Author Topic: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.  (Read 44194 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #120 on: August 23, 2013, 12:48:48 AM »
Well I have been to Belgravia Police station four times and upgraded from DC to DS last twice

Maybe means nothing.  Dunno.  But they listen


That is as far as I am going to answer questions.

Were you invited four times or had the batteries on your wandering alarm simply gone flat again ?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline sadie

Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #121 on: August 23, 2013, 12:57:57 AM »
Were you invited four times or had the batteries on your wandering alarm simply gone flat again ?

You show me those 3 abandoned buildings closer to JT corner than The Staff Quarters ... and I might consider answering that

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #122 on: August 23, 2013, 07:51:45 AM »
You show me those 3 abandoned buildings closer to JT corner than The Staff Quarters ... and I might consider answering that

Why should people answer your inquires or questions when you fail to do so ?

Offline Lace

Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #123 on: August 23, 2013, 09:39:24 AM »
Why should people answer your inquires or questions when you fail to do so ?


You are asking a 'private'   question though aren't you Stephen?    What Sadie does in her private life has nothing to do with you.

On the other hand the empty buildings is nothing to do with Faithfully's private life and is a help to our discussion about where bundleman could have hidden out.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #124 on: August 23, 2013, 09:43:36 AM »

You are asking a 'private'   question though aren't you Stephen?    What Sadie does in her private life has nothing to do with you.

On the other hand the empty buildings is nothing to do with Faithfully's private life and is a help to our discussion about where bundleman could have hidden out.

It isn't a private question as she has discussed her 'theories' on here. i.e. it is in the public domain.

.....moderated out irrelevant content .....
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 06:37:18 PM by Admin »

Offline Lace

Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #125 on: August 23, 2013, 10:38:47 AM »
It isn't a private question as she has discussed her 'theories' on here. i.e. it is in the public domain.



You were asking her if she had sent her theories to SY weren't you?   Well that is a private matter.


« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 06:39:07 PM by Admin »

Offline Albertini

Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #126 on: August 23, 2013, 02:23:58 PM »
That's it.

Thanks DCI

Lol, having missed off the most important part:

Quote
Reply    “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078    “No”.
Reply    “But I just thought it was”.

So she was talking about the time in the van and she is saying that as she was givne the interview in 2008 she didn't think it was BUT  “But I just thought it was”.

So at what point did she think it was him, given that her asnwer came in reply to the van episode?

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #127 on: August 23, 2013, 02:44:16 PM »
At least Ms Tanner admitted "she thought it was". Neither Mrs Oldfield nor Mrs Payne reckoned they could be wrong concerning the presence of Mr Murat, a presence denied by many people who knew him. Only Mr O'Brien was careful enough to admit he could make a confusion between night and following morning.
Of course stating Mr Murat was close to the crime scene in the 3rd of May night doesn't make him a murderer, but the TP3 went back all the same in July to be confronted to him ! They didn't hesitate, though the place was full of media, one of their strongest arguments against participating to a reconstruction.

Offline sadie

Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #128 on: August 23, 2013, 02:54:24 PM »
At least Ms Tanner admitted "she thought it was". Neither Mrs Oldfield nor Mrs Payne reckoned they could be wrong concerning the presence of Mr Murat, a presence denied by many people who knew him. Only Mr O'Brien was careful enough to admit he could make a confusion between night and following morning.
Of course stating Mr Murat was close to the crime scene in the 3rd of May night doesn't make him a murderer, but the TP3 went back all the same in July to be confronted to him ! They didn't hesitate, though the place was full of media, one of their strongest arguments against participating to a reconstruction.
At least Ms Tanner admitted "she thought it was". Where have you got that from Anne?  Or is it deliberate obfuscation again?

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #129 on: August 23, 2013, 03:04:03 PM »
This "again" might be not deliberate (if you wrote less, Sadie, perhaps you'd more time to read), but certainly helps obfuscation.

Offline DCI

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2585
  • Total likes: 6
  • Why are some folks so sick in the head!!!
Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #130 on: August 23, 2013, 04:02:52 PM »
Lol, having missed off the most important part:

So she was talking about the time in the van and she is saying that as she was givne the interview in 2008 she didn't think it was BUT  “But I just thought it was”.

So at what point did she think it was him, given that her asnwer came in reply to the van episode?

At least Ms Tanner admitted "she thought it was". Neither Mrs Oldfield nor Mrs Payne reckoned they could be wrong concerning the presence of Mr Murat, a presence denied by many people who knew him. Only Mr O'Brien was careful enough to admit he could make a confusion between night and following morning.
Of course stating Mr Murat was close to the crime scene in the 3rd of May night doesn't make him a murderer, but the TP3 went back all the same in July to be confronted to him ! They didn't hesitate, though the place was full of media, one of their strongest arguments against participating to a reconstruction.

Nice try! But you are doing the sly picking bits again, out of context.

4078 “Can’t find the specific part in there but I think, obviously it’s covered in the first one anyway, so it’s not particularly relevant to any (inaudible) time, going back to the second one there. Before we move on to then Gerry and Kate’s questions that they want to ask, is there anything else that you want to say in relation to everything we’ve discussed so far”?
Reply “Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”?

4078 “Yes, yes go on”.
Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.

4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.

4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.

4078 “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”.
Reply “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.

4078 “Yes”.
Reply “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.

4078 “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.
Reply “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.


4078 “Get to the truth of the matter”?
Reply “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”.

Kate's 500 Mile Cycle Challenge

https://www.justgiving.com/KateMcCann/

Offline Jean-Pierre

Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #131 on: August 23, 2013, 04:37:58 PM »
Regarding the question of Jane Tanner having identified Murat.  I have been through Tanners police statements in May 2007, and her rogatory statements.  At no time does she say that she identifed Murat. 

The source of this seems to be Amarals book. 

The same source as the "15 markers" conversation with the FSS, by the by. 

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #132 on: August 23, 2013, 05:05:56 PM »
Nice try! But you are doing the sly picking bits again, out of context.

4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.

There's no try, DCI, and I pray you to interpret correctly iyo the "But I just thought it was" segment. In other words, what do you think she meant ?
Please show that your objective isn't to accuse posters to extract in order to mislead but to establish truth.

Offline Admin

Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #133 on: August 23, 2013, 06:59:22 PM »
Warnings have been issued for off topic posting.  Accusations and references to other forums have been deleted.

Please stick to the topic in hand.

PS if this continues I will be recommending temp bans!
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 07:01:38 PM by Admin »

Offline sadie

Re: Sherlock. The psychological aspects of bundleman.
« Reply #134 on: August 23, 2013, 07:02:33 PM »
This "again" might be not deliberate (if you wrote less, Sadie, perhaps you'd more time to read), but certainly helps obfuscation.
Oh, I read my share Anne

Dont worry.