A PDF of this document is available here.
The logical structure of the
possible conversation explanations
Notes on the possible explanations
1. Some/all participants have at least some specific
memories of the conversation.
In order to know that Linda’s testimony is not correct there must be some clear memory of the conversation.
If 1 is correct and these two alternate testimonies as to
the facts of the conversation exist then
·
I do not see any
alternative but one or other of the two parties is actually bearing false
witness.
·
Why has an explanation of
this conversation not been provided to A&L and why the denial of its
reality?
·
Why has JT no memory of
this and apparently no ability to provide a sensible explanation of what
actually happened?
|
Update July 2024 from interactions with John Tredgett in June 2024 John, When we last talked face to face and you left 226 Lowry
Hill Road... I said that I was faced with a choice of believing that you were
bearing false witness or believing that Linda was bearing false witness. You said that those were not the only two options. Can
you explain to me what you meant? Andrew Option three: the conversation occurred but I
just didn’t recall it (and still don’t). I think confusion occurred around the phrase ‘it didn’t
happen’. If I ever used those words in isolation, what I meant was that as
far as I recall, it didn’t happen. We often talk about past events with certainty (e.g.
‘I’ve never been to Whitehaven’), when technically we should always preface
them with ‘As far as I recall…’ or ‘To the best of my knowledge…’ I’m happy to accept that this conversation happened, if
Linda is sure of what she overheard. I’ve never thought she’s a liar. Hope that helps. John John Tredgett says
“he never thought that Linda was lying” and he testifies that “he has no memory whatsoever” of any conversation with Audrey on the evening of 19th
November 2023 (despite the fact that the news that they would be attending
the “members meeting” the next day was communicated that evening and he was
aware that they would be coming to the “members meeting” the next day.) His
explanation (in the above email to me) that his words on 21st December (“I've just
checked with Audrey to see if she recalled the conversation. Either we are
both going mad or the conversation didn't take place.”) meant: “I've
just checked with Audrey to see if she recalled the conversation. Either we
are both going mad or as far as I
recall, it didn’t happen.” OR I've just checked with Audrey
to see if she recalled the conversation. Either we are both going mad or to the best of my knowledge it didn’t take place” Both of these possible explanations of what he meant are
clearly nonsense! Given that… (a) John testified and testifies that he had and has
no memory whatsoever of the conversation he had to get from Audrey the
clearest possible certainty that the conversation did not take place. This
does mean checking the exact words that he had been given with Audrey and it
means her denying that these words were used as well as denying that this
conversation (that Linda is testifying about) really took place. Audrey is
now testifying that she had and has no such certainty and is in fact aware to
some degree of the conversation that took place. Given this fact it seems
that the certainty that John expressed cannot have come from Audrey. (b) John felt it appropriate to give me the two options of (i) combined madness of him and Audrey (I take this to be one of the strongest possible assertions of certainty that a human being can use) or (ii) the conversation did not take place. There is no wiggle room in his original words for the explanatory additions that he now thinks are appropriate. If he is now saying that the certainty he expressed back then was inappropriate he needs to realise that his inappropriate use of language to imply certainty for which he had no basis at that moment was comprehensively disastrous and sinful. It was experienced as a direct assault on our commitment to the reality of personal experience and integrity. It was experienced as a horrible assault on our sanity. This was also experienced as an assault that was from combined testimony of professing Christians. He does need to acknowledge this and confess it and repent of it. If he does so he can be 100% assured of our forgiveness and support as well as God’s. John also needs to make clear testimony to what Audrey said to him in that “checking conversation” that resulted in this disaster. It seems to us that both Audrey and Malcolm need to look carefully at their role in this disaster as well as John Crosby and possibly Joan Crosby too. We do need to hear the details of what happened in the lead up to the disastrous “members meeting” and we need to know the details (as much as can now be ascertained) of what took place in that meeting. If John is totally innocent here and he really does have a “complete memory loss situation” can he at least explain what happened with regards to the invitation to Malcolm and Audrey and his awareness of their agreement to attend? Can he also provide us with any information regarding what the “checking conversation” contained from Audrey that allowed him to become so certain despite his complete memory lapse (which I still find odd and difficult to comprehend… it seems a very strange kind of memory lapse to me) that the conversation (the words of which I had given to him) did not take place. |
3. If the conversation did not happen…
· Linda is either bearing a very well worked out and elaborate false witness. This is entirely out of character and astonishing. I will never believe it.
· Andrew bears witness that Linda had no other channel of data reception with regards to “a young man who was an American” at Edward Street. Is Andrew also bearing false witness with regards to this too?
· Bryony is also bearing false witness – she knows that there was a lengthy conversation between John and Audrey that evening.
· the “in relation GEC” caveat seems inexplicable in Malcolm and Audrey Noble’s letter.
· How was the agreement to attend the members meeting communicated to the two remaining elders that evening if it was not in this conversation?
· Why has it been extraordinarily difficult for me to discover exactly what has been going on? Why the secrecy and evasiveness? If it was a genuine concern for my mental health why has no-one discussed this with me? Why are my immediate family and friends unaware of this serious mental health problem? Is it still an issue all these month later?
· Matthew and Janet Vogan’s attempted reconstruction of the conversation (and now Ruth Collin’s testimony to what Audrey is now reporting) does seem to indicate that they all understand that some kind of conversation did occur that evening which Linda overheard.
No comments:
Post a Comment