Author Topic: 13 bullet cases in m/bedroom, yet no follower plate mark found on them...  (Read 51550 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079

Fact: If Moule had been at this location and she was to the left of Moule that would mean she had to be at the green/black containment location but that faced the coal shed

You are confusing, yourself...

WPC Jeapes was covering in firearm terms, was WHITE / RED sides...

In order to do this, she had to be in the general location of the corner of WHITE / RED, otherwise she would not have been able to see the only rifle ever photographed at a bedroom window (Anshuzt rifle leaning against the upper floor main bedroom window), and the FRONT DOOR, and the window to the right of that front door, which was / is the dining room...
« Last Edit: April 11, 2015, 07:23:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
It never ceases to amaze me, birdbrain, why you challenge everything I am saying, but then again, thats why your a bird brain, but prey tell us all which rifle was seen at the window of your choice? Now, remember that Jeapes specifically states 'RIFLE', and not shotgun...

She said it appears to be a rifle barrel.  A broom or cane sticking up would appear the same way a rifle barrel would there was even an air rifle that could have been against the window. It could have been a reflection from something even there might have been nothing actually in the window. 

I challenge what you say because you intentionally distort to pretend you have evidence that establishes things that you actually have no evidence to establish. 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079

The evidence conclusively establishes Sgt Jeapes was at the white containment location and that she screwed up by calling it the red/white containment location and also that she screwed up by thinking the kitchen door was the front door.

All your antics accomplish nothing.

No, you are wrong, again, she clearly states that in firearm terminology she was covering WHITE / Red sides...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
You are confusing, yourself...

WPC Jeapes was covering in firearm terms, WHITE / RED sides...

In order to do this, she had to be in the general location of the corner of WHITE / RED, otherwise she would not have been able to see the only rifle ever photographed at a bedroom window (Anshuzt rifle leaning against the upper floor main bedroom window), and the FRONT DOOR, and the window to the right of that front door, which was / is the dining room...

Jeapes said he was looking a the door near the kitchen.  She incorrectly thought this was the front of the house.  You are trying to pretend she was really at the front of the house though all the evidence establishes otherwise.  You keep ignoring the people she replaced were at the white location, Moule and other men were at the red/white location so she could not have been there, the shed she described was at the white location...

You lost this debate long ago.  You can keep repeating your disproved allegations all you want I will keep refuting them with the evidence.  You might be an English bulldog but I am a US Marine Bulldog and there is nothing more stubborn than us and our bite is worse than out bark.

Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
She wasn't covering the white/red side she was covering the white side.  She made it clear she saw the kitchen door, and kitchen window and was by the corner of the shed at the white containment location.  The people she replaced had been covering the white containment location. Moule and 2 others were covering the red/white containment location.  She INCORRECTLY thought she was at the red/white location when in fact she was at the white location. You intentionally keep ignoring the police who were ACTUALLY at the red/white location so she could not have been there, IGNORING that the men she replaced were at the white location so by extension that means she was at the white location, and IGNORING the physical descriptions which clearly describe the white containment location.

Moule was at the red/white containment location and she admits she was not at the same site as him he was to the site right of her.  So that right there proves she was wrong in claiming she was at the red/white containment location.  You are fighting a battle you can't win.


Listen, birdbrain, I do not ignore anything....

You, do not know, and you have no idea what I have taken into consideration in arriving at my own conclusions. I am streets ahead of your current way of thinking, I have been there, considered it, weighed up the pro's and cons, in favour or against it, and moved on...

I know that what you are advocating is absolutely wrong, and that any right thinking member of the public will clearly see that there is merit in what I am promoting...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
No, you are wrong, again, she clearly states that in firearm terminology she was covering WHITE / Red sides...

Stating so doesn't make her right.  She stated the green/white corner was to her right but that is impossible unless she was at the green/black containment site.  So that objectively demonstrates mistake 1.  She called the front of the house the site with the kitchen door.  This objectively illustrates mistake 2. She claimed Moule was at the green/white location but he was at white/red so this objectively illustrates mistake 3.  Since he was at red/white and she was at a different location this objectively illustrates she could not have been at white/red she had to have made a mistake.  Since the men she replaced were not at white/red this objectively proves she was not at white/red she made a mistake.  Since the barn she describes was not at the white/red location this proves she was somewhere else.

You want us to just accept claims that we objectively know are wrong.  I will not close my eyes to absolute proof she made an error and to just pretend her erroneous claims were true.  Nor will I pretend the murder weapon was found int he window because I only use real evidence against Jeremy not fake evidence.  It would be highly useful to use the murder weapon in the window as evidence that someone else murdered Sheila but it would be fake evidence because all the evidence available establishes the murder weapon was found on her body.   



   
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Her claim that she was covering the red/white side is objectively wrong.  Moule, Mindinhall and Brown were the ones covering the red/white corner so she can't have been.  The men she replaced were covering the white side so objectively that proves she was at the white containment site. The physical descriptions she gave correspond to the white containment site not the red/white corner. 

Beyond all doubt she erroneously wrote she was at the white/red containment site when in fact she was at the white containment site.

She said it, so it must be right...

The men she replaced were close to the corner of WHITE / RED side, on WHITE side, not entirely on RED side. You have no evidence whatsoever, that when Jeapes replaced those men, that she stood in exactly the same position and location that those men had been standing in. Again, you are speculating on this matter. If she stood in the general area where those men that she replaced had previously been standing then those men had not simply been covering the WHITE location containment area, but WHITE / RED location, or in other words the corner area of WHITE / RED allowing them, and later WPC Jeapes to have the vantage point of both sides of the farmhouse, or in other words, WHITE / RED, not only WHITE side, as you erroneously allege...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
NOW I understand why someone wrote to her to clarify . Fact - she never said which room window it was.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
She said it appears to be a rifle barrel.  A broom or cane sticking up would appear the same way a rifle barrel would there was even an air rifle that could have been against the window. It could have been a reflection from something even there might have been nothing actually in the window. 

I challenge what you say because you intentionally distort to pretend you have evidence that establishes things that you actually have no evidence to establish.

Please direct me to any photograph which shows a broom handle leaning against the side of the main bedroom window, or for that matter, any other upstairs room window on either side of the WHITE / RED sides of the farmhouse? I do not intentionally distort anything. Actually, I seek the truth in any matter, I am not biased in any view I may end up believing in...
« Last Edit: April 11, 2015, 07:22:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Listen, birdbrain, I do not ignore anything....

You, do not know, and you have no idea what I have taken into consideration in arriving at my own conclusions. I am streets ahead of your current way of thinking, I have been there, considered it, weighed up the pro's and cons, in favour or against it, and moved on...

I know that what you are advocating is absolutely wrong, and that any right thinking member of the public will clearly see that there is merit in what I am promoting...

Your conclusions are clearly driven by bias and since you haven't refuted the evidence I raised it means you are just ignoring it.

You are ignoring that if she had been in front of the house there are 3 windows that she could have been referring to and there would be no way to isolate which of the 3 she meant.  So you would not be able to establish she meant the master bedroom window.

You are ignoring objective evidence that Moule, ildinhall and Brown were the ones assigned to the red/white contianment site.

You are ignoring objective evidence that those Jeapes said she replaced were at the white containment site.

You are ignoring that there is no barn at the red/white containment site.

You are interpreting things on purpose in a manner that affords the pretense she was at the front of the house so you can then  pretend she was talking about the master bedroom window and you ignore all evidence that proves this to be false.  You know the truth you just don't want to admit it.  This isn't a matter of you being confused and fooled by Jeapes you are playing games.  You don't even sincerely believe the things you are writing.  You can swear up and down you are a gullible codger who believes the things you write but I don't believe it.  You could never convince me that you are dumb and gullible and thus honestly believe what you are peddling- you are are just playing games. 

Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Jeapes said he was looking a the door near the kitchen.  She incorrectly thought this was the front of the house.  You are trying to pretend she was really at the front of the house though all the evidence establishes otherwise.  You keep ignoring the people she replaced were at the white location, Moule and other men were at the red/white location so she could not have been there, the shed she described was at the white location...

You lost this debate long ago.  You can keep repeating your disproved allegations all you want I will keep refuting them with the evidence.  You might be an English bulldog but I am a US Marine Bulldog and there is nothing more stubborn than us and our bite is worse than out bark.

The, "He", you are referring to, is a SHE...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Jeapes said he was looking a the door near the kitchen.  She incorrectly thought this was the front of the house.  You are trying to pretend she was really at the front of the house though all the evidence establishes otherwise.  You keep ignoring the people she replaced were at the white location, Moule and other men were at the red/white location so she could not have been there, the shed she described was at the white location...

You lost this debate long ago.  You can keep repeating your disproved allegations all you want I will keep refuting them with the evidence.  You might be an English bulldog but I am a US Marine Bulldog and there is nothing more stubborn than us and our bite is worse than out bark.

 I do not accept that I have lost any debate on these matters, no-one has argued or challenged what I have been saying in any sort of depth, so I once again disagree with what you are intent on wrongly promoting...
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
NOW I understand why someone wrote to her to clarify . Fact - she never said which room window it was.

She did say which window if one approaches the issue honestly.  If one approaches it honestly they realize she was on the side facing the kitchen and the upper window on the gray portion is the window.  There was only one such window the boxroom window.  All other windows on the upper floor were clad in red brick.   

If one approaches it dishonestly and pretends she was in the front of the house then there are 3 windows that she could have been referring to.

Writing to her would be:

1) to make her clarify if she was at the actual front of the house or she was at the containment site facing the kitchen (though we already know the answer because she saw the raid team enter and only could have seen this from the site facing the kitchen not front of the house plus other evidence proving it)

2) If she answered the front (though we know she wasn't at the front) then to clarify which of the 3 upper windows she meant.


Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Please direct me to any photograph which shows a broom handle leaning against the side of the main bedroom window, or for that matter, any other upstairs room window on either side of the WHITE / RED sides of the farmhouse? I do not intentionally distort anything. Actually, I seek the truth in any matter, I am not biased in any view I may end up believing in...

None of the photos of the box room have been publicly released so we can't try to assess what if anything was against that window.  Could it be that Jeremy supports won' show any of that room precisely because it would reveal some object that was able to look like a rifle?  Perhaps so. 

But we don't know she saw anything in that window, it could have been a shadow simply- the photos might reveal nothing.   

That was definitely the window she was referring to though there is no question about that at all.

You are the one with access to all the photos supposedly so you tell us what the photos revealed of the boxroom.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
The, "He", you are referring to, is a SHE...

Who Moule?
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry