You mean like this
"From what you say, you seem to think we're all puppets. That we have no emotions. You are correct in that they would have met at the funeral and the wake, although they probably weren't alone together in either of those places for long. It follows that, at a wake, even a tiny one held in JB's tiny cottage, people will have shared their thoughts and feelings. As they were mourning an entire family, which included two small boys, it's unlikely to have been a knees-up, don't you think? There will have been thoughts appropriate to the solemn occasion. Better to be qualified to understand what how people are most likely to act under given circumstances, than spout moronic facts which have been bent to how you'd have them be, eh?"
Get on with the riddle if you have the capacity. You are just looking for an argument rather than address the uncomfortable evidence I have presented that the police found DB1 on the day.
I will only respond to your posts that address this question and will not engage with your mischief making. I am interested in the facts of the case not the inner workings of your mind which are not about the case but how you cannot come to terms with your change in stance. I suggest this is what drives you.
So NOW who's putting their own interpretation on someone else's words, eh? Nowhere in that sentence do I make the claim of being "a qualified psychologist". Such are YOUR words, not mine. However, that I'm NOT -nor am I likely to be- "a qualified psychologist", it doesn't mean I'm not qualified to know "how most people would act under given circumstances". It's not particularly difficult. When the variables are removed, the alternatives/possibilities become limited.
That I'm "mischief making" is, AGAIN, something you've conjured up -I wonder what it is you seem convinced I'm making mischief of?- or perhaps it's been suggested to you? It sounds as if you may have been in contact with others who've overly concerned themselves with my "change of stance". As far as I can see, "socks" were mentioned once, in passing. For most people, there isn't anything sinister or suspicious in that. However, for a conspiracy theorist...........well, the world is their oyster, isn't it?
I really don't give a toss whether or not you respond to my posts -indeed, I'd encourage you not to- as the greater percentage of what you claim about me is what you appear to have made up and projected on to me. As we clearly have nothing to say, of value, to each other, may I suggest the use of the ignore facility.
