When Does A Precedent Become Accepted As Such

[scipio_usmc]

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.

I said the blood would have to have a preservative unless they took blood instantly from someone to use.

Your 5 minutes time is not accurate.  It is possible to take blood form someone and then isntantly plant it a veyr shoort time after drawing such blood.  That is what many suggest, that Boutflour;s blood was drawn than instantly planted.  That would require knowing he matched Sheila's blood though and knowing he rwound was a contact wound and all about drawback.

If instead the claim is blood was taken and used at a later date then it would have  apreservative agaent in it.

That is how it goes.

You ignored the possibility of planting the blood soon after drawing it or alternatively using a preserving agent with even the simple ones will enable the blood to last 24 hours.

[grahameb]

I said the blood would have to have a preservative unless they took blood instantly from someone to use.

Your 5 minutes time is not accurate.  It is possible to take blood form someone and then isntantly plant it a veyr shoort time after drawing such blood.  That is what many suggest, that Boutflour;s blood was drawn than instantly planted.  That would require knowing he matched Sheila's blood though and knowing he rwound was a contact wound and all about drawback.

If instead the claim is blood was taken and used at a later date then it would have  apreservative agaent in it.

That is how it goes.

You ignored the possibility of planting the blood soon after drawing it or alternatively using a preserving agent with even the simple ones will enable the blood to last 24 hours.

No I didn't. What I said concerning this was that RWB probably did not use his blood  (which by default  meant he would have had to use it right away) because he probably would not have known that his blood group was the same as Sheila. Not many people in England know their own blood group.

Ps: Normal blood clotting time is 2 to 6 minutes. There was no new blood from Sheila to take. So it was not an option.

[Alias]

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.

To the first part: police never looked at those clothes, we only have Ann Eaton´s word for how the clothes looked, smelled, which items were in the buckets, where the stains were, etc - and that is simply not enough for me. It is for you, fine, not me.
Why did she wash the clothes - then throw them out? Errrr, how does that even make sense? She kept one of Sheila´s dresses for years, nagging the police to test it - yet she threw away bloodied clothes.

To the second part of your post: EW!

[grahameb]

To the first part: police never looked at those clothes, we only have Ann Eaton´s word for how the clothes looked, smelled, which items were in the buckets, where the stains were, etc - and that is simply not enough for me. It is for you, fine, not me.
Why did she wash the clothes - then throw them out? Errrr, how does that even make sense? She kept one of Sheila´s dresses for years, nagging the police to test it - yet she threw away bloodied clothes.

To the second part of your post: EW!

Possibly a psychological thing? Let's face it Jeremy did some out of character things after the murders and he gets condemned as acting guilty by some. But this terrible trajedy that took place that morning of the 7th 1985 was a tremendous shock for everyone and I suppose that Ann was still in shock when she was doing these things? I don't suppose she could answer why she did the things she did even now in 2014?
I think people on the forum have got into the habit of handling evidence as "cold meat" so to speak. Hardly any of us stop to try and comprehend the fragile state of folk's minds following that shocking event? I reckon it hit the whole family including Jeremy as a ton weight. Everybody, not only Jeremy were doing and saying things that were quite frankly abnormal. And to tell you the truth I think Jeremy was right, Jones WAS a hard bastard who had no consideration of the tremendous loss that was suffered by all including Jeremy. And all some on this forum can say is, "Oh he changed his statement there and he lied here" etc etc. But they lack the insight that we all need in order to appreciate that shocking bolt from the blue that rocked that family to the very foundations that day.

[Jane]

Possibly a psychological thing? Let's face it Jeremy did some out of character things after the murders and he gets condemned as acting guilty by some. But this terrible trajedy that took place that morning of the 7th 1985 was a tremendous shock for everyone and I suppose that Ann was still in shock when she was doing these things? I don't suppose she could answer why she did the things she did even now in 2014?
I think people on the forum have got into the habit of handling evidence as "cold meat" so to speak. Hardly any of us stop to try and comprehend the fragile state of folk's minds following that shocking event? I reckon it hot the whole family including Jeremy as a ton weight. Everybody, not only Jeremy were doing and saying things that were quite frankly abnormal. And to tell you the truth I think Jeremy was right, Jones WAS a hard bastard who had no consideration of the tremendous loss that was suffered by all including Jeremy. And all some on this forum can say is, "Oh he changed his statement there and he lied here" etc etc. But they lack the insight that we all need in order to appreciate that shocking bolt from the blue that rocked that family to the very foundations that day.

A very insightful post, Grahame.

[scipio_usmc]

To the first part: police never looked at those clothes, we only have Ann Eaton´s word for how the clothes looked, smelled, which items were in the buckets, where the stains were, etc - and that is simply not enough for me. It is for you, fine, not me.
Why did she wash the clothes - then throw them out? Errrr, how does that even make sense? She kept one of Sheila´s dresses for years, nagging the police to test it - yet she threw away bloodied clothes.

To the second part of your post: EW!

How do you know police never looked at them?  The publicly released documents only concern items of import that police took not what they left behind and saw to be valueles and never collected.

In fact you don't evne know if they ever existed.  All you have is a claim form Eaton that they did.

So that is all you have to work off of.

The assumption that police never saw them and left them because they never looked at them is not sound at all and something you go by because it is the only way you can try suggesting maybe there was other clothes hidden somewhere never found or reported by anyone not even Ann.

Such assumptions and wild speculation mean nothign because you need evidence to prove that there was such clothing tha tpolice missed, wild speculation made form the frame of reference of not knowing what police did or know means operating form a position of ignorance.

If you believe they exist by trusting Ann's words then you have no reason to doubt her words as to what clothing it was and where the stains were.

My position on why it was menstrual is sound.  Even a woman or especially a woman should fell that significant staining in the crotch areas of panties and leggings would be from menstratuon where no females were wounded in such area.

As to why she would throw menstrual stained clothing away it is obvious.  What value could they hold to the investigation?  None!  Why would she keep them?

Rinsing them out to throw them away is something obvious to do in order to throw the water away and then dispose of them.

You seem to always quesiton things that make perfect sense and fail to quesiton the things that make no sense which Jeremy and his supporters claim.

[Alias]

scipio, you feel the need to defend the EP for not examining bloodied clothes found at a murder scene, fine, keep it up.
You know I disagree, can´t go on arguing about the same issue. Bottom line for me: we cannot be absolutely sure what was in those buckets, the material was not forensically tested.
I´m done with this, what I say is completely logical, I have said what I have to say, and unlike you, I am not much for endless repetition.

[Jane]

scipio, you feel the need to defend the EP for not examining bloodied clothes found at a murder scene, fine, keep it up.
You know I disagree, can´t go on arguing about the same issue. Bottom line for me: we cannot be absolutely sure what was in those buckets, the material was not forensically tested.
I´m done with this, what I say is completely logical, I have said what I have to say, and unlike you, I am not much for endless repetition.

Alias, you beat me to it :D I was just about to ask HOW we know, and from WHOM, that the soaking clothes were the result of a menstrual accident. Without the availability of examining them, surely there was no way of knowing.

[scipio_usmc]

scipio, you feel the need to defend the EP for not examining bloodied clothes found at a murder scene, fine, keep it up.
You know I disagree, can´t go on arguing about the same issue. Bottom line for me: we cannot be absolutely sure what was in those buckets, the material was not forensically tested.
I´m done with this, what I say is completely logical, I have said what I have to say, and unlike you, I am not much for endless repetition.

Far from being logical you are just demonstrating how biased you look at this case.

All Jeremy supporters do the same exact thing, make wild accusations and speculation thinking that unsupported speciulation acocmplishes something and assuming on the basis of very little information you know everything police did.

It is not logical to take and test panties and leggings with blood int he crotch area.  It is logical to recognize that such blood would come from menstraul bleeding since no female victims has wounds that would result in blood to the crotch area. There is no vlaue to them the claim that they might have been is nonsense.

You can't posit any way it could have been of any use you just say maybe it somehow could have.  Posit a way- you can't. 

The fact they left behind somethign OBVIOUSLY not related to the murders is not evidence to suggest  there was clothing they left behind that was related ot the murders.  Ann Eaton mentioned what clothing she found and taking clothing she thought could have been related.  No tops with possible blood spatter was mentioned.   The fact she EVEN mentioned worthless menstrual stained clothing clearly unrelated to the murders means for sure she would have mentioned finding something that coudl have had blood spatter on it.

What you are doing is to try to PRETEND that Ann got rid of what could have been evidence and police left it behind so this means Police could have left other evidence as well that Ann threw out.  Such argument fails miderably.

Go pout all you like it changes nothing.

[grahameb]

Far from being logical you are just demonstrating how biased you look at this case.

All Jeremy supporters do the same exact thing, make wild accusations and speculation thinking that unsupported speciulation acocmplishes something and assuming on the basis of very little information you know everything police did.

It is not logical to take and test panties and leggings with blood int he crotch area.  It is logical to recognize that such blood would come from menstraul bleeding since no female victims has wounds that would result in blood to the crotch area. There is no vlaue to them the claim that they might have been is nonsense.

You can't posit any way it could have been of any use you just say maybe it somehow could have.  Posit a way- you can't. 

The fact they left behind somethign OBVIOUSLY not related to the murders is not evidence to suggest  there was clothing they left behind that was related ot the murders.  Ann Eaton mentioned what clothing she found and taking clothing she thought could have been related.  No tops with possible blood spatter was mentioned.   The fact she EVEN mentioned worthless menstrual stained clothing clearly unrelated to the murders means for sure she would have mentioned finding something that coudl have had blood spatter on it.

What you are doing is to try to PRETEND that Ann got rid of what could have been evidence and police left it behind so this means Police could have left other evidence as well that Ann threw out.  Such argument fails miderably.

Go pout all you like it changes nothing.

Hahahaha. You really cannot see yourself can you scipio. You are really a bit thick aren't you? Just because a person doesn't agree with you that does not mean that they are biased. ROFLMAO. You wanna know the funniest bit? It is that you just cannot see that it is you yourself who is probably the most biased person on the forum. Excluding Adam of course, but everyone knows that he doesn't count.

[Alias]

Far from being logical you are just demonstrating how biased you look at this case.

All Jeremy supporters do the same exact thing, make wild accusations and speculation thinking that unsupported speciulation acocmplishes something and assuming on the basis of very little information you know everything police did.

It is not logical to take and test panties and leggings with blood int he crotch area.  It is logical to recognize that such blood would come from menstraul bleeding since no female victims has wounds that would result in blood to the crotch area. There is no vlaue to them the claim that they might have been is nonsense.

You can't posit any way it could have been of any use you just say maybe it somehow could have.  Posit a way- you can't. 

The fact they left behind somethign OBVIOUSLY not related to the murders is not evidence to suggest  there was clothing they left behind that was related ot the murders.  Ann Eaton mentioned what clothing she found and taking clothing she thought could have been related.  No tops with possible blood spatter was mentioned.   The fact she EVEN mentioned worthless menstrual stained clothing clearly unrelated to the murders means for sure she would have mentioned finding something that coudl have had blood spatter on it.

What you are doing is to try to PRETEND that Ann got rid of what could have been evidence and police left it behind so this means Police could have left other evidence as well that Ann threw out.  Such argument fails miderably.

Go pout all you like it changes nothing.

You are putting words in my mouth - I never said anything remotely like that. Stop pretending you know what people think, thanks.

[Jane]

You are putting words in my mouth - I never said anything remotely like that. Stop pretending you know what people think, thanks.

Let's just hope he isn't planning on being a therapist any time soon. His listening skills require a lot more practice.................................like a lifetime!!!!!

[scipio_usmc]

Hahahaha. You really cannot see yourself can you scipio. You are really a bit thick aren't you? Just because a person doesn't agree with you that does not mean that they are biased. ROFLMAO. You wanna know the funniest bit? It is that you just cannot see that it is you yourself who is probably the most biased person on the forum. Excluding Adam of course, but everyone knows that he doesn't count.

I don't call things illogical or absurd simply if I disagree. I call them illogical and absurd when they objectively are and one such case is when peopel suggest that panties with blood int he crotch area are related to the murders and major evidence or worse thry to suggest that since police left them behind tha tmeans they might have left clothes with victim blood spatter.

The fact Ann Eaton mentioned eveyr little thing found even durty kid's clothes and kept all potentioal clothing from the bedrooms she though could have held evidence then obviously she didn't find any such clothing either not just police failed to find such.

When people try spinning to say otherwise is is simply being made up and not evidence based so not merely a different interpretation of the evidence.

[grahameb]

I don't call things illogical or absurd simply if I disagree. I call them illogical and absurd when they objectively are and one such case is when peopel suggest that panties with blood int he crotch area are related to the murders and major evidence or worse thry to suggest that since police left them behind tha tmeans they might have left clothes with victim blood spatter.

The fact Ann Eaton mentioned eveyr little thing found even durty kid's clothes and kept all potentioal clothing from the bedrooms she though could have held evidence then obviously she didn't find any such clothing either not just police failed to find such.

When people try spinning to say otherwise is is simply being made up and not evidence based so not merely a different interpretation of the evidence.

In actual fact I don't think the crotch area is ever mentioned by Ann Eaton?

[scipio_usmc]

In actual fact I don't think the crotch area is ever mentioned by Ann Eaton?