Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[Adam]

Yes you were Adam, hence the 'Nightclub' comment. No one seeks attention more than you. If yo feel as though you're being ignored, you start getting personal. Also starting posts with 'you must change your stance' is frankly getting old and is clearly goading.

Well why does Lookout ask for evidence, then when it is supplied there is no response. Then she asks for the same evidence again. Then say things which no one is aware of, but refuses to provide a source.

It must be to seek attention.

[maggie]

Can you give examples of how I am sexist or ageist please. This is a crime forum.

Otherwise I will have to make a complaint to NGB.

Thank you.

I said you were ageist, occasionally you have been sexist about the women jurers but no I cannot go searching for examples. I hope you are not racist.
Please feel free to complain to ngb, your behaviour just now has justified a ban, you're lucky you're still here.

[Adam]

You constantly have a go at Lookout about her age, denying that will be futile because we have ALL read it!

I just said denying everything on here is the easiest way for her to get attention in life.

But apologies, maybe that is wrong.

[Jane]

Well why does Lookout ask for evidence, then when it is supplied there is no response. Then she asks for the same evidence again. Then say things which no one is aware of, but refuses to provide a source.

It must be to seek attention.

Are you begrudging of anything which draws attention away from your main focus?

[Jane]

I just said denying everything on here is the easiest way for her to get attention in life.

But apologies, maybe that is wrong.

And you HAD to repeat it didn't you?

[Adam]

I said you were ageist, occasionally you have been sexist about the women jurers but no I cannot go searching for examples. I hope you are not racist.
Please feel free to complain to ngb, your behaviour just now has justified a ban, you're lucky you're still here.

I posted this week about the John Tanner case. Two jurors amazingly voted 'not guilty'.

It is a fact that two female jurors voted 'not guilty' in the Bamber case. It was Stan Jones who suggested they may have been swayed by his charm and good looks. I don't agree with him to be honest.

[Caroline]

Well why does Lookout ask for evidence, then when it is supplied there is no response. Then she asks for the same evidence again. Then say things which no one is aware of, but refuses to provide a source.

It must be to seek attention.

I don't think she says anything to 'seek attention' - she made continually dismiss the evidence but I don't think she does so to seek attention. I think it's fair enough to ask where she gets her info from - it's a reasonable question but getting personal isn't. The nightclub comment was a step too far because of the underlying meaning.

[maggie]

I posted this week about the John Tanner case. Two jurors amazingly voted 'not guilty'.

It is a fact that two female jurors voted 'not guilty' in the Bamber case. It was Stan Jones who suggested they may have been swayed by his charm and good looks. I don't agree with him to be honest.

Ok but don't imply you do. Think this has been done to death, let's move on but try not to be personal and hurtful, stick to the subject.

[susan]

I don't think she says anything to 'seek attention' - she made continually dismiss the evidence but I don't think she does so to seek attention. I think it's fair enough to ask where she gets her info from - it's a reasonable question but getting personal isn't. The nightclub comment was a step too far because of the underlying meaning.

Caroline as you have rightly said lookout is NOT an attention seeker and does have more in her life than her cats I have never been able to understand why Adam would say this. Missed the nightclub comment.

[Caroline]

Caroline as you have rightly said lookout is NOT an attention seeker and does have more in her life than her cats I have never been able to understand why Adam would say this. Missed the nightclub comment.

I certainly don't see her as seeking attention - just very forthright!! (I do wish she would include sources though!!  )

[guest154]

I certainly don't see her as seeking attention - just very forthright!! (I do wish she would include sources though!!  )

Often she can't, because what she says isn't true. Her claims about scratches on June and Neville, aren't true. So no link in the world would back that up - in fact a link would prove that the claims aren't true.

I don't think it is attention seeking though, it's reading something and either
1. Putting her on spin on it.
2. Taking it as the gospel truth aslong as it makes Bamber sound innocent and not fact checking.

[susan]

I certainly don't see her as seeking attention - just very forthright!! (I do wish she would include sources though!!  )

Caroline lookout is so consumed and passionate about this case she genuinely forgets where her source is she always reads the points she makes but cannot remember where

[Caroline]

Often she can't, because what she says isn't true. Her claims about scratches on June and Neville, aren't true. So no link in the world would back that up - in fact a link would prove that the claims aren't true.

I don't think it is attention seeking though, it's reading something and either
1. Putting her on spin on it.
2. Taking it as the gospel truth aslong as it makes Bamber sound innocent and not fact checking.

I'd say it was the latter, that's why links or stating where you saw the info is important, if it's wrong, you were simply repeating what someone else said, but if you people can't check the info for themselves, you just leave yourself open to criticism. It was cause Lookout far less grief if she posted links.

[Adam]

I'd say it was the latter, that's why links or stating where you saw the info is important, if it's wrong, you were simply repeating what someone else said, but if you people can't check the info for themselves, you just leave yourself open to criticism. It was cause Lookout far less grief if she posted links.

She hasn't got links for what she says. Which is why she says 'find it yourself'.

She asked me for the evidence of why Sheila didn't commit the massacre. I posted 15 points.

She then asked the same question to you a few days later. 

Forgetfulness ?

Scipio says she ignores the evidence. Why ?

[maggie]

She hasn't got links for what she says. Which is why she says 'find it yourself'.

She asked me for the evidence of why Sheila didn't commit the massacre. I posted 15 points.

She then asked the same question to you a few days later. 

Forgetfulness ?

Scipio says she ignores the evidence. Why ?

Actually Adam lookout is a free agent she can post anyway she likes..... thought you were moving on from all this, Lookout isn't on the forum to defend herself so can you stop discussing her and get back to the subject please.