Guardian re Boyce findings

[lookout]

Didn't I read that there were 6 copies of the logs ?

[Caroline]

I think I've got a bit lost here. I simply can't see why there would be more than one log. That's very suspicious.

It's only suspicious if the information on this is different - it's not. So having two logs with the same information is suspicious but Jeremy changing his story to suit a scenario isn't? 

[Jane]

Outside of this forum I'm overflowing with it.

Claire Powell spoke of Sheila as being promiscuous and I'm almost sure that someone else on here also described her as such. As for her being a drug addict, I've never used that description of Sheila.

Fabricating/embellishing/ embroidering is your middle name.
Where have I described June and Nevill to the extent that they'd have been unrecognisable ?   

You are  such a sad person that you feel the need to dish the dirt even when there isn't any.
If I were you I'd get a refund from that charm school you went to.

DO stop blowing your own trumpet! Clearly you're not who you pretend to be if you show different people different facets of your character.

For someone who claims to have the memory of an elephant you can be very selective. Believe me, you most certainly HAVE labelled Sheila as promiscuous -and regardless of what CP may have said previously, you proclaimed the words as if they were your own- and a drug addict.

I don't need to fabricate, embellish, or embroider anything, your numerous sweeping statements do that on your behalf. Your descriptions of June's and Nevill's characters are frankly, a joke. Your claims make them unrecognizable to anyone other than yourself. You've created the personalities you appear to want them to be. I wonder from where you've gleaned this erroneous information?

I'm not certain what dirt you refer to, other than that which you dish freely about everyone but Jeremy. Don't try to contaminate me with it.

[Roch]

It's only suspicious if the information on this is different - it's not. So having two logs with the same information is suspicious but Jeremy changing his story to suit a scenario isn't? 

So they re-wrote a log and tried to make it exactly the same as the original. But they both corrected old spelling nistakes and inserted new spelling mistakes. And they couldn't get the line positioning correct. One is signed off and the other, which is not signed off, has traces of other imprinted writing on it. But because the timings apparently haven't changed, it's nothing to worry about.

[lookout]

DO stop blowing your own trumpet! Clearly you're not who you pretend to be if you show different people different facets of your character.

For someone who claims to have the memory of an elephant you can be very selective. Believe me, you most certainly HAVE labelled Sheila as promiscuous -and regardless of what CP may have said previously, you proclaimed the words as if they were your own- and a drug addict.

I don't need to fabricate, embellish, or embroider anything, your numerous sweeping statements do that on your behalf. Your descriptions of June's and Nevill's characters are frankly, a joke. Your claims make them unrecognizable to anyone other than yourself. You've created the personalities you appear to want them to be. I wonder from where you've gleaned this erroneous information?

I'm not certain what dirt you refer to, other than that which you dish freely about everyone but Jeremy. Don't try to contaminate me with it.

If anyone's doing the contaminating it's you, you're toxic -----and dangerous !

I asked you to show me where I'd described June and Nevill as being unrecognisable to others, because right now I'm denying it and for your information there's nothing wrong with my memory, you're the selective one who does  the fabricating to show others what a clever person you are by showing me in a bad light to enable you to get more of your sort on side.
Your tactics just make you look infantile and if anyone had any sense they'd ignore you.Grow up !

[ILB]

Are you simply playing devil's advocate? Do you have any interest in anything other than arguing for arguing's sake? You have no proof of his innocence, any more than you have proof of anyone's innocence who claims it, and you've never yet said whether you were guilty or innocent of the crime(s) you were imprisoned for. It may just be that this particular 58 year old chooses to keep his brain active by devising ways of getting released. At the very least, it may afford him higher status than other prisoners.

I was guilty. I served my sentence. I was in prison with Jeremy Bamber. You've never proven his guilt you've just taken information what's available and formed an opinion as have I.....

[Steve_uk]

It's difficult to say exactly what Sheila's state of mind on anything was, but apart from dating a few men after she broke up with Colin (and why shouldn't she?) I doubt she was the promiscuous type. She was in any case too ill for a relationship with anyone towards the end. In Chapter 4 of Clare Powell's book we get:

She did introduce some men to her sons, but she was careful to make sure the meetings took place during the daytime and that the men concerned were more than just casual acquaintances. A boyfriend whom she occasionally dated remembered Bambi as a quiet girl whose life centred on the twins: "She was devoted to her two boys and I really don't think she was interested in a promiscuous lifestyle," he said. "We went out a couple of times, for drinks or a meal. She was very pretty and very sweet, but we just weren't on the same wavelength, so our relationship did not go any further. But she was attractive and pleasant company."

[Kaldin]

It's only suspicious if the information on this is different - it's not. So having two logs with the same information is suspicious but Jeremy changing his story to suit a scenario isn't? 

There's no need for more than one log, so of course it's suspicious.

[Steve_uk]

I was guilty. I served my sentence. I was in prison with Jeremy Bamber. You've never proven his guilt you've just taken information what's available and formed an opinion as have I.....

Some people have processed more information than others..

[lookout]

It was John who first described Sheila as being promiscuous.

Jane had said that Jeremy had been promiscuous.

[Caroline]

So they re-wrote a log and tried to make it exactly the same as the original. But they both corrected old spelling nistakes and inserted new spelling mistakes. And they couldn't get the line positioning correct. One is signed off and the other, which is not signed off, has traces of other imprinted writing on it. But because the timings apparently haven't changed, it's nothing to worry about.

Yes, it has other writing on it, it's the next part of the log - you can see the line "Informant asked to go to fathers" Just like in the second page of the log (see below), this was obviously written on top of the first. Looks to me as though West wrote the first one, wasn't happy with it so wrote it out again, that's why the one being referred to as 'the forgery' is signed and has detail of the bodies found.

[Jane]

If anyone's doing the contaminating it's you, you're toxic -----and dangerous !

I asked you to show me where I'd described June and Nevill as being unrecognisable to others, because right now I'm denying it and for your information there's nothing wrong with my memory, you're the selective one who does  the fabricating to show others what a clever person you are by showing me in a bad light to enable you to get more of your sort on side.
Your tactics just make you look infantile and if anyone had any sense they'd ignore you.Grow up !

Lookout, dear. I have no need to "show others what a clever person" I am, nor am I trying, but by continuing to try to show yourself as having superior knowledge to me by having snide digs at my qualifications at every opportunity, when you actually have no idea of what they are, you make yourself look like a silly, envious woman.

Now although you try to deny that which you don't care to remember, it was suggested to you fairly recently that the claims you made about those things Nevill would, according to you, do, say, and think were, because you didn't know him, figments of your imagination. From memory you were talking about what he'd say to social services in a London Borough re Sheila and her boys. You allocated him with power way beyond his position. I used the word "unrecognizable" of what you said, at the time. Simply, you make claims of people you can't possibly know to be true and then throw hissy fits when it's pointed out to you.

 You're overly fond of the word "toxic" and as for any danger you see me as imposing, if everything you say of everyone, other than Jeremy, is gospel truth, and you've never, ever made any of those claims I recall you having made, you really have nothing to worry about.

[Caroline]

There's no need for more than one log, so of course it's suspicious.

Not when they contain the same information. He could have just rewritten it. It's not even signed for goodness sake and the one they are calling the forgery is. The CCRC will see right through this and wonder why Bamber has changed his story which is a bigger question.

[Roch]

There's no need for more than one log, so of course it's suspicious.

The differences are discussed here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10067.msg462842.html#msg462842

Page 27-35 of the document attached.  I do not have a fixed opinion of the claim that Nevill phoned police, so I cant vouch for the conclusion re that in the document.  The document is several years old. 

If West was simply writing out a new C1 because he was unhappy with the first - why did he painstakingly attempt to copy his own writing in the same form of the original document?  He failed to get it exactly right but boy did he try. 

Several years ago it was stated that there were six different versions.  But that's in the mists of time for me.  I'm sure PH discussed it with Caroline at the time?  Apologies if I am wrong re PH Caroline.

[Caroline]

The differences are discussed here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10067.msg462842.html#msg462842

Page 27-35 of the document attached.  I do not have a fixed opinion of the claim that Nevill phoned police, so I cant vouch for the conclusion re that in the document.  The document is several years old. 

If West was simply writing out a new C1 because he was unhappy with the first - why did he painstakingly attempt to copy his own writing in the same form of the original document?  He failed to get it exactly right but boy did he try. 

Several years ago it was stated that there were six different versions.  But that's in the mists of time for me.  I'm sure PH discussed it with Caroline at the time?  Apologies if I am wrong re PH Caroline.

Boy did he try? He wrote 'illness' on the second and a whole sentence about the bodies being found. Other than that, what information does (what's being called) the 'original' contain that the 'fake' doesn't?

As far as I know, PH doesn't even know about the logs. Bamber sent them to me along with the document I posted.

How old is the document? Is it dated?

I wonder why this was never included in the last submissions? I believe there were several things that Bamber wanted including but SM advised against it and didn't in the end pursue various aspects. I bet this was one of them.