Author Topic: what new evidence?  (Read 28010 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #120 on: March 17, 2014, 09:04:PM »
Adam was a disrespectful excuse for a human being you are talking to somebody with the obvious intelligence jansus has you owe her an apology.

Don't worry Susan - not once has he apologised for rudeness  to posters. I am not worried. Its his style . I can ignore him again if I want to.

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #121 on: March 17, 2014, 09:05:PM »
I have Adam on ignore now and cannot see his posts, but unfortunately I can see them when people quote his posts.
"You stupid idiot"...... REALLY! - I have him on ignore for good reason.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #122 on: March 17, 2014, 09:09:PM »
I don't believe you are that Stupid - I answered your question - why would the police do any kind of training exercise whilst the bodies were still in the house . Preserving any crime scene is paramount to any investigation - in order to get at the TRUTH and perhaps if EP had done that in the first place I would not have to be answering your inane comments.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #123 on: March 17, 2014, 09:11:PM »
I have Adam on ignore now and cannot see his posts, but unfortunately I can see them when people quote his posts.
"You stupid idiot"...... REALLY! - I have him on ignore for good reason.

Cannot handle a bit of suggestion that Jeremy is actually guilty of the crime he has spent 29 years in jail for ?

Alright, bye.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 09:21:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #124 on: March 17, 2014, 09:11:PM »
Are you for real? If they did exist it is all about the crime scene and how it was treated. Lets face it even if it was murder suicide the scene should have been treated as such and evidence preserved. I cant believe you even made that comment.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44411
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #125 on: March 17, 2014, 09:19:PM »
I have Adam on ignore now and cannot see his posts, but unfortunately I can see them when people quote his posts.
"You stupid idiot"...... REALLY! - I have him on ignore for good reason.

And what was all that crossing out my name about ?

Oh sorry, forgot she is ignoring me. Or rather sulking.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 09:22:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #126 on: March 17, 2014, 09:21:PM »
jansus it is not necessary to revert to being really disrespectful we can disagree and have some banter but to call you a "stupid idiot" is taking it really too far and a disgrace IMO

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #127 on: March 17, 2014, 10:04:PM »
jansus it is not necessary to revert to being really disrespectful we can disagree and have some banter but to call you a "stupid idiot" is taking it really too far and a disgrace IMO

I think he deliberately taunts with his sarcastic comments in order for us to rise to the bait. His comments to Grahame were just as bad. I know I am not stupid so if we all end up not responding to his posts because he is rude then that's his loss as far as I am concerned. I get more upset when he is disrespectful to Sheila to be honest - because whatever the outcome she was vey ill and unable to answer for herself. When he does that it is really low in my opinion.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #128 on: March 17, 2014, 10:18:PM »


I can not see what is wrong with any of MY comments Adam . I repeat if the police went in on familiars or training whilst the bodies were still in there then the crime scene was not forensically checked properly or preserved end of argument. If the Jury were not aware of that then it is NEW evidence and therefore my comment is relevant to the thread.

 

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #129 on: March 17, 2014, 10:21:PM »
Adam has stated that the jury/court were fully aware of the training exercise whilst the bodies were still in the house - is that factual?

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #130 on: March 17, 2014, 11:11:PM »
Adam has stated that the jury/court were fully aware of the training exercise whilst the bodies were still in the house - is that factual?
I very much doubt it?

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #131 on: March 17, 2014, 11:12:PM »
Is this the exact quote? Often the Devil“s in the detail.
I think I came to the conclusion a while back that they were referring to Jeremy.
Ni it wasn't refering to Jeremy. They may have suggested that on the so called red forum. But it was distinctly referring to someone within the house.

Offline tyler

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #132 on: March 17, 2014, 11:49:PM »
Jury at trial were not made aware of the training carried out at whf that morning. I believe it was used in a later appeal.

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #133 on: March 17, 2014, 11:57:PM »
Ni it wasn't refering to Jeremy. They may have suggested that on the so called red forum. But it was distinctly referring to someone within the house.

No, it was my own conclusion. I can think for myself. It is my opinion, of course, and people are welcome to disagree with me. I will try to find the exact transscript tomorrow, for now, good night.

Offline tyler

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2395
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #134 on: March 18, 2014, 12:06:AM »
Think the actual quote was "Firearms team are in conversation with someone inside the farm". The big question is,did they mean "farm" or "farmhouse"? Goodnight Alias x