Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Not to be read by Jonathan King !
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Anon |
Matt wrote:
If it's an anomymous letter how do they know the police didn't plant it or that it's not a fake? Doesn't it seem really convenient for the police that the letter was sent the same time he was being investigated even though it supposedly occured over 34 years ago? Were they able to track down the woman who wrote letter? Another thing that I find odd is all the assaults that he is being accused of are alleged to have happened 30 or more years ago so there is no way any of this could be proved with physical evidence. Why no recent cases? If he was a predatory pedophile why would he just suddenly stop? And why is it that all these accusers come out at exactly the same time? It's as if they are all being coached.
You ask all the questions anyone with an ounce of sense would be asking...  |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
Matt wrote:
If it's an anomymous letter how do they know the police didn't plant it or that it's not a fake? Doesn't it seem really convenient for the police that the letter was sent the same time he was being investigated even though it supposedly occured over 34 years ago? Were they able to track down the woman who wrote letter? Another thing that I find odd is all the assaults that he is being accused of are alleged to have happened 30 or more years ago so there is no way any of this could be proved with physical evidence. Why no recent cases? If he was a predatory pedophile why would he just suddenly stop? And why is it that all these accusers come out at exactly the same time? It's as if they are all being coached.
And how convenient that Max Clifford (despite all his knowledge of police and media) left it lying around in his bedside cabinet.
I wonder if the sender of the letter happened to be a policewoman in the investigating police force? |
|
Matt |
If it's an anomymous letter how do they know the police didn't plant it or that it's not a fake? Doesn't it seem really convenient for the police that the letter was sent the same time he was being investigated even though it supposedly occured over 34 years ago? Were they able to track down the woman who wrote letter? Another thing that I find odd is all the assaults that he is being accused of are alleged to have happened 30 or more years ago so there is no way any of this could be proved with physical evidence. Why no recent cases? If he was a predatory pedophile why would he just suddenly stop? And why is it that all these accusers come out at exactly the same time? It's as if they are all being coached. |
|
In The Know |
Maxie makes most of the front pages - I bet he wishes he could have spun these stories |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
In The Know wrote:
(I'm worried in case the excitement gets the better of him !)
==
Prosecutor Rosina Cottage read excerpts of the letter as the trial of the 70-year-old got under way at Southwark Crown Court.
The court was told the note sent to Clifford's Central London office said: "You used me, you abused me, you upset me. You are a vile and horrible man. It has taken me 35 years to write this letter.
"It is dangerous if it were to fall into wrong hands and too serious not to inform you. You befriended my parents, told them I could have a modelling career, they were impressed by you, even though no one had heard of you.
"The abuse started in your office, you told me to strip, you took pleasure in degrading me, abusing me. You are repulsive and vile."
It added that Clifford was a "paedophile who condemned others in a double bluff".
news.sky.com/story/1221742/max-clifford-...e-abused-me-upset-me
In hindsight we see that it is wrong, but fifteen years old was considered quite normal in 1977, just as speeding is considered a minor offence that everyone does today.
If she was stupid enough and trashy enough to fall for the "casting couch" line, more fool her! |
|
|
|
