Message from discussion McALpine mystery.
Received: by 10.180.95.227 with SMTP id dn3mr859318wib.1.1353230370156;
Sun, 18 Nov 2012 01:19:30 -0800 (PST)
From: "R. Giggs." <co...@trunt.com>
References: <luaos.262389$W63.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: McALpine mystery.
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Trace: 1352745006 18.104.22.168 (Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:30:06 UTC)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:30:06 UTC
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:30:11 -0000
"Mentalguy2k8" <Mentalguy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> "R. Giggs." <co...@trunt.com> wrote in message
>> 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.
> He reckons the Police told him the man he'd identified in a photo (of his
> 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?"
Right so we are supposed to belive that somehwo he produced a photograph
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
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
about this whole thing, they want to do anything but investigate the real
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?