Lest We Forget...................

[lookout]

Why don't you post the relevant part instead of sounding so pompous..

Steve, pompous doesn't bother me but lack of common sense does. Or as Mrs Foakes described, gumption.

[guest29835]

Again, common sense would dictate that the rim itself would have the paint adhered to it.

But it didn't.

[guest29835]

Why don't you post the relevant part instead of sounding so pompous..

Because all the information is on this site, weirdo, and I expect people who make such statements to back them up.

Adam hasn't looked at the evidence.

Lookout hasn't looked at the evidence.

What am I supposed to think?

[guest29835]

Steve, pompous doesn't bother me but lack of common sense does. Or as Mrs Foakes described, gumption.

You haven't looked at the evidence, Lookout.

Your belief in Jeremy's innocence is just an article of faith.  It's not rational.

You're no more worthy of the words of Sir Frederick Lawrence than other ignoramuses on here like Jane and Steve.

Sorry if I offend you, but I am right in what I say.  You're ignorant, Lookout.  You're also offending me by implying that I'm pompous.  It's not 'pompous' to expect people to look at evidence. 

If you don't want to look at the evidence or haven't, why not just admit it?  Why are you being dishonest and pretending?

[Steve_uk]

Funny whenever you scarper you imply that your time is more valuable than everyone else's. If you wish to reinforce your argument you would cut and paste the relevant section from where you are looking.

[Caroline]

Steve, pompous doesn't bother me but lack of common sense does. Or as Mrs Foakes described, gumption.

Here Lookout, I know you have seen this before but here's a refresh.

[lookout]

You haven't looked at the evidence, Lookout.

Your belief in Jeremy's innocence is just an article of faith.  It's not rational.

You're no more worthy of the words of Sir Frederick Lawrence than other ignoramuses on here like Jane and Steve.

Sorry if I offend you, but I am right in what I say.  You're ignorant, Lookout.  You're also offending me by implying that I'm pompous.  It's not 'pompous' to expect people to look at evidence. 

If you don't want to look at the evidence or haven't, why not just admit it?  Why are you being dishonest and pretending?

Blimey, who rattled your cage ?
Now how did I know you were going to answer in such a way ? Mmm. True colours spring to mind in a character such as yourself !

Where has all this abuse come from towards a person you know nothing about ?What's your problem ?

I'm not irrational.
I'm not dishonest.
I don't pretend.

Is it that you feel superior against us mere mortals on this forum ? Because that's what it looks like from where I'm sitting. Do you have to know everything to avoid going into a strop ?

If I wish to know what evidence is the right evidence I'll await the answer from the proper quarters and it's not yours.

[Roch]

gumption.

Is a term I would associate with Jeremy's uncle Bobby and his clan.  They had the gumption to get this prosecution off the ground, by hook or by crook.

Senior detective standing in the way? You know what the Sicillians say? 'Remove the person, remove the problem'

Lack of material evidence a barrier?...

[lookout]

Is a term I would associate with Jeremy's uncle Bobby and his clan.  They had the gumption to get this prosecution off the ground, by hook or by crook.

Senior detective standing in the way? You know what the Sicillians say? 'Remove the person, remove the problem'

Lack of material evidence a barrier?...

You're telling me.

[lookout]

Here Lookout, I know you have seen this before but here's a refresh.

Thanks Caroline---the paint is still on the edge as I'd stated.

[Caroline]

Thanks Caroline---the paint is still on the edge as I'd stated.

You're welcome Lookout.

[guest7363]

So have you read the forensic examination record or not?  If you haven't, that would explain why you don't see what the issue is.  The issue is that the paint was found on the knurled ribbon of the silencer at the muzzle end, and the scratch marks could not have been made by that part of the silencer, and since it's at the muzzle end, the silencer would have needed to be held flat to the aga surround despite being on the rifle, which is virtually impossible.  Or at least, it seems that way to me.  Do you have an explanation? 

It seems to me you don't, because you haven't read the primary sources, so we're at cross-purposes: you want to discuss this case based on received wisdom, whereas I consider the primary sources and make up my own mind, whether for or against Jeremy or something else.  What, then, is there for us to discuss?  To be honest, I don't quite understand why you're here, Adam, but that's your affair.  You're immovable because you're just relying on what you've been told and won't question it.

I don’t follow you I’m sorry, why would the silencer need to be held flat to the arga surround?  It’s showing the paint on the side of the silencer the knurled edge, the part that would be more abrasive than a flat surface?  This means it could have glanced down sideways past the aga in a struggle?

[Jane]

You haven't looked at the evidence, Lookout.

Your belief in Jeremy's innocence is just an article of faith.  It's not rational.

You're no more worthy of the words of Sir Frederick Lawrence than other ignoramuses on here like Jane and Steve.

Sorry if I offend you, but I am right in what I say.  You're ignorant, Lookout.  You're also offending me by implying that I'm pompous.  It's not 'pompous' to expect people to look at evidence. 

If you don't want to look at the evidence or haven't, why not just admit it?  Why are you being dishonest and pretending?

I'm not sure how much more pompous you can be, but I expect you'll show us! You award yourself a bogus title which epitomises pomposity and sit in selfrighteous judgement with biblical condemnation. Your claims of impartiality look more like the vengeful playing of both ends against the middle.

We now have the juxtaposition of the offender, who seems to believe it's his God-given right to name posters as ignorant and ignoramuses, being offended. Is it not reasonable to accept that which you throw out shall come back in abundance?

Possibly, it's the effects of the bogus title adding flatulence to your ego -and you have the temerity to accuse others of dishonesty!!!!!- enabling you to hide behind it, but whilst you accuse, deride, poke fun, and demand answers, you refuse to answer questions about accusations you throw out. Just to remind you:- "Guilters deodorize Julie and Colin.............". Despite numerous requests for you to provide incidences of such, you decline to answer. For one who's spent so much time trolling through past posts to use against others, I wouldn't have thought, despite the likelihood of the post being years old, it would have been beyond you to find something.

[lookout]

Well that should dampen down his bumptiousness Jane 

[JackieD]

Well that should dampen down his bumptiousness Jane 

I enjoy his bumptiousness much more than Janes biased downright rudeness. She needs to get a life rather than constant forum hopping and changing her name

I love the way QC challenges his guilty theories