David Boutflour WS's.

[Bubo bubo]

It's quite high-handed of you to just rattle off lengthy posts and expect your fellow posters to accept what you say as being gospel truth, ie it's no good telling me "These items were found on the day" because I want to know what the back story is. Unfortunately, it's at this stage that I think what you say loses gravitas. The deeper the dig, the more unrealistic, the findings. For me, the big question is always "WHY" and it hasn't been answered satisfactorily.

Wow 5 lines.
Excuses Excuses Excuses. Other posters appart from Adam can read and understand what I am alleging and if they need clarification they ask and I respond. I do not say it is the gospel truth in any posts. What I offer is a meticulously detailed counter narrative to the Crowns case against JB. When I add back story to make things realistic you do this.

Well, I got as far as the air being cut with a knife.

Why. If you do not understand this you need to read the intro to my latest large post.

TFG shot June by accident.
Police engaged in a cover-up.
Family et al were not happy that JB should inherit.
Police reluctantly framed JB rather than be exposed
The rest is history

[Bubo bubo]

The 'debris' was found in the fire pit, not the AGA. You really need to stop taking those modesty pills and take a drink from the reality fountain.

Another poster who has not understood my proposal/alternative narrative. Clearly has not read how I
 expose the fire pit argument. (Riddle of the Blue socks).
 
Just because I outline complex arguments does not make me immodest. You can challenge the detail of my arguments.

We will see what happens. It was me who first suggested the Aga burns issue 6 yers ago and it looks as if I may be proved correct on this point at least.

I did not make a big song and dance when I suggested it with typical MT posts like 'Forensic break through'. 'I can prove JB innocent without doubt'. I offered my thoughts at least six years ago. It is only in the last year that this has been taken up by an experienced forensic burns expert who has investigated my suggestion. Hardly the behaviour of someone taking up a position and seeking their moment  in the spotlight and 15 minutes of fame like others I could name.

[Zoso]

Another poster who has not understood my proposal/alternative narrative. Clearly has not read how expose the fire pit argument. (Riddle of the Blue socks).
 
Just because I outline complex arguments does not make me immodest. You can challenge the detail of my arguments.

We will see what happens. It was me who first suggested the Aga burns issue and it looks as if I may be proved correct on this point at least.

I did not make a big song and dance when I suggested it with typical MT posts like 'Forensic break through'. 'I can prove JB innocent without doubt'. I offered my thoughts at least six years ago. It is only in the last year that this has been taken up by an experienced forensic burns expert who has investigated my suggestion. Hardly the behaviour of someone taking up a position and seeking their moment  in the spotlight and 15 minutes of fame like others I could name.

When we have an award ceremony, we'll be sure to include one that covers you being 'the first to mention the AGA and the burns' - I doubt he investigated 'your suggestion' - I very much doubt he reads the forum. You just had the same idea. But don't get carried away with that - it's simply a theory STILL. Fir me, not a very convincing one.

As for the fire pit 'argument' - again, I don't agree with your suggestion. I don't see the point of lying about it - simply don't mention the items in the first place. You're suggestions are too complex to make sense.

[Bubo bubo]

When we have an award ceremony, we'll be sure to include one that covers you being 'the first to mention the AGA and the burns' - I doubt he investigated 'your suggestion' - I very much doubt he reads the forum. You just had the same idea. But don't get carried away with that - it's simply a theory STILL. Fir me, not a very convincing one.

As for the fire pit 'argument' - again, I don't agree with your suggestion. I don't see the point of lying about it - simply don't mention the items in the first place. You're suggestions are too complex to make sense.

That's exactly what they did Bird made two witness statements dated as the same day. If you read his statement that formed part of the trial you will see that he only mentions finding the blue socks (DB6) 30 days after the tragedy. If you look at the statement (covered in the transcript) which he gave to the COLP enquiry he mentions all his finds at that time. One statement DB6 Blue socks, the other items DB1 to DB7. They had to be found on the first day because the blue socks could not still be in situ. You really do need to get to grips with the detail of my argument. Thus far many have tried including Cambridgecutie and have been unable to find a satisfactory response. Others do not engage or give up.

[Bubo bubo]

When we have an award ceremony, we'll be sure to include one that covers you being 'the first to mention the AGA and the burns' - I doubt he investigated 'your suggestion' - I very much doubt he reads the forum. You just had the same idea. But don't get carried away with that - it's simply a theory STILL. Fir me, not a very convincing one.

As for the fire pit 'argument' - again, I don't agree with your suggestion. I don't see the point of lying about it - simply don't mention the items in the first place. You're suggestions are too complex to make sense.

By the way have never claimed Boyce took up my suggestion. He may have come to the same conclusion as me albeit later. All I say is that someone else agrees with me. Though Snow thinks it possible that my idea filtered through to someone.

[Roch]

That's exactly what they did Bird made two witness statements dated as the same day. If you read his statement that formed part of the trial you will see that he only mentions finding the blue socks (DB6) 30 days after the tragedy. If you look at the statement (covered in the transcript) which he gave to the COLP enquiry he mentions all his finds at that time. One statement DB6 Blue socks, the other items DB1 to DB7. They had to be found on the first day because the blue socks could not still be in situ. You really do need to get to grips with the detail of my argument. Thus far many have tried including Cambridgecutie and have been unable to find a satisfactory response. Others do not engage or give up.

They are stuck forever in an orthodox view of the case, which in turn underpins their stance. It's a catch 22 that traps them.

[Zoso]

They are stuck forever in an orthodox view of the case, which in turn underpins their stance. It's a catch 22 that traps them.

Whereas, ya'll have to invent ever increasing outlandish scenario's.

[Bubo bubo]

That's exactly what they did Bird made two witness statements dated as the same day. If you read his statement that formed part of the trial you will see that he only mentions finding the blue socks (DB6) 30 days after the tragedy. If you look at the statement (covered in the transcript) which he gave to the COLP enquiry he mentions all his finds at that time. One statement DB6 Blue socks, the other items DB1 to DB7. They had to be found on the first day because the blue socks could not still be in situ. You really do need to get to grips with the detail of my argument. Thus far many have tried including Cambridgecutie and have been unable to find a satisfactory response. Others do not engage or give up.

Further to this part of the argument is that the blue socks were featured in the crime scene photos and whilst they might not have been discussed at trial the prosecution had to have evidence that they were found on the day, their exhibit number and who found them. As far as I am aware there are no references to another pair of blue socks.
The COLP enquiry looked more deeply at Birds finds and had other documents detailing DB1 to DB7 so for this reason he needed a statement that showed all the finds and it this statement dated the same as the first that he presented to the enquiry

[Roch]

Whereas, ya'll have to invent ever increasing outlandish scenario's.

What makes you think they are outlandish?

[Bubo bubo]

What makes you think they are outlandish?

They have to call them outlandish to discredit them a much different word from informative, instructive, explanatory, revealing, educational etc.

[Jane]

They have to call them outlandish to discredit them a much different word from informative, instructive, explanatory, revealing, educational etc.

Or possibly crossing the line between fact and fantasy, into the realms of fiction? Beautifully written, of course.

[Bubo bubo]

Or possibly crossing the line between fact and fantasy, into the realms of fiction? Beautifully written, of course.

this from someone who believes in the fairy stories told by EP and believes Aga' breakdown but are so tough they are still going after 88 years,

Tittle tattle?!! OUCH!!! It was meant as general observation. Real wealth is understated and has no need to flaunt itself. Our AGA is circa 1935 which verifies your comment.

[Jane]

this from someone who believes in the fairy stories told by EP and believes Aga' breakdown but are so tough they are still going after 88 years,

Tittle tattle?!! OUCH!!! It was meant as general observation. Real wealth is understated and has no need to flaunt itself. Our AGA is circa 1935 which verifies your comment.

Can you please point me to where I claimed AGA's break down.

[Zoso]

They have to call them outlandish to discredit them a much different word from informative, instructive, explanatory, revealing, educational etc.

Seriously, I'm not trying to discredit you at all and if I thought there was something in what you say, I would say so. I haven't found that so far. I have had people use similar language to me - why does it bother you that not everyone agrees. I find our theories far fetched but I am just being honest.

[Zoso]

What makes you think they are outlandish?

You and I have a very different view on credibility. Nothing wrong with that - for you anything is possible, for me, it's not.