April.
Everything I’ve ever posted on here I’ve got from official sources such as the Court Hearings Statements, CAL’s book etc...and I’ve quoted them. I haven’t always put links up, or pictures, often because I’ve had problems adding photos etc, which I’ve actually found frustrating!
I’ve been accused of making things up, and I have indeed supplied proof, much to the chagrin of people such as Holly, MrsWah and G-Unit — all staunch supporters of Jeremy Bamber. Just one example us when I said Sheila had an unusually high level of Haloperidol in her system: I got jumped on accused of being a liar. I then supplied proof from Colin Caffell’s book, and G-Unit said “Oh, he’s wrong!”
If you care to go through my posts you’ll see where I HAVE provided several links or managed to put a photo up, and I’d like you to do that.
There’s been many just one or two occasions when I’ve either forgotten someone wanted evidence (which I KNOW exists), as I’ve simply moved on to new discussions and never thought the particular requests were that relevant to start with. I also find it tedious trawling through tons of data to find one point just to satisfy someone who can’t be bothered to hunt it out themselves.
And when I DO post evidence, it’s often either ignored, or just not discussed.
I shall trawl back through my posts on here and find some where I have posted the evidence, and you’ll see the responses I’ve had.
I will find the official source where I read about Sheila’s hair, and I’m sure I’ll get little feedback for my time and trouble. Incidentally, it wasn’t on here and nor was it in CAL’s book, but read it I did. I don’t just read forums or books for my research, I go much deeper. And I most certainly wouldn’t lie about a thing like that! I never lie unnecessarily — but I’m not infallible and am occasionally wrong. And if I am wrong I will always admit it and apologise. I have done on here, which you’ll see in my posts. But I know what I read about Sheila’s hair being examined: EVERYTHING is examined in a PM, even down to the food in their stomach if it hasn’t digested.
Simply because it's in print, doesn't make it true. You should be aware that not all you read can be accepted as being true. Back to Sheila's hair for the moment. With the benefit of the PM, it's wet/dry state was argued ad nausuem on another forum. Had the report mentioned it, there'd have been no purpose in the argument. Incidentally, the partially digested food in her stomach is documented. At the other end of the scale, an author named Claire X? writes as if she not only knew the family personally, but almost as if she shared the last meal with them. It was accepted as being definitive by many. It was little more than a docunovel. She didn't know the family and it was written years after they were dead. But it sold.
I don't doubt that you've read 'it' and that sharing your finds with us might be well intentioned and demonstrate how interested in the case you are. However, there are those who know it the best part of inside out and if you present something iffy, without naming a source, you will be jumped on. All I can suggest is that if you think you've read it, find the source before you write.
