When Does A Precedent Become Accepted As Such

[Jane]

The garments, location of the stains and size of the stains are what says it was menstrual.  Stains on bottoms of female clothes in crotch areas without anyone haveing been wounded in a crotch area prior to the murders or during are what leads to the conclusion it was menstrual.

As a practical matter menstrual blood has a lot of mucus, whether that effects the smell I don't know. It also contains vaginal and uterine epithelial cells.  Since some women stink down there and some don't maybe some menstrual blood smells and some doesn't.  That would be pretty funny if she is right considering how much people mocked the smell thing but the location of the blood and amount is sufficient for me to make an assessment so there is no need for me to bother to consult a gynecologist about the smell thing.

Ooooh Scipio!!! TOO much information at breakfast time!!!!!

[grahameb]

Ooooh Scipio!!! TOO much information at breakfast time!!!!!

[lookout]

Whatever next ? He must have a full set of encyclopaedias at his side !!

[No-Bits]

Or Google, but I'd be worried about what would come up. 

[lookout]

Well yes,Harters. I was quite behind the times just then. I won't even go there,Googling.

[Jane]

Well yes,Harters. I was quite behind the times just then. I won't even go there,Googling.

I think this all stems from a point where Scipio simply cannot BEAR to have anyone else know more than he about a given subject, thus going out of his way (giving too much information) to try and prove it 

[No-Bits]

I think this all stems from a point where Scipio simply cannot BEAR to have anyone else know more than he about a given subject, thus going out of his way (giving too much information) to try and prove it 

My defence is that I know nowt about nothing.  :D

[No-Bits]

My defence is that I know nowt about nothing.  :D

As opposed to everything about nothing. 

[Jane]

As opposed to everything about nothing. 

Could we say something about (almost) everything?

[No-Bits]

Could we say something about (almost) everything?

Not sure, I'll check on google.   

[scipio_usmc]

Whatever next ? He must have a full set of encyclopaedias at his side !!

I have a good memory and remember all sorts of little tidbits including a forensic episode (not the fiction ones the documentary type shows like Forensic Files) where they established blood came from a victims nose because it has mucus in it and that the only other blood with a lot of mucus was from the vagina which also has vaginal and utermine Epithelials to distinguish from nose blood but as a man he didn't have a vagina so...

If people actually pay attention they can pick up all sorts of tidbits that are seemingly useless but might come in handy one day in the distant future.

The show mentioned nothing about smell nor has any other show or thing I have ever read mentioned a thing about smell of vaginal blood aside from Ann.  So that aspect I know nothing about.  While I could research it I don't have enough motivation to do so because blood stains on the crotches of bottoms belonging to a woman who was menstruating is obviously menstrual.

 

[lookout]

I just have a spattering of enough to get me by,,,but no way would I profess to knowing everything because I don't,but nevertheless I'm learning all the time.

[grahameb]

I think this all stems from a point where Scipio simply cannot BEAR to have anyone else know more than he about a given subject, thus going out of his way (giving too much information) to try and prove it 

Yes he certainly gives that impression. As when I posted something that he overlooked he claimed immediately that he thought of it first.

[scipio_usmc]

Yes he certainly gives that impression. As when I posted something that he overlooked he claimed immediately that he thought of it first.

I didn't overlook anything.  I did indeed think of it already and stated it many times including in a post where you responded by quoting me:

Post 109 in this thread:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5343.msg232501.html#msg232501

In the gray which is a quote from me was the following:

"The defense had their own expert lift and test blood from the suppressor so had the ability to test the blood for anything desired. One common sign of planted blood is for said blood to have a preservative agent in it.  Blood samples usually have preservative agents added.  So if blood from a sample is used this will be a tell-tale sign."

Note how long ago that was, back in May.

Far from you thinking up something I neve rthought of you thought up something you never thought of evne though is had been stated by me many times because either you never bothered to read it or it went over your head.

Oops!

[grahameb]

I didn't overlook anything.  I did indeed think of it already and stated it many times including in a post where you responded by quoting me:

Post 109 in this thread:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5343.msg232501.html#msg232501

In the gray which is a quote from me was the following:

"The defense had their own expert lift and test blood from the suppressor so had the ability to test the blood for anything desired. One common sign of planted blood is for said blood to have a preservative agent in it.  Blood samples usually have preservative agents added.  So if blood from a sample is used this will be a tell-tale sign."

Note how long ago that was, back in May.

Far from you thinking up something I neve rthought of you thought up something you never thought of evne though is had been stated by me many times because either you never bothered to read it or it went over your head.

Oops!

Excuse me god but you have not said anything in either of those "quotes" of your posts that pertains anything like that which I said. I said that you never mentioned (and I'm right) that it would be impossible for the family to use blood to "spray" into the silencer because the clotting time for blood was only 2 to 5 minutes.
Moreover in passing I added that they could only do it if they had access to an anti clotting agent. However even if they did have access to this it would not act on blood that was already clotted.

So mister brain of America and Britain show me where you stated that they relatives could not have sprayed blood into the silencer because it would have already have been clotted. You can't because I said it, not you. So don't try and twist things and claim that you said it first. You didn't. All you did was rabbit on about not being able to duplicate the spray patterns in the silencer or some other unproven rubbish. You completely missed the best argument you could have used. Where do you get off from being up your own arse all the time. For goodness sake man give others some credit over your ignorance for a change.