Robert Boutflour (10/09/1985) statement - police told him Sheila only shot once.

[scipio_usmc]

No I'll leave that one for you as obviously you have the expertise to know how to and recalling your comment once that you would have no hesitation in killing a person over an animal, quite probably it is in your nature as well as the fine art of abuse that you have acquired from those who are equally expert in the art. Take this advice at least scipio, remember that evil communications corrupt good manners. That means that we are more prone to learn the bad habits of others than their good habits and I am detecting this tendency for abuse in you and the more time you spend with those abusers the more you will become like them. I've lived in this world longer that you have young man and take it from me wisdom comes with age. But I haven't even detected any wisdom at all in you yet.

You have demonstrated neither wisdom nor someone well informed.  Rather you have demonstrated yourself as a hot head who hates police and would choose absurd claims totally lacking in any evidentiary support in some childish and juvenile effort to avoid believing anything a cop says.

[grahameb]

You have demonstrated neither wisdom nor someone well informed.  Rather you have demonstrated yourself as a hot head who hates police and would choose absurd claims totally lacking in any evidentiary support in some childish and juvenile effort to avoid believing anything a cop says.

Well unfortunately neither have you. No sense of humour and morose. Hmm, those symptoms actually point towards someone who is an alcoholic. Add to that no people skills. I advise you strongly to seek out a good therapist. They might be able to sort you out? A tendancy for abuse at every oppotunity? Now that is more serious and leans towards trollish behaviour. I'd certainly seek help on all these if I were you young scipio. Also add to that the disrespect of your elders. I'm afraid that you are demonstrating and do demonstrate in almost every post you make a total disregard of other people's feelings and this I'm afraid is a distinct sign of immaturity. Oh I almost forgot. You again show a craving to believe anything that you are told about other people. These are not the characteristics of a discerning mind. Sorry sonny jim but if you take heed to all that I've said you'll thank me in the future.

[lookout]

 I'd say you were getting warmer,Grahame. Something radically wrong,,like barmey.

 It takes me back to the late 50's when I worked at Rainhill ( asylum ) now known as the Scott clinic,where a male patient would talk the hind leg off a donkey. He was being interviewed/assessed for his " illness " and tied the psychiatrists in knots,coming out with all kinds of weird and wonderful aspects of vocabulary in his conversation that just didn't make any sense whatsoever. He just never stopped yapping.

( I was trying to keep a straight face,but it was no laughing matter because he thought he was a professor ) I never did find out what the problem was.Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this part of psychiatry ? April-----Caroline ?

[grahameb]

I'd say you were getting warmer,Grahame. Something radically wrong,,like barmey.

 It takes me back to the late 50's when I worked at Rainhill ( asylum ) now known as the Scott clinic,where a male patient would talk the hind leg off a donkey. He was being interviewed/assessed for his " illness " and tied the psychiatrists in knots,coming out with all kinds of weird and wonderful aspects of vocabulary in his conversation that just didn't make any sense whatsoever. He just never stopped yapping.

( I was trying to keep a straight face,but it was no laughing matter because he thought he was a professor ) I never did find out what the problem was.Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this part of psychiatry ? April-----Caroline ?

Probably loquatious syndrome lookout.

[Jan]

You have demonstrated neither wisdom nor someone well informed.  Rather you have demonstrated yourself as a hot head who hates police and would choose absurd claims totally lacking in any evidentiary support in some childish and juvenile effort to avoid believing anything a cop says.

And you write this about the one poster that has actually the patience to read your posts , actually agree with  you on some points and quite rightly question others?

How rude.

Its quite clear how narrow minded you are as soon as you resort to insults rather than trying to support your "opinions"

[Caroline]

I'd say you were getting warmer,Grahame. Something radically wrong,,like barmey.

 It takes me back to the late 50's when I worked at Rainhill ( asylum ) now known as the Scott clinic,where a male patient would talk the hind leg off a donkey. He was being interviewed/assessed for his " illness " and tied the psychiatrists in knots,coming out with all kinds of weird and wonderful aspects of vocabulary in his conversation that just didn't make any sense whatsoever. He just never stopped yapping.

( I was trying to keep a straight face,but it was no laughing matter because he thought he was a professor ) I never did find out what the problem was.Perhaps someone could enlighten me on this part of psychiatry ? April-----Caroline ?

I think it's just called compulsive talking Lookout, there is probably another technical term but in essence .....

[scipio_usmc]

And you write this about the one poster that has actually the patience to read your posts , actually agree with  you on some points and quite rightly question others?

How rude.

Its quite clear how narrow minded you are as soon as you resort to insults rather than trying to support your "opinions"

It doesn't change that his responses fail to demonstrate any wisdom like he claimed to have.

People on this board are not accustomed to being challenged to actually post raitonal, supported claims and being challenged for evidence.

They are accustomed to posting unsupported claims and others agreeing because they share the same irraitonal unsupported views.

That presents a big challenge in a real debate and that is what people who support Jeremy and claim conspiracy are totally unable to deal with.

In a real debate facts and evidence are king.  The facts are all agaisnt Jeremy so people try to make up their own facts and evidence but none of such survives scutiny.  I actually scrutinize their claims but hardly am I the only one to do so it is just that I am the one who does so the most and trying to change the subject will not work with me.

I can and do respond to everything anyone can try to come up with. 

I rebut and deal with everything.

The only way to beat me in a debate is to actually have the facts on your side, to have the wisdom to recognize it and to have the skill to demonstrate the facts are on you side.  That is how one beats any skilled debater.

The evidence is all against Jeremy which is why not even his lawyers can come up with anything.

 

[lookout]

I think it's just called compulsive talking Lookout, there is probably another technical term but in essence .....

How about verbal diarrhoea ?

[Jan]

I think you have a problem - a forum is discussion and not a competition If all you want to do is win then I hate to tell you but you are wasting your time .

[lookout]

 In DB's words " there are no winners,everyone loses ". Right now,this is what this case is all about.

[grahameb]

How about verbal diarrhoea ?

Or most likely garrulitus Blindiaticus. Because he's so enamoured regarding his own (unanswerable?) posts that he is blind to everything everyone else's ideas. It's not that he rebutts everything I say. It is because he thinks he is the last word where evidence is concerned. That is when you chip the evidence out of the copious infilling of plaster surrounding it.

[No-Bits]

The only two police officers who were present at Jeremys cottage on the morning of the shootings were DS Stan Jones, and DC Mick Clark - Robert Boutflour mentions in his witness statement, dated, 10th September 1985, that one of the police officers who was present at Jeremys cottage that morning told him that Ralph and June had both been shot between the eyes, and that Sheila had a solitary shot in the neck...

The statement you refer to does not appear to have been posted on the forum. Are you able to provide a copy?