0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I have often wondered if the flick of light was the light being turned off?his is only a theory. But, the corner of that building has me puzzled. A firearms officer Jeaps sees a rifle leaning at the window of the box room. Brown also see a rifle in the same window. The window in question cannot have been the window of the main bedroom as first thought because Jeaps is back at base at 8:30 and the photographs of the crime scene were not taken in the main bedroom till 10am. If I was in that building and wanted to watch what was going off outside I would flit from main bedroom to box room. I would also have to turn the light off because its almost impossible to see the outside clearly when the light is on. Its more clear when the light is off....
Do me a favour, put me on ignore.
No I will continue to respond to all claims made by anyone when I see reason to do so especially claims that need to be challenged whether made by Adam or you or anyone else.
Once again you demonstrate you have no idea what you are talking about. This was explained to you countless times so at this point the only clnclusionsis that you are either intentionally misrepresenting or you have a low IQ.The defense hired a phto expert who made outrageous claims that were rejected by the court and also laughed at my other experts. One such claim is that he enlarged a tiny speck in a photo and matched this speck to a piece of varnish missing from Sheila's toenail. He claimed the speck was a tiny fleck of varnish not a toenail. I'm not the only one who explaned this to you so did others. His allegation is was a piece of varnish has not been corroborated by anyone and is not considered credible. The poor quality of the photos combined makes it impossible to enlarge a tin speck to the point it can be shape matched to a piece of varnish missing. His methodology was criticized by prosecution experts.So even claiming it was definitely a speck of varnish from her toe would be inaccurate but especially to claim it was a piece of toenail.You claim that police saw lights turning on and off is patently false. Now you claim well some gave conflicting accounts of which ones were on. That doesn't establish that anyone saw a light turn on and off. Many didn't pay close attention to record such and to later include it in their reports. NO ONE claims to have seen a light turn on and off or off and on.To establish lights were turning on and off you need a witness who saw such. not even Jeremy claimed he saw that.
Another made up claim.
Please don't make things up, just for the sake of making things up, since evidence exists to prove and confirm that various lights within the farmhouse were on and off and back on again at different times - of course, "Crispy" the dog could have been responsible for this...
Low IQ I've got now ? Well I would say to YOU,, that it's better to keep YOUR mouth shut and appear stupid,,,than to open it and remove all doubt
You pretend to be right about everything. It is annoying. Very often you are just guessing like everybody else. An occasional, "in my opinion" or "I think" or "it is probable", would do wonders, Mr.
The Yanks aren't known for their good manners,Alias
My opinion is supported by evidence. Most people here intentionally ignore the significant evidence instead of following it. Trying to pretend you are objective and just following the evidence is a waste of time. You and most others are advcates of Jeremy not objective.I just read Jeapes statement which I never read before since she wasn't part of the raid team. She never went in the house at all. She didn't see a rifle in the box room. Before police ever went in she said she saw something in one of the ground floor windows that looked like it could be a rifle leaning against it. It is not my fault mistakes keep being made and false claims that need correcting.
WILL YOU STOP THIS BS! I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE OF JB, Just fucking shut up. You don´t have evidence for everything you say, that is a FACT. Leave me alone, you don´t even read posts properly, you are so busy with your own ego.
The peanut gallery is crabby today.
No one knows when the earliest photo taken was in fact taken. It is possible a photo was taken right away and the gun then moved. No police gave their statements right away as soon as they got back to the station. There is no way to say they were not influenced by photos taken of the scene or tlaking with others when they made their reports. They also could have been mistaken about details just because that is what happens when you don't document everything. Recollections of acocunts and the actual details captured by a camera often reveals differences. At any rate, the notion police would not have heard shots is nonsense and she still can't have shot herself and then moved her own body nor shot herself with the suppressor.
