The Baffling Mystery Of The Blood In The Silencer

[Adam]

The relatives would need to do the following things. I have added a few things -


Have the idea.

Agree with each other to attempt this. Knowing the consequences if caught.

Agree with each other to attempt this knowing how much work will be needed & how much they need to find out.

Know if successful, it still may not convict Bamber if there is strong evidence incriminating Sheila.

Know Sheila had received contact shots.

Know whether the other deceased people received contact shots.

Know where each person's contact shots were. Some areas are more likely to provide back splatter.

Know there was no blood on the rifle barrel.

Know Sheila could not shoot herself with the silencer attached.

Know a silencer was not found next to Sheila.

Know about back splatter.

Know how to insert back splatter.

Know Sheila's blood group.

Know the blood group of the other deceased people.

Know whether any of themselves had the same blood group as Sheila.

Know there was no other evidence which incriminated Sheila.

Know the crime scene photographs did not show the aga.

Know there was a kitchen fight where the rifle was used.

Know whether the silencers had already been looked at by police.

Believe the police will bother to do something once they receive the silencer.

Act quickly & submit the silencer straight away. Time was not on their side.

Accept they may be wrong & Sheila may be guilty. Meaning they are attempting to frame an innocent man.

Accept a free Bamber may attempt revenge if he finds out the relatives turned on him.

Not retract a word of their statements.

----------

[Steve_uk]

If you are referring again to me, my quip was just humour, vulgar or not.  Vulgarity can be funny. What's wrong with being funny and making people laugh?

Can't we lighten the mood with some humour once in a while?  It's normal and natural for people to do this.

Inappropriate humour is anyway a typical English trait.  If I want to add a bit of black humour, I will, and humour isn't humorous unless it's offensive to somebody. 

The problem is that you're not normal, Steve.  You're a bossy pompous Puritan who wants to tell other people what they should post on here out of some weird notion that you are a moral policeman. 

This, I believe, comes from your background in teaching.  It's a common thing among teachers and ex-teachers.  You have spent your life talking down to people half your height and this transfers into your dealings generally.  You forget that we're adults, and I for one don't appreciate your attitude.  If, however, the moderators agree with you, then it's their prerogative, and by all means I will cease posting.

In any case, you yourself have indulged in humour on here many, many times and made far worse comments.  Would you like me to quote some of your comments from the past? It could be embarrassing, as it would reveal what a sanctimonious bullying hypocrite you are.

Sorry, you are a pestilential irritation and I really should ignore you, but I must defend myself.

I was referring to #75. We're all entitled to free speech; I just happen to believe that a line was crossed. I'm entitled to my own opinion. Teachers pick up many social problems which stem from the breakdown of society. It wasn't like this as recently as the 1950s. Call me sanctimonious if you like.

As for you being a father of four and a grandfather to boot I couldn't care less about your provenance, though I would have thought that if any of your children had been murdered in their beds by gunfire you might have a little more empathy for those who believe Jeremy Bamber guilty.

The fact that Julie was a teacher and came from my neighbourhood is the main reason I became interested in the case. Take me warts and all. I really don't wish to cause personal offence.

[Steve_uk]

Re: #90. Some good points Adam. How on earth did the relatives know Sheila's blood group?

[Adam]

Re: #90. Some good points Adam. How on earth did the relatives know Sheila's blood group?

Thanks. A lot of the things they would need to find out would be crime scene evidence. Which they would not be able to find out.

They would then need to find out everyone's blood group. Then find out each others blood groups to see if any of them matches Sheila.

These will be after the relatives had the idea and confidence to attempt the frame. The idea would only come about if they already knew about back splatter.

[Steve_uk]

You are, quite simply, a lying, two-faced, sanctimonious, bullying, lying, hypocrite.  And a liar.  Oh, and you're a liar.  And you're a hypocrite. 

A lying, liar.  A two-faced sanctimonious, judgemental, grandstanding bully who hides behind a computer issuing rebukes when you yourself have done far, far worse things.

In other words, you are a typical priggish, hypocritical, sanctimonious, boring, humourless, middle-class twonk.

You're also thick.

If you don't want to be offended, then stop issuing offence.  Stop replying to my posts.  Stop disrupting threads.

Again I'll let the membership as a whole decide. Many of the issues you've brought up have been dealt with previously the eight years I've been here. Your take on the case has been refreshing at times, even though it has been sometimes accompanied by abuse.

You have dealt with a few points of law in the short time you've been here. Just to let you know that the law on commorientes has been touched upon here before but I'm sure you'll get round to it before long.

[guest29835]

I was referring to #75. We're all entitled to free speech; I just happen to believe that a line was crossed. I'm entitled to my own opinion. Teachers pick up many social problems which stem from the breakdown of society. It wasn't like this as recently as the 1950s. Call me sanctimonious if you like.

As for you being a father of four and a grandfather to boot I couldn't care less about your provenance, though I would have thought that if any of your children had been murdered in their beds by gunfire you might have a little more empathy for those who believe Jeremy Bamber guilty.

The fact that Julie was a teacher and came from my neighbourhood is the main reason I became interested in the case. Take me warts and all. I really don't wish to cause personal offence.

I haven't mentioned being a "father of four and a grandfather to boot".  You must be fantasising again, Julie, sorry, Steve. 

You ARE causing personal offence because you are attacking posters.  Not just me, but other people.  It's a pattern in your behaviour. 

You are doing this intentionally and your actions are by design.

I believe you came to this Forum in 2012 to intentionally disrupt it.  I have researched the history of the Forum and looked through the posts and noticed patterns. One pattern is that a group of people, including you, came on board around that time and started causing trouble and breaking up threads.

I didn't come on here causing trouble.  You brought the trouble to me.

As for you being sanctimonious, it's not just that, it's also that you are a hypocrite and a liar.

You act as a forum policeman but you yourself have posted things that could be interpreted as far more offensive than anything I posted above.  To me, you come across as a typical middle-class prig who goes round lecturing people who you think are beneath you while behaving far worse yourself.

I am offended by that and I think you should stop!  It smacks of some sort of superiority complex, but I think in your case it reflects a need to exercise authority over a classroom.  We're not your classroom.  This is a group of adults on a discussion forum.  Please approach us accordingly and end your condescending attitude.

You are also a liar.  You tell lies about the case and make things up, which is very unprofessional and not becoming of somebody who seeks to lecture others about their moral deportment.

Thank you.

[Steve_uk]

I haven't mentioned being a "father of four and a grandfather to boot".  You must be fantasising again, Julie, sorry, Steve. 

You ARE causing personal offence because you are attacking posters.  Not just me, but other people.  It's a pattern in your behaviour. 

You are doing this intentionally and your actions are by design.

I believe you came to this Forum in 2012 to intentionally disrupt it.  I have researched the history of the Forum and looked through the posts and noticed patterns. One pattern is that a group of people, including you, came on board around that time and started causing trouble and breaking up threads.

I didn't come on here causing trouble.  You brought the trouble to me.

As for you being sanctimonious, it's not just that, it's also that you are a hypocrite and a liar.

You act as a forum policeman but you yourself have posted things that could be interpreted as far more offensive than anything I posted above.  To me, you come across as a typical middle-class prig who goes round lecturing people who you think are beneath you while behaving far worse yourself.

I am offended by that and I think you should stop!  It smacks of some sort of superiority complex, but I think in your case it reflects a need to exercise authority over a classroom.  We're not your classroom.  This is a group of adults on a discussion forum.  Please approach us accordingly and end your condescending attitude.

You are also a liar.  You tell lies about the case and make things up, which is very unprofessional and not becoming of somebody who seeks to lecture others about their moral deportment.

Thank you.

I really shouldn't bother to deign to reply. You've already called me thick this morning.

[guest29835]

I really shouldn't bother to deign to reply. You've already called me thick this morning.

I do maintain that you are a liar.  You do lie Steve.  It's not wrong or out-of-line to call you a liar if in fact that is what you are.  In fact, you are liar.

However, I should not have put up that earlier angry post, which I've deleted. I apologise for that, but to err is human.

At least I do apologise, Steve.  I have never seen an apology from you, ever.

The reason I am angry is that I can see clearly what you have been doing here for the past eight years.  It's disgusting.

Let me tell you that I do not for one moment believe that your connection to Julie Smerchanski is merely that you were brought up in the same neighbourhood.  You'll be telling us next you've got a car for sale on eBay and it's only done 10,000 miles.

If, in fact, you are telling the truth about that, then you must have mental problems - at a guess, some sort of personality disorder, in which case you need to speak to somebody, and the moderators here should not be indulging your mental health issues.

[Steve_uk]

The onus on you is to show where I have lied. You don't need to go to town: three examples will do. I'd also like the Moderators to use their blue crosses again on #97. I'm not surprised; it's what I've come to expect from you, unfortunately.

[guest29835]

The onus on you is to show where I have lied. You don't need to go to town: three examples will do. I'd also like the Moderators to use their blue crosses again on #97. I'm not surprised; it's what I've come to expect from you, unfortunately.

But I caught you in a lie above.  Anybody can look back at the thread and see. 

Yes, we shouldn't call each other liars, but that's on the assumption that the people sat round the table aren't liars in the first place.

If you're approaching a discussion in bad faith and attacking people, then any cultural precepts that support the discussion are kicked away. 

If you're a fraud, then you can hardly start shouting and screaming about people calling you a fraud.

If you're coming on here picking fights with people, you can hardly complain if people kick back at you.

If you lie - which you do - then don't complain if we call you a liar.

It's the height of pretension and hypocrisy to turn round and complain about it and appeal to the moderators, since you're the one who initiated the trouble.

At the end of the day, as I said on the other thread, a discussion with you is a Möbius strip - it goes nowhere.  You don't have any real interest in the case itself. 

You're here with a purpose, and once again, you've succeeded in destroying a thread and dragging me down to your level.  Well done.  Congratulations.

[guest29835]

Just for emphasis, I will repeat here some of what I said to you on the other thread.  This may be my last post on here, as I have had enough.

You claim you apologised to me previously.  As far as I am concerned, all statements from you should be treated as 'claims' unless accompanied by a notarisation from a registered notary public or some similar assurance.  In other words, I simply don't believe anything you say and will always require proof.

I don't remember the apology.  What I will say is that you completely ignore the fact that you started the trouble between us.

Although I think you are a lunatic, I also think you are here with a design and purpose and I would never accept an apology from you anyway.

As for what the moderators think, without wishing to seem critical, I think the moderators have to accept a large slice of responsibility for this ugly situation.  They are supposed to be encouraging critical discussion of the case and they should have reigned you in a long, long time ago.

The problem with being even-handed in moderation is that it renders you impotent and it allows the lowest common denominator to flourish.

That is what we now see here.

Regarding free speech, there is no such thing, anywhere.  There has never been such a thing in all human history.

The fact you think there is 'free speech' anywhere indicates you have a second-class mind, despite having letters after your name.  Discussion, if it is to be useful and worthwhile, has to take place within parameters.  Freedom is cultural.  It depends on an agreement about what 'discussion' and 'debate' is.  This dispute between you and I is a case in point.

You think discussion and debate involves picking fights with people, bravely hiding behind your computer.  That's not what I regard as discussion and debate of a matter such as this.  Thus, you can bleat on about free speech all you like, it's of absolutely no utility whatsoever.  To me, it's like seeing a sheep ba-ba-baaa'ing and having it called free speech. 

A monkey making monkey noises isn't worthwhile speech to me.  Maybe it is to you.  After all, the monkey is free to make monkey noises. So maybe that's freedom?  Maybe that's OK, for you?  Free speech, you say?  For me, it's not.  I'm not a monkey making monkey noises.  That's why I'm against so-called 'free speech'.  I believe that Man should progress, not regress.

[Steve_uk]

But I caught you in a lie above.  Anybody can look back at the thread and see. 

Yes, we shouldn't call each other liars, but that's on the assumption that the people sat round the table aren't liars in the first place.

If you're approaching a discussion in bad faith and attacking people, then any cultural precepts that support the discussion are kicked away. 

If you're a fraud, then you can hardly start shouting and screaming about people calling you a fraud.

If you're coming on here picking fights with people, you can hardly complain if people kick back at you.

If you lie - which you do - then don't complain if we call you a liar.

It's the height of pretension and hypocrisy to turn round and complain about it and appeal to the moderators, since you're the one who initiated the trouble.

At the end of the day, as I said on the other thread, a discussion with you is a Möbius strip - it goes nowhere.  You don't have any real interest in the case itself. 

You're here with a purpose, and once again, you've succeeded in destroying a thread and dragging me down to your level.  Well done.  Congratulations.

I asked you to give me three examples of where I have lied. It shouldn't be so difficult out of 12000 posts, should it?

[guest29835]

I asked you to give me three examples of where I have lied. It shouldn't be so difficult out of 12000 posts, should it?

You're joking, surely?  Virtually every post you make involves lying or dissembling in some way.  I suggest if anybody wants to see examples, just to click on your profile and search your posts.  Why should I post examples?  And I've given you an example anyway.

[Steve_uk]

Just for emphasis, I will repeat here some of what I said to you on the other thread.  This may be my last post on here, as I have had enough.

You claim you apologised to me previously.  As far as I am concerned, all statements from you should be treated as 'claims' unless accompanied by a notarisation from a registered notary public or some similar assurance.  In other words, I simply don't believe anything you say and will always require proof.

I don't remember the apology.  What I will say is that you completely ignore the fact that you started the trouble between us.

Although I think you are a lunatic, I also think you are here with a design and purpose and I would never accept an apology from you anyway.

As for what the moderators think, without wishing to seem critical, I think the moderators have to accept a large slice of responsibility for this ugly situation.  They are supposed to be encouraging critical discussion of the case and they should have reigned you in a long, long time ago.

The problem with being even-handed in moderation is that it renders you impotent and it allows the lowest common denominator to flourish.

That is what we now see here.

Regarding free speech, there is no such thing, anywhere.  There has never been such a thing in all human history.

The fact you think there is 'free speech' anywhere indicates you have a second-class mind, despite having letters after your name.  Discussion, if it is to be useful and worthwhile, has to take place within parameters.  Freedom is cultural.  It depends on an agreement about what 'discussion' and 'debate' is.  This dispute between you and I is a case in point.

You think discussion and debate involves picking fights with people, bravely hiding behind your computer.  That's not what I regard as discussion and debate of a matter such as this.  Thus, you can bleat on about free speech all you like, it's of absolutely no utility whatsoever.  To me, it's like seeing a sheep ba-ba-baaa'ing and having it called free speech. 

A monkey making monkey noises isn't worthwhile speech to me.  Maybe it is to you.  After all, the monkey is free to make monkey noises? So maybe that's freedom?  Maybe that's OK, for you?  Free speech, you say?  For me, it's not.  I'm not a monkey making monkey noises.  That's why I'm against so-called 'free speech'.  I don't believe that Man should regress back to the jungle, swinging from trees and making monkey noises.

I've told you before: I don't care whether you post or not, but if you post you should expect to be challenged. This site is not your personal plaything. My suspicion anyway is that you have run out of things to say, run out of ammunition and are hiding behind the subterfuge of using me as a scapegoat to retire gracefully, which would be a shame, despite your faults.

[guest29835]

I've told you before: I don't care whether you post or not, but if you post you should expect to be challenged. This site is not your personal plaything. My suspicion anyway is that you have run out of things to say, run out of ammunition and are hiding behind the subterfuge of using me as a scapegoat to retire gracefully, which would be a shame, despite your faults.

I repeat: I think you are an absolute, certified, fully signed-up mental case.

I have plenty to say, but I won't be dragged further into the thicket of the Briar patch by you.

I've been dragged down enough by you already.