a6 murder

[Victor]

I was always under the impression that VS was lying on her front when she was shot, maybe turned a little towards the body of MG. She was able to start making a message from loose pebbles, and she could only do this I think if she were lying on her front. And as the shots paralysed her, had she been on her back I don't think she could have turned over.

Thank you Graham, I don't have my books with me so I can't check and I can't find a reference at the moment.

I was under the impression she was sat next to and facing MG's body, her back to the gunman who walked off, turned and shot her through the shoulder area of her back.
I'll check tonight.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

VS was shot in the left side of her neck, her left shoulder and high up on the left side of her chest. She wasn't shot in the back.

Neck and shoulder, so not exclusively the chest then. You've just proved the Mirror liars, well done!

Hang on, you aren't conspiring with them are you?

[jimarilyn]

Oo-er are you suggesting that I conspired with the Mirror so that they reported the opposite to what I think so I can call them liars?

As I wasn't born in 1961, they even had the foresight to predict what I would be believing, or maybe they borrowed the TARDIS and went travelling in time to get things right.

They lied to make a full sensationalist story, filling in the gaps.

I've read this post three or four times and still have no clue what you're trying to say Victor. Can you translate for us all ?

Loads of people weren't born in 1961. I for example was born in 1952.

[Victor]

VS was also interviewed by two inspectors soon after she reached the hospital and was by all accounts able to give very good details, this statement as far as I know has never been made public, although I only have a first edition of the Foot book so don`t know if this still holds true.

Hi Rob,

I think this is the one that was published in 1971, but I can't be sure.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Loads of people weren't born in 1961. I for example was born in 1952.

Well done for plumbing the depths of semantic pedantry.

Normal people take the statement "I wasn't born in 1961" to mean they were born after 1961.

[jimarilyn]

Well done for plumbing the depths of semantic pedantry.

Normal people take the statement "I wasn't born in 1961" to mean they were born after 1961.

Just playing you at your own little game Victor.

[Victor]

Just playing you at your own little game Victor.

I know my beliefs upset and offend you. I'm happy to let you think what you like, I just point out inconsistencies between your posts and established facts.

Have you noticed how you initiate all the bad feeling in this thread, and then indignantly object and try to rally your troops into condemning me when I turn the tables?

For example, "in league with the persecution".

Your accusations of bias, particularly your "How do you chose which bit to believe?" or "Do they only lie about things you disagree with?" questions, are so hypocritical it makes me laugh. The sycophantic compliments for blatantly wrong posts demonstrates your hypocrisy, and the inevitable lack of reply when I point out the blatant errors only leads to the misinformation being repeated.

For example, I think you posted a considered list of reasons why you don't trust VS, but are then scared off when I challenge you on them. See http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...postcount=3755

KR,
Vic.

[Limehouse]

Given the apparent early confusion over whether VS was shot in the chest or the back I am even more convinced that the Daily Mirror article was quoting perceived evidence reported by police soon after the event. The fact that the eyes were reported as brown rather than blue, the hitchhiker story which seemed to emerge from VS before she realised that her affair with MG was widely known about and the chest injury, caused possibly by an exit wound but at that stage not known for sure all points to information gathered at a press conference from the known 'facts' of the case. I am convinced that this information was released by the police to help them in the early stages of the investigation and, to some extent, to alert the public to the dangerous individual who was at large.

I don't see what the newspapers had to gain from putting out 'misinformation' and I do not believe the mistakes were the result of sloppy journalism because such a case, unusual as it was for that period in time, would be seen by a newspaper as being a matter of public duty to be reported on accurately and responsibily, given that there was a dangerous man at large.

The Daily Mirror was far from a 'tabloid rag' at this time. It was a highly respected working class paper with some excellent journalists on board. Indeed, Paul Foot himself later worked for the paper and it remained a decent read until the early 1980s.

[Tony]

I know my beliefs upset and offend you. I'm happy to let you think what you like, I just point out inconsistencies between your posts and established facts.

Have you noticed how you initiate all the bad feeling in this thread, and then indignantly object and try to rally your troops into condemning me when I turn the tables?

For example, "in league with the persecution".

Your accusations of bias, particularly your "How do you chose which bit to believe?" or "Do they only lie about things you disagree with?" questions, are so hypocritical it makes me laugh. The sycophantic compliments for blatantly wrong posts demonstrates your hypocrisy, and the inevitable lack of reply when I point out the blatant errors only leads to the misinformation being repeated.

For example, I think you posted a considered list of reasons why you don't trust VS, but are then scared off when I challenge you on them. See http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...postcount=3755

KR,
Vic.

Well one troop that James (Jimarilyn) won’t be able to rally is Me.

I shall say goodbye to the forum and some very good friends on here including those on the Jimdidit side.
Every time we post anything on here it is quoted sentence by sentence and ridiculed. Now that’s a fine way of debating I’m sure but it is not to my taste.
The thread has been spoiled for me and although I have enjoyed it immensely and shall continue to look in I shall not contribute further. I’ll drive my wife and mates mad about it once again.

As I say I have enjoyed your company tremendously but I am simply not prepared to be branded with tags such as ‘in league with a rapist and murderer’ or ‘a holocaust denier’.
I have not seen anything from Reg for some time so maybe he feels the same as I do. I really don’t know.

Perhaps you will have the thread all to yourself soon Vic. Good luck to you.

So goodbye everyone and thank you for putting up with me.

Tony.

[Victor]

Well one troop that James (Jimarilyn) won’t be able to rally is Me.

That sentence needs an "any longer" on the end.

Every time we post anything on here it is quoted sentence by sentence and ridiculed. Now that’s a fine way of debating I’m sure but it is not to my taste.

Ridiculed? Only if it is ridiculous. The quoting sentence by sentence that I do makes it much easier for me to follow, serves as a reminder for me, and looks better, neater and tidier.

As I say I have enjoyed your company tremendously but I am simply not prepared to be branded with tags such as ‘in league with a rapist and murderer’ or ‘a holocaust denier’.

I've enjoyed most of the conversations, but I'm not prepared sit back and say nothing when I'm branded with tags such as "in league with the persecution", and if James can't handle it when I respond in kind then maybe he ought to consider his insults more carefully. The "holocaust denier" is a quote from Ally (one of the site admin) who appeared to be getting frustrated on another thread where people kept repeating misinformation. It seemed appropriate to refer to it here.

I have not seen anything from Reg for some time so maybe he feels the same as I do. I really don’t know.

What was I saying about rallying the troops? Reg was the first to get upset when I replied to him in the same tone as he wrote to me.

So goodbye everyone and thank you for putting up with me.

Goodbye Tony, I don't agree with your conclusions about Hanratty, but otherwise you seemed like a nice guy.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Given the apparent early confusion over whether VS was shot in the chest or the back I am even more convinced that the Daily Mirror article was quoting perceived evidence reported by police soon after the event.

Hi Limehouse,
I checked Foot quickly last night and managed to find references to the doctor's report of the injuries, but I didn't find a direct answer to the path of the bullets through VS body. Has anyone else found a better source than a newspaper report?

I cannot understand why you think the journalists at the scene were only reporting information they got from the police. We have reports that:-
i) John Kerr gave interviews (including TV).
ii) A Journalist (Tony Mason - IIRC) informed Mr and Mrs Storie of the event before the police.

Therefore I conclude that information from the scene wasn't being managed by the police, nor was it verified by them, which means that misinformation was allowed to spread amongst the journalists, who would be listening in to conversations, collaborating (or simply helping eachother out) and filling in the rest of the picture from the scraps they overheard.

The fact that the eyes were reported as brown rather than blue, the hitchhiker story which seemed to emerge from VS before she realised that her affair with MG was widely known about and the chest injury, caused possibly by an exit wound but at that stage not known for sure all points to information gathered at a press conference from the known 'facts' of the case. I am convinced that this information was released by the police to help them in the early stages of the investigation and, to some extent, to alert the public to the dangerous individual who was at large.

The hitch-hiker confusion can be explained by someone (a journalist/John Kerr/a policeman) making the same mistake as James and inferring that "picked up a man" means "hitch-hiker", whereas as I recently posted an alternative suggestion ["picked up" as in "picked up a friend from the airport"]. As soon as the mistake was relayed to VS, she corrected it.

Similar reasoning can be applied to the "brown eyes", which is further complicated by references to "someone called Brown" and "brown hair". Noone other than VS and the police officers she spoke to can catagorically say she was the source, and she and they all deny it.

As for teh Press Conference, surely there must be a record of when the first one was, which can be compared to the newspaper printing deadlines. And this would be the first official release of information from the Police. Other sources would be interviews which I doubt were sanctioned as "official" at the early stage.

I don't see what the newspapers had to gain from putting out 'misinformation' and I do not believe the mistakes were the result of sloppy journalism because such a case, unusual as it was for that period in time, would be seen by a newspaper as being a matter of public duty to be reported on accurately and responsibily, given that there was a dangerous man at large.

I'm sorry but what options did the journalists have?
1. No story - this would never be allowed by the Editor.
2. Wait until they have a complete, verified account - No story that day.
3. Print what they have - an incomplete patchy account.
4. Print what they have and fill in the blanks as best as they can.

What the newspapers had to gain, was the "scoop", the paper that got first story with the biggest headline sold the most, made the most money, and maybe attracted a loyal customer from a rival. Surely that's obvious.

The Daily Mirror was far from a 'tabloid rag' at this time. It was a highly respected working class paper with some excellent journalists on board. Indeed, Paul Foot himself later worked for the paper and it remained a decent read until the early 1980s.

The better papers verified their stories if they had time.

KR,
Vic.

[reg1965]

Well one troop that James (Jimarilyn) won’t be able to rally is Me.

I shall say goodbye to the forum and some very good friends on here including those on the Jimdidit side.
Every time we post anything on here it is quoted sentence by sentence and ridiculed. Now that’s a fine way of debating I’m sure but it is not to my taste.
The thread has been spoiled for me and although I have enjoyed it immensely and shall continue to look in I shall not contribute further. I’ll drive my wife and mates mad about it once again.

As I say I have enjoyed your company tremendously but I am simply not prepared to be branded with tags such as ‘in league with a rapist and murderer’ or ‘a holocaust denier’.
I have not seen anything from Reg for some time so maybe he feels the same as I do. I really don’t know.

Perhaps you will have the thread all to yourself soon Vic. Good luck to you.

So goodbye everyone and thank you for putting up with me.

Tony.

Hi Tony

I agree, I've had a gutful of Victor too. Arguing with him is like arguing with a 2 year old. I too will look in but wont post anymore.
I am meeting up with Bob Woffinden on Thursday to discuss the case and how to take it forward. I will let you and James know how it goes by PM or email (anyone else who is interested PM me.)

Au revoir
Reg

[jimarilyn]

I've enjoyed most of the conversations, but I'm not prepared sit back and say nothing when I'm branded with tags such as "in league with the persecution", and if James can't handle it when I respond in kind then maybe he ought to consider his insults more carefully.

Hi All,

Once again Victor has taken my words out of context with the rest of my post (#3738). The full post read........

In one word "yes". For very good reasons. I most definitely don't take as gospel every word which has been uttered from VS's mouth. It seems to me the only people whose veracity you don't doubt are VS's, BMA's and anyone in league with the persecution..... oops I mean prosecution counsel from the case. You belittle and condemn most every other person connected with the case in any way.

regards,
James

[jimornot?]

leaving?

Hi Tony

I agree, I've had a gutful of Victor too. Arguing with him is like arguing with a 2 year old. I too will look in but wont post anymore.
I am meeting up with Bob Woffinden on Thursday to discuss the case and how to take it forward. I will let you and James know how it goes by PM or email (anyone else who is interested PM me.)

Au revoir
Reg

This is specifically for you Reg and Tony. I'd ask that you still contribute wherever you both see fit. May I suggest that if either of you don't like the tone of a particualr series of postings or indeed say, Vic's messages, then you purposefully ignore them but still provide for eveyone, the benefit of your knowledge, questions etc.

I am keen to learn more on Reg's talks with Bob Woffinden and hopefully both of you will feel compelled to respond to something soon

best wishes always

Viv

[Victor]

Once again Victor has taken my words out of context with the rest of my post (#3738). The full post read........

It seems to me the only people whose veracity you don't doubt are VS's, BMA's and anyone in league with the persecution..... oops I mean prosecution counsel from the case.

What's the difference between being in league with the persecution and only doubting those not in league with the persecution?

Semantic pedantry.