Perhaps Jeremy Didn't Follow Nevill Dowstairs?

[maggie]

Well each crime scene is vastly different for each individual. But each one just as important. No one has ever really quoted the 2002 appeal before either, which is an excellent source.

Putting them all into one thread is too big an amalgamation in my view. They are all huge and vitally important.

I have explained to you Adam, you take it far too far!  For a start, why does the bike have its own crime scene? Surely you can see that's a bit much!

[Jane]

Thank you Maggie.

I won't create another thread on the case this year.

You weren't being given permission to flood the forum with more useless threads on January 1st, either.

[Adam]

I have explained to you Adam, you take it far too far!  For a start, why does the bike have its own crime scene? Surely you can see that's a bit much!

Well I created a thread several weeks ago on the bike being forensically tested. And why should there be incriminating evidence on it,  a month after the crime. 

Should I have asked this question on an unrelated thread ?

Anyway, several posters discussed this issue. Including you.

[Jane]

Well I created a thread several weeks ago on the bike being forensically tested. And why should there be incriminating evidence on it,  a month after the crime. 

Should I have asked this question on an unrelated thread ?

Anyway, several posters discussed this issue. Including you.

Adam, I wonder if you begin to appreciate how lucky you are that Maggie is dealing with you? She has been amazingly tolerant of your constant arguing, childishness, petulance and total disregard for her requests -I'd have banned you for life, months back- but I get the impression you've pushed her just about as far as she'll allow herself to be pushed and you're now living in Last Chance Saloon. If you want to stay, my advice is that you shut up.

[Adam]

You weren't being given permission to flood the forum with more useless threads on January 1st, either.

Well you post on here every day, from mid morning to late evening. So feel free to create what you consider are 'not useless' threads.

I am afraid I have forgotten the only one thread you created on here. I must have been too busy creating what you consider are 'useless' threads. Or perhaps discussing it, they do get big responses, from you and everyone else.

[Caroline]

Well you post on here every day, from mid morning to late evening. So feel free to create what you consider are 'not useless' threads.

I am afraid I have forgotten the only one thread you created on here. I must have been too busy creating my vastly inferior threads.

It's 'quality' that counts Adam - not 'quantity' 

[Adam]

It's 'quality' that counts Adam - not 'quantity' 

Ok, now I am not creating threads, I'll read the thread on the black mark on Sheila's finger. I am sure it is a lot more interesting than my recent threads on the individual crime scenes and the kitchen fight. As well as continue to read the 2002 COA document, which has excellent information.

[Jane]

Well you post on here every day, from mid morning to late evening. So feel free to create what you consider are 'not useless' threads.

I am afraid I have forgotten the only one thread you created on here. I must have been too busy creating my vastly inferior threads.

You have yet to display anything like consideration for what others think, Adam. which could go some way to explaining why so many complaints are made about you. Prizes aren't given for the most posts created and from the sound of it I'm not alone in thinking yours are "vastly inferior". As I've said on many occasions, quality is preferable to quantity.

[Caroline]

Ok, now I am not creating threads, I'll read the thread on the black mark on Sheila's finger. I am sure it is a lot more interesting than my recent threads on the individual crime scenes and the kitchen fight. As well as continue to read the 2002 COA document, which has excellent information.

Well, if you did read other people's posts, you would realise that the 2002 Appeal documents has been quoted many times. The fact that you don't know that 'forensically' proves you don't read other people's posts 

[Adam]

Well, if you did read other people's posts, you would realise that the 2002 Appeal documents has been quoted many times. The fact that you don't know that 'forensically' proves you don't read other people's posts 

I was the poster who first quoted the 2002 appeal report. And then quoted it on a regular basis for a short period, a long time ago. Unless you can show me a post quoting it prior to me joining. Scipio then quoted it a couple of times.

It is an excellent reference and starting point to discuss the forensic crime scene of each individual. Together with Neville's kitchen fight. So I have been using it again this month and will read it some more. 

[Jane]

I was the poster who first quoted the 2002 appeal report. And then quoted it on a regular basis for a short period, a long time ago. Unless you can show me a post quoting it prior to me joining. Scipio then quoted it a couple of times.

It is an excellent reference and starting point to discuss the forensic crime scene of each individual. Together with Neville's kitchen fight. So I have been using it again this month and will read it some more.

Adam, there's no "I" in team. Sadly, your world only seems to be about "I, Me and Myself" but no one but you cares, so it's of no moment to anyone that you may, or not, have been the first person to quote something.

[Caroline]

I was the poster who first quoted the 2002 appeal report. And then quoted it on a regular basis for a short period, a long time ago. Unless you can show me a post quoting it prior to me joining. Scipio then quoted it a couple of times.

It is an excellent reference and starting point to discuss the forensic crime scene of each individual. Together with Neville's kitchen fight. So I have been using it again this month and will read it some more.

The following post goes back to 2011 - long before you and I were members here. You were certainly NOT the first person to quote it and a simple search will prove that to you. You don't read other people's posts Adam, unless they mention you - which is why you only THINK you were the first to quote it!

Check out the link - you weren't the first by any means!! http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,754.msg20173.html#msg20173

[Adam]

The following post goes back to 2011 - long before you and I were members here. You were certainly NOT the first person to quote it and a simple search will prove that to you. You don't read other people's posts Adam, unless they mention you - which is why you only THINK you were the first to quote it!

Check out the link - you weren't the first by any means!! http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,754.msg20173.html#msg20173

Excellent work.

I don't know how you managed to find a post from 2011 quoting a section of the 2002 appeal report. As you said, you were not a member and it was nearly three years before I joined.

[Caroline]

Excellent work.

I don't know how you managed to find a post from 2011 quoting a section of the 2002 appeal report. As you said, you were not a member and it was two years before I joined.

I did a search Adam - it's easy!! You must have missed this one http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3628.msg142028.html#msg142028 - guess who Caroline R is? 

[Adam]

Well I didn't read posts dating back nearly three years from the date I joined the forum.

Several months after joining I quoted the 2002 appeal report several times. It had never been quoted by anyone since I had joined. Although it has been quoted since by Scipio.

I have quoted it a lot on my recent threads about the five crime scenes and the kitchen fight.

I will give it another read.  It is heavy going but an excellent Primary source which can't be disputed. Although everyone is free to interpret the evidence how they wish.