Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
McALpine mystery.
64 views
Skip to first unread message
R. Giggs.
Nov 12, 2012, 12:38:29 PM11/12/12
to
Something I do not understand, where did McAlpines name
origginate from?
It seems the victim knew it was not McAlpine but somehow the police
told the victim his abuser was McAlpine, how can this be cos the police were
not there so the victim is
the only one who coudl identify him.
Makes not sense to me.
origginate from?
It seems the victim knew it was not McAlpine but somehow the police
told the victim his abuser was McAlpine, how can this be cos the police were
not there so the victim is
the only one who coudl identify him.
Makes not sense to me.
Mentalguy2k8
Nov 12, 2012, 12:47:48 PM11/12/12
to
"R. Giggs." <co...@trunt.com> wrote in message
news:luaos.262389$W63.2...@fx05.am4...
alleged abuser) was McAlpine and that he didn't know it wasn't, until 20
years later.
You'd think he might have wondered at some point, "If I've positively
identified Lord McAlpine, why haven't they arrested him?"
Peter Turtill
Nov 12, 2012, 1:12:50 PM11/12/12
to
newspapers and on TV were not the same as the one he saw many years
ago. I think if one is impressionable and the cops tell one they have
been abused by a named person, it could be difficult to dismiss what
the cops said. Have the cops admitted this?
pete
Mentalguy2k8
Nov 12, 2012, 1:21:49 PM11/12/12
to
"Peter Turtill" <recent:tur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lqe2a8h5eh2o1tu7d...@4ax.com...
knows??
R. Giggs.
Nov 12, 2012, 1:30:11 PM11/12/12
to
"Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k7rco8$el6$1...@dont-email.me...
and police gave him the name of the wrong person?
That is very hard to believe, to me it sounds like the police deliberately
gave him the
wrong name.
Was Lord McALpine questioned at the time? If not why not?
It seems odd the press are concentrting on the BBC story, there is something
very fishy
about this whole thing, they want to do anything but investigate the real
crime.
And as you say why didn't they arrest him?
It seems to me the police were protecting someone.
That's the real issue.
And who realy was in the photo?
Jacob Von Hogflume
Nov 12, 2012, 1:32:51 PM11/12/12
to
that he has been got at to believe he is wrong.
Frederick Williams
Nov 12, 2012, 2:45:02 PM11/12/12
to
Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>
> You'd think he might have wondered at some point, "If I've positively
> identified Lord McAlpine, why haven't they arrested him?"
Had he thought that, he might have gone on to think, "well, he's a rich
>
> You'd think he might have wondered at some point, "If I've positively
> identified Lord McAlpine, why haven't they arrested him?"
man with friends in high places."
--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
Yellow
Nov 12, 2012, 5:13:18 PM11/12/12
to
In article <Oebos.262394$W63.1...@fx05.am4>, co...@trunt.com says...
In the papers it said that the person identified was a McAlpine, a
member of the family - now dead.
member of the family - now dead.
AC
Nov 12, 2012, 9:41:06 PM11/12/12
to
--
AC
AC
Nov 12, 2012, 9:46:37 PM11/12/12
to
All the JS case has is the say so of alleged victims. Cant be factually
proven, no hard evidence. Presumably the same could be true of McAlpine.
Since there is no hard evidence only this accusation, no criminal court
could convict, but a counter civil case could succeed.
So, maybe, after a a few days, once McAlpine's solicitors have made sure
no hard evidence exists, this bloke is told: back off, finger the dead
guy and we wont sue you in to destitution.
Like I say, totally made up. All lies on my part. Don't believe any of it.
--
AC
MM
Nov 13, 2012, 2:25:58 AM11/13/12
to
know how the adult world worked. I certainly did not, aged ten. The
world was an exciting place, but at no time did I think of *political*
questions to ask. You just don't at that age. Your parents (possibly
not in Meesham's case) and your home and sibling(s) are the centre of
your world. We were taught how to cross the road, the basic elements
of road safety on our little bikes, never to talk to strangers and ask
a policeman if we got lost. Other than that, we roamed far and wide,
either alone or in little "Just William" style gangs. In my case it
was the town of Hastings, centering around the Alexandra Park, Queens
Road, the seafront and the Old Town. Those were halcyon days in which
school holidays, especially in summer, seemed to last forever, a bag
of chips from the chippy costing 6 old pence.
MM
Steerpike
Nov 13, 2012, 2:49:22 AM11/13/12
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
> Makes not sense to me.
Cynic
Nov 13, 2012, 11:30:27 AM11/13/12
to
Do you have any evidence to support your accusation? Or are you just
trying to deflect guilt from yourself?
--
Cynic
Yellow
Nov 13, 2012, 1:39:27 PM11/13/12
to
lIn article <brios.423247$Rc7.2...@fx04.am4>, x...@xxx.xxx says...
this is just a possible explanation of a mistaken identity - a mistaken
identity acknowledged by the still living and breathing accuser.
But I take it from that comment, you believe that if Saville was still
alive he would be giving a good account of himself?
Seriously?
>
> Yellow wrote:
> > In article <Oebos.262394$W63.1...@fx05.am4>, co...@trunt.com says...
> >>
> >> "Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:k7rco8$el6$1...@dont-email.me...
> Yellow wrote:
> > In article <Oebos.262394$W63.1...@fx05.am4>, co...@trunt.com says...
> >>
> >> "Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:k7rco8$el6$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> Was Lord McALpine questioned at the time? If not why not?
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems odd the press are concentrting on the BBC story, there is something
> >> very fishy
> >> about this whole thing, they want to do anything but investigate the real
> >> crime.
> >>
> >> And as you say why didn't they arrest him?
> >>
> >> It seems to me the police were protecting someone.
> >>
> >> That's the real issue.
> >>
> >> And who realy was in the photo?
> >
> > In the papers it said that the person identified was a McAlpine, a
> > member of the family - now dead.
> >
>
> Isn't that convenient? Another dead person who cant defend themselves.
Not really as no dead person here has been named or accused of anything,
> >>
> >>
> >> It seems odd the press are concentrting on the BBC story, there is something
> >> very fishy
> >> about this whole thing, they want to do anything but investigate the real
> >> crime.
> >>
> >> And as you say why didn't they arrest him?
> >>
> >> It seems to me the police were protecting someone.
> >>
> >> That's the real issue.
> >>
> >> And who realy was in the photo?
> >
> > In the papers it said that the person identified was a McAlpine, a
> > member of the family - now dead.
> >
>
> Isn't that convenient? Another dead person who cant defend themselves.
this is just a possible explanation of a mistaken identity - a mistaken
identity acknowledged by the still living and breathing accuser.
But I take it from that comment, you believe that if Saville was still
alive he would be giving a good account of himself?
Seriously?
Cynic
Nov 13, 2012, 3:44:26 PM11/13/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:39:27 -0000, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> Isn't that convenient? Another dead person who cant defend themselves.
>
>Not really as no dead person here has been named or accused of anything,
>this is just a possible explanation of a mistaken identity - a mistaken
>identity acknowledged by the still living and breathing accuser.
>
>But I take it from that comment, you believe that if Saville was still
>alive he would be giving a good account of himself?
If Savile was still alive there would be no accusations and thus no
>> Isn't that convenient? Another dead person who cant defend themselves.
>
>Not really as no dead person here has been named or accused of anything,
>this is just a possible explanation of a mistaken identity - a mistaken
>identity acknowledged by the still living and breathing accuser.
>
>But I take it from that comment, you believe that if Saville was still
>alive he would be giving a good account of himself?
reason for him to need to defend himself.
>Seriously?
Yes, the evidence for what I have stated is so conclusive that you
surely do not need me to spell it out?
--
Cynic
Yellow
Nov 13, 2012, 3:59:39 PM11/13/12
to
In article <50a2b0a3...@127.0.0.1>, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk says...
I thought I replied to AC. Are you now speaking on his behalf?
Cynic
Nov 14, 2012, 8:41:43 AM11/14/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:59:39 -0000, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:
>I thought I replied to AC. Are you now speaking on his behalf?
This is Usenet, not email. Perhaps you need to learn how it works?
>I thought I replied to AC. Are you now speaking on his behalf?
--
Cynic
Yellow
Nov 14, 2012, 1:50:23 PM11/14/12
to
In article <50a39f71...@127.0.0.1>, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk says...
he wrote, and I asked him if he felt a particular way. And you answered
instead.
That's a bit weird by anyone's measure.
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:59:39 -0000, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
> >I thought I replied to AC. Are you now speaking on his behalf?
>
> This is Usenet, not email. Perhaps you need to learn how it works?
Indeed, it is an open forum but I asked AC about his opinion, about what
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 20:59:39 -0000, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
> >I thought I replied to AC. Are you now speaking on his behalf?
>
> This is Usenet, not email. Perhaps you need to learn how it works?
he wrote, and I asked him if he felt a particular way. And you answered
instead.
That's a bit weird by anyone's measure.
Cynic
Nov 14, 2012, 3:13:42 PM11/14/12
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 18:50:23 -0000, Yellow <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> >I thought I replied to AC. Are you now speaking on his behalf?
>> This is Usenet, not email. Perhaps you need to learn how it works?
>Indeed, it is an open forum but I asked AC about his opinion, about what
>he wrote, and I asked him if he felt a particular way. And you answered
>instead.
>That's a bit weird by anyone's measure.
On the contrary, it is very common in a Usenet discussion when someone
>> >I thought I replied to AC. Are you now speaking on his behalf?
>> This is Usenet, not email. Perhaps you need to learn how it works?
>Indeed, it is an open forum but I asked AC about his opinion, about what
>he wrote, and I asked him if he felt a particular way. And you answered
>instead.
>That's a bit weird by anyone's measure.
asks for an opinion from one specific poster, for other posters to
chip in with *their* opinions. In this case it was particularly
appropriate because I have several times expressed a very similar
observation to the one AC expressed that prompted your question, and
so your question related to what *I* had previously written as well.
--
Cynic
Yellow
Nov 14, 2012, 5:46:24 PM11/14/12
to
In article <50a3fa3c....@127.0.0.1>, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk says...
Again, I asked AC quite specifically about his stated opinion and you
answered as if you had posted what he had written. Or knew his opinion
so could write on his behalf.
It was so odd, it even made me check that I replied to the correct post
and had not somehow mistaken the quoting, but nope, it was clearly AC's
post.
So - still weird. But do feel free to wriggle some more.
answered as if you had posted what he had written. Or knew his opinion
so could write on his behalf.
It was so odd, it even made me check that I replied to the correct post
and had not somehow mistaken the quoting, but nope, it was clearly AC's
post.
So - still weird. But do feel free to wriggle some more.
R. Giggs.
Nov 15, 2012, 8:10:05 PM11/15/12
to
TV untill recently. I had to look him up to find out who he
was and what he ever did (nothing anyone normal would be interested in).
So I thinkt he answer is he was not more likly to see him on TV as he
was to see u or i.
R. Giggs.
Nov 15, 2012, 8:14:50 PM11/15/12
to
"Yellow" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2b0df84dc...@News.Individual.NET...
R. Giggs.
Nov 15, 2012, 8:17:52 PM11/15/12
to
news:MPG.2b0e2f9b4...@News.Individual.NET...
NO probs I will do it for him.
If you wanted to solicit a response from him and him alone you should
email him persoannly.
Anyhow, it's not a crime to speak when not spoken to, well not yet.
If you wanted to solicit a response from him and him alone you should
email him persoannly.
Anyhow, it's not a crime to speak when not spoken to, well not yet.
Steerpike
Nov 16, 2012, 2:51:43 AM11/16/12
to cyni...@yahoo.co.uk
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
> Do you have any evidence to support your accusation? Or are you just
>
> trying to deflect guilt from yourself?
>
>
>
> --
>
> Cynic
0 new messages