Author Topic: Forensic Evidence  (Read 894 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 49241
Re: Forensic Evidence
« Reply #30 on: December 11, 2020, 11:34:AM »
Blood poured from the second bullet entry wound to her neck long after bloodied fingermarks were inserted on her neck!

Police took the relevant photograph...

Sheila was still bleeding at the time they took crime scene photographs...

She could only have died a maximum of 16 - 30 minutes prior to the taking of the crucial photograph. This means that if we go along with the fabricated account that PC Bird took the first crime scene photographs from 10.00am, onwards, that Sheila died at around 9.30am, that same morning, which equates to some two hours (7.30am - 9.30am) after the police first forced their way into the farmhouse at 7.30am...
On the other hand, if Headquarters SOCO took photographs during an hour long period between 9.00am - 10.00am, when senior officers performed and carried out police 'informatives', it means that Sheila died after 8.30am, or sometime between then and 9.30am...

JEREMY BAMBER. could not therefore have been responsible for killing her!!!
« Last Edit: December 12, 2020, 01:50:AM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1596
Re: Forensic Evidence
« Reply #31 on: December 11, 2020, 07:14:PM »
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort.

"The Gish Gallop should not be confused with the argumentum ad nauseam, in which the same point is repeated many times. In a Gish Gallop, many bullshit points are given all at once."

"Gish Gallops are almost always performed with numerous other logical fallacies baked in. The myriad component arguments constituting the Gallop may typically intersperse a few perfectly uncontroversial claims — the basic validity of which are intended to lend undue credence to the Gallop at large — with a devious hodgepodge of half-truths, outright lies, red herrings and straw men — which, if not rebutted as the fallacies they are, pile up into egregious problems for the refuter."

There's an opening for Adam with Amazon Alexa, I should think.  A licensing opportunity perhaps.

"Alexa, I've just been binge watching the TV series again.  Tell me what forensic evidence there is for Jeremy Bamber's guilt?"

Alexa: "In Adam's 86 Pieces of Evidence That Prove Jeremy Did It......."

"No, Alexa.  No.  Not that one...Not again, please..."

Alexa: "Your Amazon settings confirm you are a glutton for punishment, which is why I will be reading out all of Adam's 86 Pieces of Evidence That Prove Jeremy Did It.  You know you like it really.  Say 'Yes' to continue, or 'No' to review your settings..."
« Last Edit: December 11, 2020, 07:15:PM by QCChevalier »