The Threat.

[guest154]

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.

[Mr. Gee]

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

[Mr. Gee]

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?

[nugnug]

well he might of forgot i suppose.

[nugnug]

have you made a compliant jackie.

[ngb1066]

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.

[ngb1066]

The three threads dealing with this matter have now been merged.

[nugnug]

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.

[nugnug]

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.

[Roch]

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.

[lookout]

 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.

[ngb1066]

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.

   

[Jan]

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?

[nugnug]

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.

[Roch]

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.