Author Topic: The Defence Will State Their Case  (Read 161555 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #345 on: July 17, 2017, 01:44:43 PM »
You not speaking to me Nine?

What do you mean Nina ??? When did I say I was not speaking to you???

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #346 on: July 17, 2017, 01:46:32 PM »
You know very well there is no CCTV for this, just VT's account of the events.

Is is written down by Dr Vincent Tabak... that he was at "Constitution Hill".... or is it something different??

As I say... "The Defences version of Events... ???

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #347 on: July 17, 2017, 01:54:16 PM »
I'm getting lost again. We both appear to be reading from the same page, Sally R's paper "The Defences version of Events". So we both have read that VT was at Constitution Hill at 6.54pm and not 6.45pm as I had originally read it as. I don't think that anything is different.


Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #348 on: July 17, 2017, 01:55:56 PM »
What do you mean Nina ??? When did I say I was not speaking to you???

Just I've done loads of posts aimed at you with information and your questions answered and you have replied not once. S'okay though I can take rejection !!

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #349 on: July 17, 2017, 01:56:05 PM »
I think that you're dead right Mrswah, the timings seem to be out by at least (IMO) 10 mins. Having said that I suppose that `just after 7pm' could mean about 7.10pm?


OK..... "We all seem to know something".. that I don't !!..as you must have the information In front of you to see that "Constitution Hill.. Timeline is written Incorrectly"...

Go on let me in on the joke.....  My heads been mashed enough over this last 8 months .... !!

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #350 on: July 17, 2017, 01:56:59 PM »
Just I've done loads of posts aimed at you with information and your questions answered and you have replied not once. S'okay though I can take rejection !!

Nina I have replied to your posts... Not all true....

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #351 on: July 17, 2017, 01:57:35 PM »
Just I've done loads of posts aimed at you with information and your questions answered and you have replied not once. S'okay though I can take rejection !!


Question Nina.... why are you directing your posts at me ?????????

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #352 on: July 17, 2017, 02:07:49 PM »

Question Nina.... why are you directing your posts at me ?????????
'Cause you're the one asking questions.

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #353 on: July 17, 2017, 02:09:33 PM »
I'm getting lost again. We both appear to be reading from the same page, Sally R's paper "The Defences version of Events". So we both have read that VT was at Constitution Hill at 6.54pm and not 6.45pm as I had originally read it as. I don't think that anything is different.

The thing is Nina... I can see how someone can actually put the number 5 before the number 4 when typing... and Yes... maybe it should read 6:45pm...

But my problem is ..either you know Sally Ramage or are Sally Ramage or know why this is incorrectly written... or you have some other information to hand which you would like to share so I can correct any errors I may have made ...... thank you

Because .. unless someone confirms to me what is written wrong in the document of Sally Ramages... I am at a loss at what to do.... And helping the Placid Dutchman will become even more difficult... (IMO)...





Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #355 on: July 17, 2017, 02:11:43 PM »
The thing is Nina... I can see how someone can actually put the number 5 before the number 4 when typing... and Yes... maybe it should read 6:45pm...

But my problem is ..either you know Sally Ramage or are Sally Ramage or know why this is incorrectly written... or you have some other information to hand which you would like to share so I can correct any errors I may have made ...... thank you

Because .. unless someone confirms to me what is written wrong in the document of Sally Ramages... I am at a loss at what to do.... And helping the Placid Dutchman will become even more difficult... (IMO)...


I would really like it if Sally Ramage came on the forum... Maybe I could get to see some more of that transcript!


Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #356 on: July 17, 2017, 02:12:12 PM »

OK..... "We all seem to know something".. that I don't !!..as you must have the information In front of you to see that "Constitution Hill.. Timeline is written Incorrectly"...

Go on let me in on the joke.....  My heads been mashed enough over this last 8 months .... !!
Nine I don't know anything that you don't know. All I have that you don't have is a knowledge of the area.

All I was saying was that initially I misread Sally R's paper and put VT at C/Hill at 6.45pm and it was 6.54pm. Now this as I have said makes a huge difference to the getting home time. I asked whether 7.10pm could count as `just after 7pm'?

No jokes I'm afraid.

Offline nina

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #357 on: July 17, 2017, 02:13:50 PM »
You want those undisclosed 300 pages don't you? lol

Offline [...]

Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #358 on: July 17, 2017, 02:16:57 PM »
You want those undisclosed 300 pages don't you? lol

 *&*%

Now we Know it was supposed to be 1300 pages of Documents .... Is that an error too.... Yes I would love those Documents ..

The timelines should reveal plenty....

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1027
  • Total likes: 462
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: The Defence Will State Their Case
« Reply #359 on: July 17, 2017, 02:18:17 PM »
mrswah... Dr Vincent Tabak could well have rode a bike.....  where is the CCTV footage of this ?

There either isn't any, or it hasn't been made public.