you should all know this?

[bob]

Ok... I'll bite...

So the police were busy staging Sheila's body for the suicide when the gun they were putting in place went off. She was alive when they were doing this, even though she had been certified dead, but the gun went off and she was finally dead.

And further evidence to support this is that the fatal bullet was of a different calibre to the first, so then they had to fake the reconstitution of the fragmented bullet etc.

So...

Why on Earth would the police be busy staging her suicide with a gun that wasn't the one used for the rest of the murders and the first of Sheila's wounds? It's not even self-consistent, let alone consistent with any of the other theories the pro- posters have used to support JBs innocence so far 

[chochokeira]

Keira. Is that not a personal attack?

I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.

As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.

Which bit of this post do you not understand?

The end of the last sentence could be construed as mild ad homonym, you're right. It was entirely unnecessary too, so I apologise for that. There is no excuse for personal attacks - with perhaps the exception of retaliatory attacks on the rudest of the trolls. You might now like to apologise for the above personal attack on me.

[chochokeira]

Keira. Is that not a personal attack?

I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.

As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.

Which bit of this post do you not understand?

Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.

[mike tesko]

Ok... I'll bite...

So the police were busy staging Sheila's body for the suicide when the gun they were putting in place went off. She was alive when they were doing this, even though she had been certified dead, but the gun went off and she was finally dead.

And further evidence to support this is that the fatal bullet was of a different calibre to the first, so then they had to fake the reconstitution of the fragmented bullet etc.

So...

Why on Earth would the police be busy staging her suicide with a gun that wasn't the one used for the rest of the murders and the first of Sheila's wounds? It's not even self-consistent, let alone consistent with any of the other theories the pro- posters have used to support JBs innocence so far 

If two or more weapons were used by one party or another in these shootings, police could not very well stage manage Sheila`s suicide with or by use of both guns, they would have to decide on the spur of the moment, or with use of reasoned logic, which weapon they would be using in the re-arrangement of her body. Any discrepancies in the batch of crime scene bullets recovered from the scene, or from the bodies of victims, could be sorted out later, which is precisely what happened with bullet PV/20...

[dsf]

Mike,

Until now the main Sheila-did-it scenario has involved Sheila shooting herself in the kitchen but not fatally, the police mistakenly assuming her dead, and Sheila escaping upstairs to shoot herself a second time in the main bedroom.

What you are now telling us contradicts this, but you still haven't told us what was supposed to have happened before the police accidently shot Sheila on the bed. If (Z) knows about the accidental shot, then he presumably knows what happened before that, and would surely have told you.

So, once again, I'm asking how Sheila sustained the first shot to the neck. Did she simply shoot herself on the bed? or does the first-shot-in-the-kitchen claim still apply? or does neither of these apply?

If you don't tell us the full story, how are we supposed to decide whether it holds water or not?   

[bob]

Keira. Is that not a personal attack?

I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.

As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.

Which bit of this post do you not understand?

Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.

Surely the relevant point here though Choch, is that Mike has form for this with the Ali Bongo saga? So regardless of whether you call it tactical or a lie it is still not some kind of sacred no-no to accuse Mike of it, given that he has done something very similar in the past?

The same is also true of the Smiffy-Mike dual profile subterfuge if that proves to be true.

[bob]

Ok... I'll bite...

So the police were busy staging Sheila's body for the suicide when the gun they were putting in place went off. She was alive when they were doing this, even though she had been certified dead, but the gun went off and she was finally dead.

And further evidence to support this is that the fatal bullet was of a different calibre to the first, so then they had to fake the reconstitution of the fragmented bullet etc.

So...

Why on Earth would the police be busy staging her suicide with a gun that wasn't the one used for the rest of the murders and the first of Sheila's wounds? It's not even self-consistent, let alone consistent with any of the other theories the pro- posters have used to support JBs innocence so far 

If two or more weapons were used by one party or another in these shootings, police could not very well stage manage Sheila`s suicide with or by use of both guns, they would have to decide on the spur of the moment, or with use of reasoned logic, which weapon they would be using in the re-arrangement of her body. Any discrepancies in the batch of crime scene bullets recovered from the scene, or from the bodies of victims, could be sorted out later, which is precisely what happened with bullet PV/20...

So multiple weapons were used to kill the other victims? I thought the only suspect bullet was the fragmented one found in Sheila?

[mike tesko]

Mike,

Until now the main Sheila-did-it scenario has involved Sheila shooting herself in the kitchen but not fatally, the police mistakenly assuming her dead, and Sheila escaping upstairs to shoot herself a second time in the main bedroom.

What you are now telling us contradicts this, but you still haven't told us what was supposed to have happened before the police accidently shot Sheila on the bed. If (Z) knows about the accidental shot, then he presumably knows what happened before that, and would surely have told you.

So, once again, I'm asking how Sheila sustained the first shot to the neck. Did she simply shoot herself on the bed? or does the first-shot-in-the-kitchen claim still apply? or does neither of these apply?

If you don't tell us the full story, how are we supposed to decide whether it holds water or not?

Yes, (Z) has given me the account relating to what took place, and the actual sequence of events regarding the two entry wounds sustained by Sheila...

[chochokeira]

Keira. Is that not a personal attack?

I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.

As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.

Which bit of this post do you not understand?

Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.

Surely the relevant point here though Choch, is that Mike has form for this with the Ali Bongo saga? So regardless of whether you call it tactical or a lie it is still not some kind of sacred no-no to accuse Mike of it, given that he has done something very similar in the past?

The same is also true of the Smiffy-Mike dual profile subterfuge if that proves to be true.

The Ali Bongo saga was a didactic joke. Mike intended to confess the joke once he'd used this to illustrate a point he wished to make. So it is not comparable to the current issue. As I understand it, Mike is not joking or being tactical in respect of yesterday's meeting. He had the meeting and reported it to forum members accordingly. Vidvic claims that Mike is lying about this. I believe Vidvic is wrong and should apologise.

[dsf]

Mike,

Until now the main Sheila-did-it scenario has involved Sheila shooting herself in the kitchen but not fatally, the police mistakenly assuming her dead, and Sheila escaping upstairs to shoot herself a second time in the main bedroom.

What you are now telling us contradicts this, but you still haven't told us what was supposed to have happened before the police accidently shot Sheila on the bed. If (Z) knows about the accidental shot, then he presumably knows what happened before that, and would surely have told you.

So, once again, I'm asking how Sheila sustained the first shot to the neck. Did she simply shoot herself on the bed? or does the first-shot-in-the-kitchen claim still apply? or does neither of these apply?

If you don't tell us the full story, how are we supposed to decide whether it holds water or not?

Yes, (Z) has given me the account relating to what took place, and the actual sequence of events regarding the two entry wounds sustained by Sheila...

OK, that's a start, we're listening.

[Hartley]

Keira. Is that not a personal attack?

I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.

As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.

Which bit of this post do you not understand?

Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.

Surely the relevant point here though Choch, is that Mike has form for this with the Ali Bongo saga? So regardless of whether you call it tactical or a lie it is still not some kind of sacred no-no to accuse Mike of it, given that he has done something very similar in the past?

The same is also true of the Smiffy-Mike dual profile subterfuge if that proves to be true.

The Ali Bongo saga was a didactic joke. Mike intended to confess the joke once he'd used this to illustrate a point he wished to make. So it is not comparable to the current issue. As I understand it, Mike is not joking or being tactical in respect of yesterday's meeting. He had the meeting and reported it to forum members accordingly. Vidvic claims that Mike is lying about this. I believe Vidvic is wrong and should apologise.

Do I also need to apologise? Although I don't think it was tactical, I just think Mike is lying his arse off, in fact it would appear that a few other people do as well, do they also need to apologise, oh Miss High and Mighty? 

[clifford]

just a bit OTT there hartley, Chill.

[chochokeira]

Keira. Is that not a personal attack?

I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.

As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.

Which bit of this post do you not understand?

Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.

Surely the relevant point here though Choch, is that Mike has form for this with the Ali Bongo saga? So regardless of whether you call it tactical or a lie it is still not some kind of sacred no-no to accuse Mike of it, given that he has done something very similar in the past?

The same is also true of the Smiffy-Mike dual profile subterfuge if that proves to be true.

The Ali Bongo saga was a didactic joke. Mike intended to confess the joke once he'd used this to illustrate a point he wished to make. So it is not comparable to the current issue. As I understand it, Mike is not joking or being tactical in respect of yesterday's meeting. He had the meeting and reported it to forum members accordingly. Vidvic claims that Mike is lying about this. I believe Vidvic is wrong and should apologise.

Do I also need to apologise? Although I don't think it was tactical, I just think Mike is lying his arse off, in fact it would appear that a few other people do as well, do they also need to apologise, oh Miss High and Mighty? 

You're the resident troll, Hartley, trolls don't apologise.

[chochokeira]

Keira. Is that not a personal attack?

I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.

As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.

Which bit of this post do you not understand?

Also, I don't accept this distinction you make between lies and tactics. A tactical lie is still a lie. One who lies for tactical reasons is still a liar.

Surely the relevant point here though Choch, is that Mike has form for this with the Ali Bongo saga? So regardless of whether you call it tactical or a lie it is still not some kind of sacred no-no to accuse Mike of it, given that he has done something very similar in the past?

The same is also true of the Smiffy-Mike dual profile subterfuge if that proves to be true.

The Ali Bongo saga was a didactic joke. Mike intended to confess the joke once he'd used this to illustrate a point he wished to make. So it is not comparable to the current issue. As I understand it, Mike is not joking or being tactical in respect of yesterday's meeting. He had the meeting and reported it to forum members accordingly. Vidvic claims that Mike is lying about this. I believe Vidvic is wrong and should apologise.

Do I also need to apologise? Although I don't think it was tactical, I just think Mike is lying his arse off, in fact it would appear that a few other people do as well, do they also need to apologise, oh Miss High and Mighty? 

You're the resident troll, Hartley, trolls don't apologise.

Because they lack the intellectual and ethical equipment.

[vidvic]

Thank you for your apology Kiera and may I apologise for mine too.

Just another thought, but it's been quite quiet on here lately, nothing new, everyone waiting for the CCRC. Is it possible Mike that you just wanted to attract a bit of 'spice' back to the forum?

I am in touch with both Pro and Anti Bamber members and have to say Mike, that if this is a wind up, you might have just mis judged the mood of the Pro bambers, who seem more pissed off than the Anti's, who I think find it mildly amusing.

For what it's worth I also have a feeling that Smiffy is Mike. He seems to have access to similar levels of documentation as Mike and I think today, you answered one of my posts as Smiffy when in fact it was Mike who should have answered. He uses a very similar style to yourself as well.

Just my honest opinion.