Adam's Claims...

[Hardy Boy]

Only after it had already been determined murder/suicide by Chief Sup Harris and the police surgeon.

Strange, I thought Dr Craig just certified death?  Didn’t realise he called it murder suicide?

[Hardy Boy]

Maybe they preferred the iron sights.

I think you get a quicker view of your prey through a scope than the V sights, time is of the essence sometimes when shooting prey?

[Hardy Boy]

The forensics on the outside and inside are completely different.

I don’t think you have followed the discussion properly Cutie?  Snow was saying the Silencer evidence was only presented when Julie came forward, I pointed out that Human blood was found on the 13th before Julie came forward?

[Cambridgecutie]

I am going to try to draw a line under this because I get really angry when I remember it all.  Some here, including those who are now friendly but were attacked by you,vigorously opposed you being allowed back.  It is because I recognise that you contribute a lot as a result of your detailed research into the case and insight into the key elements  that I have encouraged your participation here.  I got some flak for this I can assure you.

You have brought a lot to the discussion because your in depth research into some key aspects of the case has been exceptional.  We have discussed it privately and you know my views on it.   However you should not be any doubt that I do not forget your friendly banter with some of the worst scum to infest the internet. Some of this banter was on the offending threads on the forum you moderate.  You knew what you were doing and were happy with it.  You now say you were not aware of it but I am afraid that is not true.   It was disgusting on any level.

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about?

Attacked by me?  Who, what , when, how?

Opposed to me be allowed back? 

[ILB]

Not snide at all.  You tell us you met JB on the cat A wing, so please give the big girls' blousy stuff a break and do us all a favour and just post up your theory about how the silencer was fabricated.

You have no one iota of evidence of anything that points to DS Jones committing shady practices.

Period.

[David1819]

You have no one iota of evidence of anything that points to DS Jones committing shady practices.

Period.

There is no evidence he contaminated the silencer.

[David1819]

I don’t think you have followed the discussion properly Cutie?  Snow was saying the Silencer evidence was only presented when Julie came forward, I pointed out that Human blood was found on the 13th before Julie came forward?

Blood was found both on and in the silencer on the 13th.

"
Q: Thank you. Now may I please ask you about the blood you found or saw inside the sound moderator?
A: Yes.
Q: You obviously had to remove it by some means didn't you?
A: Yes I did.
Q: Could you describe the means you used?
A: Yes, with the aid of a low-powered microscope and lenghts of sterile white cotton thread moistened with distilled water, I inserted with fine forceps the damp threads into the bore of the sound moderator. And soaked up the blood that was in there. I allowed the threads to dry before doing further tests.
Q: May I ask you how far into the sound moderator did you go with your threads? How far do you believe?
A: I took some blood which I could actually see. Just on that inner surface approximately 1/8 to 1/4 of an inch. I didn't measure it at the time."

[ngb1066]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about?

Attacked by me?  Who, what , when, how?

Opposed to me be allowed back?

Maggie, Susan, Lookout, Caroline, Jane, Patti.  In posts on the red forum.  When you joined the red forum following a temporary ban here under your username Egap1.

When you rejoined here under a new username you were spotted quickly.  There were several calls for you to be banned again.  It annoyed some people when there was no ban.

[David1819]

Maggie, Susan, Lookout, Caroline, Jane, Patti.  In posts on the red forum.  When you joined the red forum following a temporary ban here under your username Egap1.

When you rejoined here under a new username you were spotted quickly.  There were several calls for you to be banned again.  It annoyed some people when there was no ban.

Twice.

[Cambridgecutie]

You have no one iota of evidence of anything that points to DS Jones committing shady practices.

Period.

How could you possibly know this?  You don't so please stop pretending otherwise.

[Cambridgecutie]

Strange, I thought Dr Craig just certified death?  Didn’t realise he called it murder suicide?

38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night. The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand.In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted.

[Cambridgecutie]

I don’t think you have followed the discussion properly Cutie?  Snow was saying the Silencer evidence was only presented when Julie came forward, I pointed out that Human blood was found on the 13th before Julie came forward?

Outside pre JM.  This would not have been enough to get to trial.

Inside post JM.  Enough to get the case to trial and conviction.

[Cambridgecutie]

Maggie, Susan, Lookout, Caroline, Jane, Patti.  In posts on the red forum.  When you joined the red forum following a temporary ban here under your username Egap1.

When you rejoined here under a new username you were spotted quickly.  There were several calls for you to be banned again.  It annoyed some people when there was no ban.

That's not correct.  I deleted my account with the username 'Egap1'.  I rejoined with the username 'Naughty Nun' and it was this account that was subjected to a temporary ban.

The 'Red' forum used the term 'knitting circle' to describe regular members here who they perceived to be female, which I assume included me.  I found it amusing and used the term here.  As such you imposed a temporary ban.  You pm'd me and told me it was "derogatory". 

Some months prior to this I set up an account on the Red forum with the username 'Holly Goodhead' and made a few posts over about a month.  When the temporary ban was made I simply started posting on the Red forum.  After some months/1 year I was asked if I would like to be made a mod which I agreed to. 

Prior to me setting up accounts on either forum there was apparently a lot of conflict between the two.  By the time I joined, from what I saw, I thought it was six of one and half a dozen of another.   

Only recently you accused Jane and myself of turning a blind eye to comments made on the Red forum about a former member's daughter who was apparently unwell at the time.  I recovered a thread which showed this happened long before Jane or I even joined the Red forum.  In fact I am pretty sure we were not even members of this forum at the time those comments were made.  I am not condoning the comments, but when online I think users' need to take responsibility for their own privacy and security.  Did the member have permission to discuss his daughter's medical details on an online forum?  What was the objective of sharing this information?

With respect I find you use emotive language to describe online conflicts/disputes like "abuse" and "attack" which are completely disproportinate in my view.  Or certainly disproportinate to describe any comments I have ever made here or elsewhere.  And there seems to be one rule for one and another for another.  And unlike some I don't pm others to gossip, complain and tell tales.

[Cambridgecutie]

Twice.

Who gives a flying fig 

[ngb1066]

That's not correct.  I deleted my account with the username 'Egap1'.  I rejoined with the username 'Naughty Nun' and it was this account that was subjected to a temporary ban.

The 'Red' forum used the term 'knitting circle' to describe regular members here who they perceived to be female, which I assume included me.  I found it amusing and used the term here.  As such you imposed a temporary ban.  You pm'd me and told me it was "derogatory". 

Some months prior to this I set up an account on the Red forum with the username 'Holly Goodhead' and made a few posts over about a month.  When the temporary ban was made I simply started posting on the Red forum.  After some months/1 year I was asked if I would like to be made a mod which I agreed to. 

Prior to me setting up accounts on either forum there was apparently a lot of conflict between the two.  By the time I joined, from what I saw, I thought it was six of one and half a dozen of another.   

Only recently you accused Jane and myself of turning a blind eye to comments made on the Red forum about a former member's daughter who was apparently unwell at the time.  I recovered a thread which showed this happened long before Jane or I even joined the Red forum.  In fact I am pretty sure we were not even members of this forum at the time those comments were made.  I am not condoning the comments, but when online I think users' need to take responsibility for their own privacy and security.  Did the member have permission to discuss his daughter's medical details on an online forum?  What was the objective of sharing this information?

With respect I find you use emotive language to describe online conflicts/disputes like "abuse" and "attack" which are completely disproportinate in my view.  Or certainly disproportinate to describe any comments I have ever made here or elsewhere.  And there seems to be one rule for one and another for another.  And unlike some I don't pm others to gossip, complain and tell tales.

You are right about the ban being for NN rather than Egap.  It was initially for a few days but was extended when you launched attacks on members here on the red forum.  I strongly disagree with the rest of your post - you have glossed over and whitewashed much of what happened.  "Abuse" and "attack" are appropriate to describe many of the posts and some of them were truly sickening and crossed the line into criminal behaviour, although I accept that your posts did not fall into that category.    I strongly reject your allegation of favouritism in moderation here.   

I am not going to continue this argument because it relates to events years ago and it is no doubt boring for most members.