openess about all this. May I also add that on the other hand PH hasn't been so open about this in that he has not published the alleged threatening letter, but has chosen rather to freely throw accusations about willy nilly and without proper judgment and due consideration.
-
So PH was confused when he told my company I had sent him sensitive information which he couldn't provide?
Then he was further confused when he told the newspaper the same story
How much was he paid by the newspaper Caroline?
I take it you have asked him ?
Indeed Jackie I can see his obvious intentions here. People can say things in a certain way for it to sound as if the person offering them something legitimate is doing so in an underhanded way. As can be seen in his use of the words "sensitive information".
-
Could I remind you that Jackie has been quite open about this and that her pm's are only on the open forum because she gave permission for him to do so. Indeed no one would be able to critisise her if it were not for her openess about all this. May I also add that on the other hand PH hasn't been so open about this in that he has not published the alleged threatening letter, but has chosen rather to freely throw accusations about willy nilly and without proper judgment and due consideration.
I am asking her to confirm that she gave PH her login details because people are suggesting that she didn't. A simple 'yes' would suffice. The reason it's important is that it has been suggested that PH lied about what was offered, it could also be that the offer was ambiguous and that he misunderstood.
-
It does not say that Caroline....I have looked. I would not lie to you. She gives NGB her login details not PH... :)
BTW Jackie never mentioned a data base PH did.
Yes I remember that. Perhaps what Caroline saw was Jackie offering ngb her pm login details? Personally I can't remember Jackie offering PH her login details? If I could I would say so.
-
I am asking her to confirm that she gave PH her login details because people are suggesting that she didn't. A simple 'yes' would suffice. The reason it's important is that it has been suggested that PH lied about what was offered, it could also be that the offer was ambiguous and that he misunderstood.
I agree a simple yes or no would suffice. But I have a hunch that you still would not believe her? ;D
-
Yes I remember that. Perhaps what Caroline saw was Jackie offering ngb her pm login details? Personally I can't remember Jackie offering PH her login details? If I could I would say so.
Jackie isn't denying it and there are others who know and saw the PM posted here. I'm not referring to her offering NGB her forum login details, I am referring to her offering PH her work login details.
-
Its not what the PM says but I wont be a parrot in keep repeating myself. I have checked and checked and checked and there is no mention of Jackie saying that she will send him her log in details. It would be rather a silly thing to do.
What she says is
"I will send you my work details, so you can see what I do"
As anyone can see it does not mention log in details nor does it mention anything about her giving him access to anything. :D
-
Its not what the PM says but I wont be a parrot in keep repeating myself. I have checked and checked and checked and there is no mention of Jackie saying that she will send him her log in details. It would be rather a silly thing to do.
What she says is
"I will send you my work details, so you can see what I do"
As anyone can see it does not mention log in details nor does it mention anything about her giving him access to anything. :D
There were two PM's Patti, the second one included her work login details.
-
There were two PM's Patti, the second one included her work login details.
Are you saying that NGb posted two PN's to PH from Jackie? I can only find one which was posted twice. I'll have another look...
-
There were two PM's Patti, the second one included her work login details.
Caroline you are obsessed!
PH did not have access to any sensitive material
I told him to look at the magazines
Why don't you email him and ask was he paid for the article as I am sure the whole forum would like to know
-
Jackie maybe whilst we are on the subject you will apologise to me for trying to discredit me to Mason Doyle. Why would you do that what harm have I ever done to you. NONE. You are feeling violated and so am I.
-
Are you saying that NGb posted two PN's to PH from Jackie? I can only find one which was posted twice. I'll have another look...
I've found it. She is telling him to go online to look at the magazines Jackie gives him her password in order to view them....not her work Caroline but a website I believe. :-\
-
I've found it. She is telling him to go online to look at the magazines Jackie gives him her password in order to view them....not her work Caroline but a website I believe. :-\
To anyone receiving that PM it looks like her work login, it doesn't matter if it's a website or a database or what - it's how it looks to the individual it was sent to that is important. It could easily have been misconstrued, especially after she later tried to discredit him by posting that he was contacting her.
-
Caroline you are obsessed!
PH did not have access to any sensitive material
I told him to look at the magazines
Why don't you email him and ask was he paid for the article as I am sure the whole forum would like to know
I won't be emailing him or asking anything of the sort.
-
I've found it. She is telling him to go online to look at the magazines Jackie gives him her password in order to view them....not her work Caroline but a website I believe. :-\
so a bit like me giving someone my password to this forum so they could look at things without registering.
Nott quite the same as a personal work log in then.
-
To anyone receiving that PM it looks like her work login, it doesn't matter if it's a website or a database or what - it's how it looks to the individual it was sent to that is important. It could easily have been misconstrued, especially after she later tried to discredit him by posting that he was contacting her.
The only way PH would know what she had given him, was to access it. As we don't know if he did or did not we can't really say that is was her login details at work or a website....I suspect it was the website.
Anyway I have done talking about this as we are going round and round in circles. :-X
-
so a bit like me giving someone my password to this forum so they could look at things without registering.
Nott quite the same as a personal work log in then.
Yes Jan similar to a book club.... :)
-
Patti if you go on to my company website you will see a live copy of the magazine I work on
Education Business. My name is at the front you will find it
I work in education and I don't work on counter terror or government business but I can place adds in all the magazine
For instance. A security firm might want to go in all magazines
I know no sensitive Info about the other magazines
-
Jackie I am waiting let the forum see you are a woman who will stand up and be counted and apologise for your wrong doings.
-
I think Adam would have received a ban for the post that was from Jackie and quickly removed? Very uncalled for in my opinion, this is the sort of thing that lets you down. How anyone can defend those sort of posts is beyond me.
-
Patti if you go on to my company website you will see a live copy of the magazine I work on
Education Business. My name is at the front you will find it
I work in education and I don't work on counter terror or government business but I can place adds in all the magazine
For instance. A security firm might want to go in all magazines
I know no sensitive Info about the other magazines
so you were letting him look at the magazine to see if he wanted to have publicity for the book in the magazine?
-
Jackie best reply in such a manner the Mods will not remove the post not good is it for the forum you are a woman lacking in social graces I fear and I will just have to make that as an excuse for your disgusting behaviour.
-
so you were letting him look at the magazine to see if he wanted to have publicity for the book in the magazine?
Exactly Jan, there was never any question of me passing sensitive information on to him
-
Jackie I am waiting let the forum see you are a woman who will stand up and be counted and apologise for your wrong doings.
I sympathise with you on this one if you feel you are due an apology -I never got one from Adam and have moved on , but it does still grate tbh.
-
Jan I thank you for that it would appear in the midst of all this with Mason Doyle she is the victim no regard for my feelings by anyone on this forum you are the first. Did you see the post that was removed as Justice said Adam would have been banned for that. I congratulate you as you are a lady of high morals and integrity. You did deserve an apology but at least he did not call you Mrs Busybody. It is a disgrace she is allowed to do as she wishes on here and I suspect she will result in posters leaving.
-
Jan I thank you for that it would appear in the midst of all this with Mason Doyle she is the victim no regard for my feelings by anyone on this forum you are the first. Did you see the post that was removed as Justice said Adam would have been banned for that. I congratulate you as you are a lady of high morals and integrity. You did deserve an apology but at least he did not call you Mrs Busybody. It is a disgrace she is allowed to do as she wishes on here and I suspect she will result in posters leaving.
Susan, I have no idea what happened! If you feel violated, I am sorry!!
-
Jan I thank you for that it would appear in the midst of all this with Mason Doyle she is the victim no regard for my feelings by anyone on this forum you are the first. Did you see the post that was removed as Justice said Adam would have been banned for that. I congratulate you as you are a lady of high morals and integrity. You did deserve an apology but at least he did not call you Mrs Busybody. It is a disgrace she is allowed to do as she wishes on here and I suspect she will result in posters leaving.
That is an attack on the mods here and it is not called for. The offending post was removed immediately.
-
The only way PH would know what she had given him, was to access it. As we don't know if he did or did not we can't really say that is was her login details at work or a website....I suspect it was the website.
Anyway I have done talking about this as we are going round and round in circles. :-X
It was her login details for a work website, if you have to sign in, it's not for any Tom, Dick, Harry (or Paul) to view. You don't give your work details out to people but the point is PH would have no idea what she was giving him - with talk of databases, email addresses and login details - no wonder he was confused. You said yourself you're confused about it and this is after the fact. Her boss said she almost lost her job, she said she didn't - ??? ??? ???
-
Maybe NGB can shed some light on it, as he is the one who actually posted it? :-\
I think it's strange to give ANY personal work details to someone online that you have never met.
-
ngb I apologise for that remark it was not meant in the way it came over after reading it back.
-
It was her login details for a work website, if you have to sign in, it's not for any Tom, Dick, Harry (or Paul) to view. You don't give your work details out to people but the point is PH would have no idea what she was giving him - with talk of databases, email addresses and login details - no wonder he was confused. You said yourself you're confused about it and this is after the fact. Her boss said she almost lost her job, she said she didn't - ??? ??? ???
So if he regards Jackie as such a highly valued member of staff, why isn't her boss suing someone for saying he said something he didn't?
-
Maybe NGB can shed some line on it, as he is the one who actually posted it? :-\
I think it's strange to give ANY personal work details to someone online that you have never met.
It was basically an invitation to look at the magazines published. It did not afford access to the company's database or lists of clients and email addresses. It was actually quite harmless although I agree that it was unwise and it could potentially have been misunderstood. I would certainly not have done that.
-
So if he regards Jackie as such a highly valued member of staff, why isn't her boss suing someone for saying he said something he didn't?
I imagine he did say that to Ben Borland, the journalist. He is very senior at the newspaper and he fairly summarised the conversation he had with me. That does not mean of course that what Jackie has related about her employer's comment to her is untrue.
-
ngb I apologise for that remark it was not meant in the way it came over after reading it back.
OK thank you Susan.
-
Jan I thank you for that it would appear in the midst of all this with Mason Doyle she is the victim no regard for my feelings by anyone on this forum you are the first. Did you see the post that was removed as Justice said Adam would have been banned for that. I congratulate you as you are a lady of high morals and integrity. You did deserve an apology but at least he did not call you Mrs Busybody. It is a disgrace she is allowed to do as she wishes on here and I suspect she will result in posters leaving.
No I did not see the post , as obviously it was removed - which is the right thing to do. And I have no problems with how the mods reacted when Adam insinuated I wrote the letter. I was just commenting that sometimes - on all sides all it takes is sorry when someone has been upset - and then a ban would not even be necessary.
-
I think Adam would have received a ban for the post that was from Jackie and quickly removed? Very uncalled for in my opinion, this is the sort of thing that lets you down. How anyone can defend those sort of posts is beyond me.
What post was that and why Adam in particular?
-
Jan I was not asking for an apology to that post but in her email to Mason Doyle she did her best to discredit me by warning him about me. Mason Doyle knows me well enough to take no notice but I thought she was not justified in doing that as I have never been disrespectful to her and a simple sorry would have sufficed I was not wanting flowers or chocolates. The other post was horrendous but the Mods acted very quickly and removed it I have no complaints at all about them and my post came over slightly different than I meant but I did what any decent person would do and apologise.
-
So if he regards Jackie as such a highly valued member of staff, why isn't her boss suing someone for saying he said something he didn't?
And likewise if she did give him vital information such as a password to the database or other sensitive stuff why hasn't he sacked her? If she is hanging onto her job "by a thread" as PH suggests then I doubt very much that she would be posting on here?
-
It was basically an invitation to look at the magazines published. It did not afford access to the company's database or lists of clients and email addresses. It was actually quite harmless although I agree that it was unwise and it could potentially have been misunderstood. I would certainly not have done that.
Which apparently is was according to Caroline. I didn't actually see that post, but I think Caroline is justified in what she posted about it. A simple yes or no by Jackie (although I fear that she would not have been believed?) would have sufficed instead of us all being taken for a ride around the galaxy. :)
-
And likewise if she did give him vital information such as a password to the database or other sensitive stuff why hasn't he sacked her? If she is hanging onto her job "by a thread" as PH suggests then I doubt very much that she would be posting on here?
Serves her right for having anything to do with such a pompous .....
-
Jan I was not asking for an apology to that post but in her email to Mason Doyle she did her best to discredit me by warning him about me. Mason Doyle knows me well enough to take no notice but I thought she was not justified in doing that as I have never been disrespectful to her and a simple sorry would have sufficed I was not wanting flowers or chocolates. The other post was horrendous but the Mods acted very quickly and removed it I have no complaints at all about them and my post came over slightly different than I meant but I did what any decent person would do and apologise.
Well if you know your mate Mason Doyle well enough ask if he was paid for the article and why he lied to my company and the newspaper
I will not have Jeremy discredited by the likes of him
The letter charade is ridiculous and most of us on here think it's a stunt
-
And likewise if she did give him vital information such as a password to the database or other sensitive stuff why hasn't he sacked her? If she is hanging onto her job "by a thread" as PH suggests then I doubt very much that she would be posting on here?
I guess because on a scale of 1 to 10 of national importance/interest this forum rates 1.
-
No I did not see the post , as obviously it was removed - which is the right thing to do. And I have no problems with how the mods reacted when Adam insinuated I wrote the letter. I was just commenting that sometimes - on all sides all it takes is sorry when someone has been upset - and then a ban would not even be necessary.
I believe that Adam insisted that that was a joke on his part? But personally I thought it was a strange joke. I can see how certain stuff can be misunderstood on forums, especially as we don't know most of the people posting.
-
Well if you know your mate Mason Doyle well enough ask if he was paid for the article and why he lied to my company and the newspaper
I will not have Jeremy discredited by the likes of him
The letter charade is ridiculous and most of us on here think it's a stunt
Course its a stunt, Jerry ain't going anywhere.
-
Serves her right for having anything to do with such a pompous .....
So it serves her right does it? If you got your wallet pinched would it serve you right for getting involved with a pickpocket? ;)
-
Course its a stunt, Jerry ain't going anywhere.
How do you know that " Jerry ain't going anywhere ",John ?
-
I guess because on a scale of 1 to 10 of national importance/interest this forum rates 1.
Not where bosses are concerned. Any bad publicity is taken very seriously. I knew a teacher who was sacked for expressing her views about the school where she worked. The internet is counted as a very powerful medium by bosses the proof of that is looking at just how many people use and abuse the internet.
-
Course its a stunt, Jerry ain't going anywhere.
Did you know Jeremy by any chance? Because his sister Sheila used to call him Jerry.
-
Not where bosses are concerned. Any bad publicity is taken very seriously. I knew a teacher who was sacked for expressing her views about the school where she worked. The internet is counted as a very powerful medium by bosses the proof of that is looking at just how many people use and abuse the internet.
It certainly is Mr Gee and I came close to losing my job. Lookout will confirm this. :-[
-
Did you know Jeremy by any chance? Because his sister Sheila used to call him Jerry.
So did JM, Mr G.
-
? ??? Are you drunk Adam?
No he is being himself....He normally talks like that ;)
-
So did JM, Mr G.
Yes indeed. It is usually a term used bythose who actually know the person concerned.
-
It certainly is Mr Gee and I came close to losing my job. Lookout will confirm this. :-[
Patti I've thought of you all through this debacle.xx Sickening.
-
Jackie what makes you think Mason Doyle is a mate of mine It appears it is OK for YOU to discredit me but nobody must discredit Jeremy Bamber.
-
You have requested secrecy when bans are issued. Personally I don't believe you to be worthy of the luxury of secrecy when you PUBLICLY post such insults.
What is he talking about April?
-
What is he talking about April?
The same innuendo as last time, Grahame.
-
I would NEVER stoop so low as to go to a newspaper/workplace,whatever the price.
-
The same nasty, Lookout slanted innuendo as last time, Grahame.
An alleged "joke" in other words? I'm sorry I must be very low in interlect? I don't get the joke? Is it aimed at anybody in particular?
-
The same nasty, innuendo as last time, Grahame.
Adam is really showing his true colours these days. :-\
-
So it serves her right does it? If you got your wallet pinched would it serve you right for getting involved with a pickpocket? ;)
She thought she was onto something with this author but got kicked in the teeth for her trouble...
-
She thought she was onto something with this author but got kicked in the teeth for her trouble...
You mean (laying aside as to who contacted who first) she offered to help him with advertising his book he betrayed her trust and as you say he kicked her in the teeth. What a gentleman he is.
-
You mean (laying aside as to who contacted who first) she offered to help him with advertising his book he betrayed her trust and as you say he kicked her in the teeth. What a gentleman he is.
Something else Grahame I used the word probably
Still at least everything is out in the open now, that must be a good thing for anyone contacted by PH
-
I guess because on a scale of 1 to 10 of national importance/interest this forum rates 1.
rates very highly to paul harrision for some reason.