Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jeb

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 23, 2014, 01:15:54 PM »
Hi GG

(Fortunately, I was able to see Jackie's episode last night.)

Thank you for your post.  It is appreciated. 
Both of Dr Mikes suspects are high on my list of "10 good POI's," and they have been for a long time.  There were no surprises.  (My mother spoke with X's mother in the 1970's and I spoke with a sibling of X's early in 2006.)  But I found the geographical profile very compelling.  In fact, I found it "absolutely astounding." 

2
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 06, 2014, 09:21:15 PM »
The more I compare the picture with the sketch the more I find them eerily similar.

3
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 06, 2014, 07:37:29 PM »
The last post should have read "picture in Jackie's diary," not sketch in Jackie's diary.  Sorry.

4
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 06, 2014, 07:33:45 PM »
It wouldn't hurt for Donna Jean's family to have a look at the sketch in Jackie's diary.  In my opinion it's comparable to the one on their site right now, considering the age difference.  (1969 and 1983.)  My opinion only.

5
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 06, 2014, 07:15:04 PM »
Some interesting similarities between Jackie, LW and SO.  All three girls were picked up in areas where the bus system had ended. All three girls were supposed to have been hitchhikers.  Jackie and LW were both dumped in the same general area SE of London.  LW and SO were both covered with brush (not completely sure of that but I believe that's what I read in the LFP.)  Jackie also had a friend who had a family member who worked at the university.  There was also a picture of a young man sitting on a stone fence in Jackie's diary.  The stone fence looked like the type of structure you might find on the university campus although I could never find it, if it was.  Could never find an age related picture to compare to the picture in her diary.  With a bit of luck the picture might wind up on Jackie's episode. 

6
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 05, 2014, 04:12:07 PM »
Hi Chickapey:

Not to worry.  I won't actually get to see Jackie's episode until sometime next year.

Hi rkay: 

I just wanted to let you know that I can't thank you enough for everything you've done for Jackie.  You have stepped back from the board but you are the true hero here.  Again, I can't thank you enough.  These words just don't seem to express my gratitude, but again, Thank you.

7
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 04, 2014, 12:10:50 PM »
10.  Ruth Fryer also gave the police a stenciled envelope that she claimed the liability certificate and the greeting card came in.  In my opinion, there are only three ways for the envelope to get into the Fryer's house.

a.  if it was the envelope containing the Life subscription folder that the Johnson's and Betty Harrison claimed they sent to Fryer.

b.  if Glen Fryer mailed it to himself (for the postmark) with the liability certificate and the greeting card inside because he did unwittingly return the Life folder to Betty Harrison's mailbox, as she claimed.  (In other words this would have been done to confuse the issue of what had been mailed to him.)

c.  if it was mailed to him with the liability certificate and the greeting card inside (as he claimed) by either the Harrison's or the Johnson's.

11.  So then:

a.  if it was the envelope containing the Life subscription folder..., then the liability certificate and the greeting card were already in Fryer's possession, and therefore Fryer is guilty.

b.  if Glen Fryer mailed it to himself, then he's guilty.

c.  if it was mailed to him with the liability certificate and the greeting card inside, as he stated, then once again the only possibility that makes sense to me is, that the Johnson's sent it to him to compile more damning evidence against him.

12.  This proof basically just mimics the trial.  Either Fryer is guilty or he was being framed.  But what it does do that doesn't sit right with me, is that it seems to eliminate all other suspects.  So as I've already said, I'm sure the proof is flawed or the axioms are incorrect. Again, I look forward to seeing what other suspects Mike outs, in Jackie's episode. 

8
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:46:29 AM »
8.  According to Glen and Ruth Fryer, in mid April of1970, Glen received Betty Harrison's liability certificate in the mail.  It came with the greeting card "I don't feel safe around you anymore...."  At that time, only the police, the Harrison's and the Johnson's knew that Glen Fryer was a suspect in the attack on Betty Harrison.  Therefore, realistically, Betty Harrison's liability certificate could only have gotten into the Fryer's house in the following four ways:

a.  if Glen Fryer carried it in, or mailed it to himself.

b.  if an accomplice of Glen Fryer's carried it in, or mailed it to him.

c.  if the Harrison's mailed it to Glen Fryer.  (This method assumes that:

(i)  Betty Harrison believed that Fryer was guilty and she wanted to ensure his conviction, or

(ii)  that the Harrison's were framing Fryer.)

d.  if the Johnson's mailed it to Glen Fryer.

9.  So then:

a.  if Glen Fryer carried it in or mailed it to himself, then (by definition) he (Fryer) and an accomplice are guilty.

b.  if an accomplice of Glen Fryer's carried it in or mailed it to him, then (by definition) Fryer and an accomplice are guilty.

And this is where the three cards and the threatening letter become important.

c.  if the Harrison's mailed it to Glen Fryer without the greeting card, then the greeting card belonged to Fryer, and therefore Fryer is guilty.  If the Harrison's mailed it to Glen Fryer with the greeting card, then they also mailed Betty Harrison the "In Deepest Sympathy" card on the day that she was attacked.  Since this makes no sense at all, it didn't happen.

d.  if the Johnson's mailed it to Glen Fryer without the greeting card, then the greeting card belonged to Fryer, and therefore Fryer is guilty.  If the Johnson's mailed it to Glen Fryer with the greeting card, then they also mailed Betty Harrison the "In Deepest Sympathy" card on the day she was attacked , and this is quite possible.  However, it also means that they dropped the "since I last saw you...." card into Betty's car in May, and that they mailed the threatening letter to her in early July.  However, this doesn't make sense, because (in this scenario) the Johnson's and Harrison's had been working together against Fryer since February, and he had been charged in late April.  So why now would the Johnson's be threatening Betty Harrison again.  (The only, only, only possible reasons that I can see for the Johnson's to send the last two communications to Betty Harrison, would be to compile more damning evidence against Fryer, or if Betty Harrison was getting cold feet about the upcoming preliminary hearing.   

9
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 04, 2014, 11:08:08 AM »
4.  The following card was turned over to the police by Ruth Fryer on April 26, 1970; the day Glen Fryer was arrested.

a.  a humorous card which read something to the effect of "I don't feel safe around you anymore," and then upon opening the card, "you've got my combination."

This card was turned over to the police together with Betty Harrison's missing liability certificate.  According to Ruth Fryer they were received together in the mail in mid April, 1970.

5.  Apparently, Betty Harrison's antagonist had a sadistic sense of humor and his chosen method for communicating with Betty (and according to Ruth Fryer, with Glen Fryer as well) was by way of greeting cards and letters.  In my opinion the three cards all came from the same person;  Betty Harrison's antagonist.

6.  The "In Deepest Sympathy" card and the death threat sent to Betty in early July, both came in handwritten envelopes.  An expert witness at the trial testified that he couldn't say for sure that the handwriting on the envelopes belonged to Glen Fryer but he also couldn't say for sure that it didn't.  This leads me to the assumption that the handwriting on both envelopes was the same, and therefore the card and the death threat must have come from the same person; Betty Harrison's antagonist.

7.  Since the three cards came from the same person, and since one of those cards and the death threat also came from the same person, then all three cards as well as the death threat must have come from the same person; Betty Harrison's antagonist.

10
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 04, 2014, 10:45:50 AM »
I'm hoping someone will find a flaw or tell me that my axioms are unreasonable.

"Throughout the evidence I waited for some single bit of evidence on which an unchallengeable verdict could be given as to guilt or innocence.  Fingerprint evidence did not materialize, and the handwriting evidence simply fizzled out because of the inability of identification.  And as strong as the circumstantial evidence is and as compelling as the identification of Mrs. Harrison may be, in order to banish any reasonable doubt from my mind I would have to completely disbelieve the alibi evidence.  Suspicious of it I am.  But the greatest suspicion is not sufficient for conviction in a criminal case.  I am unable to say I totally disbelieve Mrs. Fryer's evidence regarding her husband's presence between 6 and 6:30 p.m. on Dec. 11th, particularly the manner and the timing in which it was given, and thus I have a reasonable doubt, which must be resolved in favor of the accused."  Judge Colter

1.  First of all, and this thought is only subjective in nature, I have always felt that Betty Harrison's visit out to the Children's Psychiatric Research Institute was not a coincidence.  I have always held the belief that she went there (with her boss as a safety net) to indirectly confront her antagonist - whether it be the Johnson's or Glen Fryer.  Her hope being, that by physically confronting her antagonist in a public place, she would be letting (them) know that she knew, who, he or she was.  And of course the thought was that this would put an end to the harassment.

a.  If her antagonist was one of the Johnson's, then Betty went out to the CPRI to let Dianna Johnson know, that she knew who they were.  But Betty also wanted to know what the Johnson's wanted from her, or what she needed to do in order to have the harassment stop.

b.  If her antagonist was Glen Fryer, then Betty went out to the CPRI to let him know that she knew who he was, in the hope that this might stop the harassment.

2.  If paragraph 1 is true, then the fact that Betty Harrison could not just go to the police and have her antagonist arrested, would seem to prove almost conclusively that she was protecting someone involved in Jackie's murder.

3.  According to testimony given at the trial, Betty Harrison's antagonist mailed numerous cards and notes to her.  Some she allegedly burned, others she kept and turned over to the police.  The three turned over to the police, are as follows:

a.  an "In Deepest Sympathy" card received in her mail December 11, 1969; the day she was attacked.

b.  a humorous greeting card which read something to the effect of "Since I last saw you I've been doing a little bit of this and a little bit of that, but mostly the other thing."  She found this in her car, (which was parked at a shopping plaza) in early May of 1970.

c.  a letter which read something to the effect of "Coming soon, your death.  Not today perhaps, not tomorrow, but soon, very soon.  Whether you spend it at the beach, or in the backyard, get the most out of your summer, after all, it's short enough."  This was confiscated by the police (from Betty's personal mail) at the post office in early July of 1970.     

11
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 04, 2014, 09:49:13 AM »
Going back to the BH trial, GF's defense was that he was being framed.  And the only reason (I can see) for BH to frame him, would be to protect someone close to her, or to get someone else that she was terrified of, to stop harassing her.  Nothing new here.  Since Project Angel in the late nineties, I have been searching for what Judge Colter was searching for.  That one piece of evidence, either way, that says yay or nay.  Three years ago I found the proof (a proof) that narrows BH's attacker down to two people.  It more or less eliminates from the framing scenario, the "to get someone else that she was terrified of, to stop harassing her".  However, with at least a handful of other good suspects out there, I believed (and also wanted to believe and still want to believe) that my proof must be flawed, or that one of its axioms must be incorrect.  However with Jackie's episode fast approaching (and after watching Donna Jeans episode) I truly believe that Dr Mike and his team has outted all of the "real" possible suspects.  So there's no reason to sit on my proof any longer.  Here it is.

12
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 03, 2014, 11:50:59 AM »
Thanks Debbie.

13
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 02, 2014, 09:33:59 PM »
Thanks Chickapey.  Much appreciated.

14
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 02, 2014, 09:02:08 PM »
For you Chickapey:
A letter from my mother to me in the mid 70's.

Dear Bus:

You have just left about 1 1/2 hrs. ago, and I just want to let you know I miss you.  You see I never told Jackie that - that I loved her and missed her, so I don't want to make the same mistake twice.  (And of course the letter goes on, but that"s what I wanted you to see.)

15
London / Re: Jacqueline English - London, ON - Murdered - 1969
« on: March 02, 2014, 08:47:24 PM »
Hi Chickapey:

After over 10 years Jackie's friend's story about Victoria Park and the Pinery chase have not changed.  Liars can't keep their stories straight.  So what are we to make of post #204 and the "murderous pact" that the crew came out of their two month PMing session with.  The crew's old way of handling the many discrepancies was to take what facts worked for the theory and ignore the rest.  I guess we really have to wonder who the liar is here.

But yes Chickapey, I was and am very impressed with Mike and his team.  Just to remind you, I am Jackie's brother and we were very close. If you talked to V you will know this. V is a wonderful person.  She had to be, she was Jackie's best friend and a close friend of mine.  But the point I'm making here, is that I can and do understand what the Awcock family are going through right now.  Hopefully Justice for Donna and some sort of closure is not far off for the family.

Chickapey, you have been very kind and I would like to share a letter that my mother wrote to me in the mid 70's.  Will have to dig it up first though.   

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7