Allot of My posts are based on scientific studies and I often paste the relevant parts in them, they are supported opinions. bluff and dishonesty would be like for example saying photos of Sheila's feet are not Sheila's feet ,, OH Wait! 
instead of being evasive or answering the question with a question why not just focus on the "Massive List" of circumstancial evidence sans Julie Mugford 
Yes you do quote scientific studies, studies that have little relation to what you are explaining and often they refute even yo own point. You're a bluffer David! Where is the proof that the foot is Sheila's?
Funny isn't it, the list of circumstantial evidence (plus the silencer) convicted Bamber because they realised there was NO EVIDENCE to tie in Sheila other than she had a history of mental illness ...... and errrrr, hmmmmm? I'll wite the list in my own time and post it when I'm ready and none of your goading will make me post it any quicker.
