Sequence of events surrounding the silencer.

[guest29835]

I do usually highlight in bold a section in a post, responding below. As I did with David's thread post at the start of the thread. Other posters do this.

This was after QC made a big fuss over me copying & pasting sections of his posts & replying underneath. 

I couldn't do this with Rob's post as his writing was already in bold.

Rob kindly responded to each of my points. So I had to do the same.

Other posters don't repeatedly post like you do over and over again in reply to the same post. 

There is a specific forum rule that forbids it.  You can't repeatedly post to bump up your post count.  You also can't dilute topics and spam threads.

And you're right, I did make a big fuss about it and I still do, because:

(i). It's wrong and you know it's wrong.
(ii). It's contrary to forum rules.
(iii). It harms the Forum because it's annoying and makes it difficult for people to read and navigate through threads.

I suggest that when you need to respond to a post, you create a Word document or similar and put all your points together in that, then post it in one single post, or at most, two posts.

[Adam]

Other posters don't repeatedly post like you do over and over again in reply to the same post. 

There is a specific forum rule that forbids it.  You can't repeatedly post to bump up your post count.  You also can't dilute topics and spam threads.

And you're right, I did make a big fuss about it and I still do, because:

(i). It's wrong and you know it's wrong.
(ii). It's contrary to forum rules.
(iii). It harms the Forum because it's annoying and makes it difficult for people to read and navigate through threads.

I suggest that when you need to respond to a post, you create a Word document or similar and put all your points together in that, then post it in one single post, or at most, two posts.

Why would I want to do that?

[Adam]

Other posters don't repeatedly post like you do over and over again in reply to the same post. 

There is a specific forum rule that forbids it.  You can't repeatedly post to bump up your post count.  You also can't dilute topics and spam threads.

And you're right, I did make a big fuss about it and I still do, because:

(i). It's wrong and you know it's wrong.
(ii). It's contrary to forum rules.
(iii). It harms the Forum because it's annoying and makes it difficult for people to read and navigate through threads.

I suggest that when you need to respond to a post, you create a Word document or similar and put all your points together in that, then post it in one single post, or at most, two posts.

I don't know to quote different bits of posts & respond in one post.

Your posts are often 5-10 times longer than everyone else's. Often with apparent new information. Resulting in lots of questions & more than one post needed.

I don't need to do it with other posters. David's 'sequence of events' post being the exception.

[killingeve]

Supporters always deflecting from their pathetically weak arguments by moaning about the posting styles of those who believe Bamber guilty as charged   

[killingeve]

I will look at your list of questions which you posted earlier when I get time Adam, I am off to work soon.

The blood, paint on / in the silencer was planted, no doubt about it in my view.

In which case you should be able to show how, when and by whom which might well result in the slam dunk piece of evidence Patrick O'Connor QC referred to in the recent Sky doc. 

[killingeve]

Tatchell has claimed that there is photographic evidence that all bodies were moved.  His lack of detail makes the claim ambiguous and open to interpretation. It is therefore not possible to know whether he is referring to something very dodgy or something more benign that happened during photography. Given the CT now claim that Sheila's first shot was her fatal shot and that 30 shots were fired that night, it would appear that previous sketches of how the incident panned out are obsolete.

Since when are the CT an authority on anything Bamber related? 

Where are you getting the above highlighted in bold from?

[killingeve]

The contact shots to Shelia's neck have not left the abrasion rings typical of a silencer contact wound.

Cambrigecutie claims to have refuted this "everywhere" but has not done it at all.

You have been advised numerous times.  Experts for the prosecution have not yet had an opportunity to instruct their own experts to refute the abrasion rings.  There is no need to since connected prosecution arguments stood without having to counter as explained by the judcial review judges.  With regards to the marks on Mr Bamber's back, in the opinion of a highly experienced defence pathologist at trial he did not believe the marks were burns.  And in the opinion of the expert from Arizona, by his own admission he needed to undertake further work before he could reach any sort of conclusion. 

[killingeve]

Page 28 of David Bird's COLP statement is interesting.

Is it?  In what way?

[Rob_]

In which case you should be able to show how, when and by whom which might well result in the slam dunk piece of evidence Patrick O'Connor QC referred to in the recent Sky doc.

If you cannot see a problem with how the main exhibit which turned the case on it's head was found in the cupboard after four or five officers had already searched the cupboard then you must be biased beyond belief.

Any person not associated with the case looking at the silencer and how it was handled after it was found would have serious concerns.

[killingeve]

I agree Lookout, I think you posted a photograph of June a while back that looks very strange?

Why would officers go around moving the victims?

[Rob_]

Is it?  In what way?

Well have you read it?

[Roch]

Since when are the CT an authority on anything Bamber related? 

Where are you getting the above highlighted in bold from?

Whether they are the authority is open to question, based upon ambiguities in interpretations. But they are without doubt miles ahead in terms of the of volume of evidence and the categorisation and cross referencing of evidence.

It was in the podcast. It's either a glaring error or by default, the CT are claiming that a second shot was fired in to adeceased Sheila.

[killingeve]

Of course he knew it was to stop bunnies fleeing before the bullet hit them, it was not a silencer from a human ear's point of view. The effect also depended on the type of bullet used but you know all this Adam.

The bullets were subsonic.

[Rob_]

The bullets were subsonic.

Yes but still a quiet gun.

[killingeve]

Whether they are the authority is open to question, based upon ambiguities in interpretations. But they are without doubt miles ahead in terms of the of volume of evidence and the categorisation and cross referencing of evidence.

What evidence are you referring to?

It was in the podcast. It's either a glaring error or by default, the CT are claiming that a second shot was fired in to deceased Sheila.

Which podcast?