Why is it you can always be bothered to argue, but you can't be bothered to provide sources
You said you weren’t going to discuss Packer again, recognising that it was off-topic, or was that piece of advice dependent on you having the last word on the subject first?
So you’re disputing that Packer initially told the police he had closed his shop without seeing anything of consequence that night? Or are you now claiming that he did mention the grape-buying episode during his initial interview on the 4th October, and that White mysteriously didn’t mention it in his report?
I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied Half past twelve"
Sgt White.
Also...
"....he said “Yes, I believe she bought some grapes at my shop about 12. o'clock on Saturday."
Sgt. White.
Sgt White.
Also...
"....he said “Yes, I believe she bought some grapes at my shop about 12. o'clock on Saturday."
Sgt. White.
Had that been so they would have no need to use "it appears", they would have been justified in being more assertive had their inferences been confirmed
The Echo were the ones who admit the police do not tell them anything
Bemoaning the fact that the police refuse to share information on one particular subject does not equate to an acceptance that they would never share any information on any subject at any point.
I’m not suggesting that the Echo were lying about anything. They expressed irritation at a particular instance of police reticence relating to a particular topic.
The statement of any important witness in a murder case such as this will be thoroughly tested before it is rejected.
All the best,
Ben

Leave a comment: