Author Topic: ALLEGED STAN JONES STATEMENT  (Read 515 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Real justice

Re: ALLEGED STAN JONES STATEMENT
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2018, 06:59:44 AM »
Wow, this was whilst I was away.

That looks like such a legit document doesn't it? .../Sarcasm. If that's the best forgery that can be created, retire.

I will bring this up the next time JackieDPreece posts how lucky we are to have a barrister on the forum. A Barrister that is willing to pay for a forum that posts fake documents in a case where two children were murdered.

I don't understand the NEED for Jeremy to be guilty/innocent that some people have. If he's innocent, fine - but it should be evidence based.  If you need to 'create' evidence to suit your argument - it should cause alarm bells in your own head.
David thought it was genuine and backed Tesko (wonder why  8(>(()  Next time you go on the blue forum, put the word aforementioned in the search and see who has used that word before?  Double figures and the only person to use that word  @)(++(*

Maybe Lookout could show it to her daughter and Special Branch who monitor forums, falsifying police statements is a criminal offence I would have thought?  &^^&*

Offline puglove

Re: ALLEGED STAN JONES STATEMENT
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2018, 08:51:50 AM »
Wow, this was whilst I was away.

That looks like such a legit document doesn't it? .../Sarcasm. If that's the best forgery that can be created, retire.

I will bring this up the next time JackieDPreece posts how lucky we are to have a barrister on the forum. A Barrister that is willing to pay for a forum that posts fake documents in a case where two children were murdered.

I don't understand the NEED for Jeremy to be guilty/innocent that some people have. If he's innocent, fine - but it should be evidence based.  If you need to 'create' evidence to suit your argument - it should cause alarm bells in your own head.

He's basically bought himself his own little amusement park - a forum that consists almost entirely of libel, bigotry and filth. He likes to be the Monarch of all he surveys!!      &^^&*
There was an old woman called P@
Who worshipped a murdering tw@
She typed all day long
Getting everything wrong
Then her pussyc@ sh@ in her h@.

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6400
  • Total likes: 129
  • "They think it's all over"....
Re: ALLEGED STAN JONES STATEMENT
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2018, 09:02:36 AM »
Wow, this was whilst I was away.

That looks like such a legit document doesn't it? .../Sarcasm. If that's the best forgery that can be created, retire.

I will bring this up the next time JackieDPreece posts how lucky we are to have a barrister on the forum. A Barrister that is willing to pay for a forum that posts fake documents in a case where two children were murdered.

I don't understand the NEED for Jeremy to be guilty/innocent that some people have. If he's innocent, fine - but it should be evidence based.  If you need to 'create' evidence to suit your argument - it should cause alarm bells in your own head.

In fairness to KNGB he did point out the fact DCI Jones was referred to as "Taff" in a formal statement didn't ring true.  I think he's right, the police are a hierarchal bunch where deference is expected akin to the military.  During DS Jones' trial testimony he refers to colleagues by their titles:

 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1056.msg30124#msg30124
Justice 4 Sheila and Jeremy: victims of poorly arranged 'Baby Scoop Era' adoptions.  Australia has apologised
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hVbokTpYeg time for UK to do the same https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/04/baby-adoption-practices-of-past-demand-inquiry-say-law-firms

Offline Real justice

Re: ALLEGED STAN JONES STATEMENT
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2018, 11:47:15 AM »
In fairness to KNGB he did point out the fact DCI Jones was referred to as "Taff" in a formal statement didn't ring true.  I think he's right, the police are a hierarchal bunch where deference is expected akin to the military.  During DS Jones' trial testimony he refers to colleagues by their titles:

 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1056.msg30124#msg30124
Have to agree 100% Holly, nothing but admiration for NGB, he knew it was fake and tried to steer Tesko away from it, NGB is not the owner and it puts him in a very awkward position, “but” if I was a moderator or financial backer of the forum I would have left I wouldn’t want to be associated with such low life who is uncontrollable.  Wonder what he’s done with other documents, information he’s posted before?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 11:57:54 AM by Real justice »

Offline APRIL

Re: ALLEGED STAN JONES STATEMENT
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2018, 03:37:57 PM »
The above doesn't stack up imo.  I agree why use the word "covertly"?!
   

Coz he didn't know how to spell "surreptitiously"?

Offline APRIL

Re: ALLEGED STAN JONES STATEMENT
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2018, 03:41:52 PM »
I think it's also a word that is quote popular in certain quarters?

Would that be, as in "...........And you are charged with, that you did, covertly (feel free to add whatever)"?

Offline ActualMat

Re: ALLEGED STAN JONES STATEMENT
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2018, 03:50:57 PM »
Have to agree 100% Holly, nothing but admiration for NGB, he knew it was fake and tried to steer Tesko away from it, NGB is not the owner and it puts him in a very awkward position, “but” if I was a moderator or financial backer of the forum I would have left I wouldn’t want to be associated with such low life who is uncontrollable.  Wonder what he’s done with other documents, information he’s posted before?

Makes it worse.

I remember Bridget and Hartley once asked Mike to post something, can't quite remember who's statement they were looking for but Mike never posted it even though he promised he would - it made me realise at that time he's selective on what he posts.

If Bamber is innocent Mike should feel comfortable posting anything, surely?

Maybe it's time Mikes accused of non disclosure.  @)(++(*

Offline ActualMat

Re: ALLEGED STAN JONES STATEMENT
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2018, 03:57:07 PM »
He's basically bought himself his own little amusement park - a forum that consists almost entirely of libel, bigotry and filth. He likes to be the Monarch of all he surveys!!      &^^&*

An old style amusement park, one with a freakshow. Don't get me wrong there have been some good members on the site and there still are, and I mean on both sides. But it's ruined by those who don't know ANYTHING about the case. I truly don't understand the ones who don't know anything about the case that post 24/7 for months. Lookout knows nothing, Jackie has never known anything about the Bamber case, Maggie is absolutely clueless and always has been - read her posts and try and find one that's got any clue about the Bamber case - next time she gets me unfairly banned for any reason or posts how much of a FAIR moderator she is I will post the hundreds of her emails I have between her and Jackie where Maggie shows her true colours with her words about myself, Bridget, Holly, Adam, Jane - just digusting behaviour.

Does anyone have a link to the topic where the SJ 'statement' was actually posted?

Offline Real justice

Re: ALLEGED STAN JONES STATEMENT
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2018, 05:51:34 PM »
An old style amusement park, one with a freakshow. Don't get me wrong there have been some good members on the site and there still are, and I mean on both sides. But it's ruined by those who don't know ANYTHING about the case. I truly don't understand the ones who don't know anything about the case that post 24/7 for months. Lookout knows nothing, Jackie has never known anything about the Bamber case, Maggie is absolutely clueless and always has been - read her posts and try and find one that's got any clue about the Bamber case - next time she gets me unfairly banned for any reason or posts how much of a FAIR moderator she is I will post the hundreds of her emails I have between her and Jackie where Maggie shows her true colours with her words about myself, Bridget, Holly, Adam, Jane - just digusting behaviour.

Does anyone have a link to the topic where the SJ 'statement' was actually posted?
Not Quite sure Matt, but, I think it went off the forum so that says a lot?  Caroline might know.  Very few believed it was real only David, no one would challenge it only me Caroline and Jane.  I’ve not been back since.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 07:00:39 PM by Real justice »

Offline adam

Re: ALLEGED STAN JONES STATEMENT
« Reply #24 on: August 16, 2018, 01:42:51 PM »
An old style amusement park, one with a freakshow. Don't get me wrong there have been some good members on the site and there still are, and I mean on both sides. But it's ruined by those who don't know ANYTHING about the case. I truly don't understand the ones who don't know anything about the case that post 24/7 for months. Lookout knows nothing, Jackie has never known anything about the Bamber case, Maggie is absolutely clueless and always has been - read her posts and try and find one that's got any clue about the Bamber case - next time she gets me unfairly banned for any reason or posts how much of a FAIR moderator she is I will post the hundreds of her emails I have between her and Jackie where Maggie shows her true colours with her words about myself, Bridget, Holly, Adam, Jane - just digusting behaviour.

Does anyone have a link to the topic where the SJ 'statement' was actually posted?

It is surprising that supporters that are so passionate have no sources. Thought sources would be posted non stop.

The exception is Mike who has sources but then comes up with crazy theories.

Lookout has never supplied a source. If one is requested she says 'find it yourself'.

Nugs has only provided one source, on Barry George. This was to support his vision that The Sun turned down Bamber's offer of a free life story.

I did ask a moderator for a source once. That really upset her. The source was supplied the following day. The next two days was spent complaining that I had asked for a source. Thought moderators would have lots of information.

David provides snippets of documents. Together with his own diagrams. He gets very upset if guilters provide sources.

Roch, Bill, JackieD, David & Mike all have new information they won't supply.