Author Topic: reasonable doubt  (Read 32084 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33764
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #30 on: December 11, 2015, 05:37:PM »
What's your thoughts on the point made against your point... you claim police state "attempt to make conversation with someone inside farmhouse."............Howcome you ignored the rest of the sentence when they say NO RESPONSE?

Actually, Mat, I believe it should be made clear that as there was NO RESPONSE, the police were neither "in conversation with" nor in dialogue with as BOTH have a requirement of two or more persons.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #31 on: December 11, 2015, 05:41:PM »
What's your thoughts on the point made against your point... you claim police state "attempt to make conversation with someone inside farmhouse."............Howcome you ignored the rest of the sentence when they say NO RESPONSE?

People forget that the logs were written by someone in the control room, they weren't at the scene, they were simply trying to make sense of what was being relayed to them from the CS. Now people are trying to make the inevitable errors into a conspiracy.
Few people have the imagination for reality

guest154

  • Guest
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #32 on: December 11, 2015, 05:43:PM »
Actually, Mat, I believe it should be made clear that as there was NO RESPONSE, the police were neither "in conversation with" nor in dialogue with as BOTH have a requirement of two or more persons.

Yeah, that's my point. Maybe I made it poorly, the police say they attempted to contact someone/anyone inside the Farmhouse.....they say they got no response. But people ignore the "no response" and claim that because they attempted it means they were successful, I could attempt to win the Lotto tonight - doesn't mean I will!  ;D

"No response" is clear......NO RESPONSE!!  ;D

People forget that the logs were written by someone in the control room, they weren't at the scene, they were simply trying to make sense of what was being relayed to them from the CS. Now people are trying to make the inevitable errors into a conspiracy.

Clear errors, yeah. But this is one that dies on its arse right away because the fact there is NO RESPONSE was recorded as NO RESPONSE.

So it seems there are errors even where there aren't any.

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #33 on: December 11, 2015, 05:46:PM »
You yet again can't even spell my name properly - so excuse me if I don't take your views on anyone elses blunder seriously.  ;D

thats a bit nasty MAT .?


Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #34 on: December 11, 2015, 05:51:PM »
You yet again can't even spell my name properly - so excuse me if I don't take your views on anyone elses blunder seriously.  ;D

thats a bit nasty MAT .?


guest154

  • Guest
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #35 on: December 11, 2015, 05:51:PM »
thats a bit nasty MAT .?

Nasty? It was a joke, hence the "  ;D "

But at least it got the message across.


But lets not squabble, I'd rather talk about the case. What are your thoughts on these? In response to your post on the first page about police being in conversation?



What's your thoughts on the point made against your point... you claim police state "attempt to make conversation with someone inside farmhouse."............Howcome you ignored the rest of the sentence when they say NO RESPONSE?
Actually, Mat, I believe it should be made clear that as there was NO RESPONSE, the police were neither "in conversation with" nor in dialogue with as BOTH have a requirement of two or more persons.

Offline lebaleb

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 884
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #36 on: December 11, 2015, 06:22:PM »
Just to be pedantic, one can attempt to have a conversation with someone who doesn't respond because they are having a psychotic episode or they just don't like you.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #37 on: December 11, 2015, 06:30:PM »
Just to be pedantic, one can attempt to have a conversation with someone who doesn't respond because they are having a psychotic episode or they just don't like you.

Yeah  ::)
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33764
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #38 on: December 11, 2015, 06:36:PM »
Just to be pedantic, one can attempt to have a conversation with someone who doesn't respond because they are having a psychotic episode or they just don't like you.


The person's mental state is irrelevant. One can attempt a conversation with whomsoever they choose. If the person chooses not to respond, a conversation cannot be said to have occurred.

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #39 on: December 11, 2015, 06:56:PM »
Nasty? It was a joke, hence the "  ;D "

But at least it got the message across.


But lets not squabble, I'd rather talk about the case. What are your thoughts on these? In response to your post on the first page about police being in conversation?

oh ok .

i think the no response bit was a bit of an after thought. Someone was seen in the house then they werent, someone was heard inside the house then they werent.

why say you are in conversationwhen clearly your not.  Why call response team if no response oh because there was a gun yielding woman in the house but oh no there wasnt .

Sorry about spelling errors im working from a small tablet and i keep forgetting to check.


Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33764
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #40 on: December 11, 2015, 07:07:PM »
oh ok .

i think the no response bit was a bit of an after thought. Someone was seen in the house then they werent, someone was heard inside the house then they werent.

why say you are in conversationwhen clearly your not.  Why call response team if no response oh because there was a gun yielding woman in the house but oh no there wasnt .

Sorry about spelling errors im working from a small tablet and i keep forgetting to check.

 I take it your question is rhetorical. How on earth are we supposed to know why a bog standard plod uses a certain type of phraseology. Off the top of my head, I'm going to suggest it's police "speak" that they learn whist training. It is also possible that in the event of a book to go by, they may have adhered strictly to such.........................OR the errors were caused because they were working from a small tablet and kept forgetting to check :)) :)) :))

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #41 on: December 11, 2015, 07:24:PM »
Now that is a bit of a joke isnt it jane. I dont think epvstrictly adhered to anything did they or they wouldnt have needed an enquiry would they.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33764
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #42 on: December 11, 2015, 07:39:PM »
Now that is a bit of a joke isnt it jane. I dont think epvstrictly adhered to anything did they or they wouldnt have needed an enquiry would they.

They probably didn't, but the closest many of them had been to a crime of this magnitude would probably have been in text books and in all likelihood, in practical terms, they were ill prepared. It would be hard to find a quieter part of Essex or one with less violent crime than the area where this atrocity occurred. Police personnel, stationed in and around it, where hardly on high alert for such occurrences.

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2015, 08:31:PM »
You need to come and see where i live lol 😃

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13705
Re: reasonable doubt
« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2015, 11:43:PM »
I'm not talking about the shots, I'm talking about the battering and I have seen it in high res - not a pretty sight!!

I find your reasoning behind finding Jeremy guilty based on that photograph rather irrational, If I was to show you crime scene photographs of male victims of female killers more gruesome than that of Neville Bamber then what would you think?

Quote
Neither do I, I just know he's guilty - I have no doubts

Sounds like an emotional judgment rather than a logical one.

Quote
then you should know the silencer is NOT the only circumstantial evidence

I do know, and if you read my posts you will know that reasonable if not serious doubt can be put on all the other circumstantial evidence.