"Hypostasis Worse Indicator of TOD than Rigor Mortis" Professor Bernard Knight

[sami]

Love it Lookout

[sami]

Without putting too much of my own thoughts on paper, I can't answer who'd shot who but I can certainly go along with the fact that the rifle didn't end up on Sheila's body,instead, it was in between the two women,roughly 18" away from Sheila.
PC's Collins and Delgado should both have the decency to come forward and tell the world that they were BOTH unhappy about the position of Sheila along with certain " movements " as in the video of the scene against what they originally saw. In fact,the whole group of them if the truth be known and although they expressed their grievances about the matter,it had been Adams who'd insisted that they were wrong so they went along with their senior ( as one does ) even though both remained to have doubts.

who told you ,this is were the rifle was

[lookout]

who told you ,this is were the rifle was

A little birdie-------perhaps that " iniquitous " robin,which matches this iniquitous case.

[Caroline]

I have my own selfish reasons? LOL you really do believe you can read people don't you? Bless your cotton socks 

But you want someone who has killed nobody to stay in?

He killed 5 people!

[Caroline]

I very much believe the rifle was where it was found. because of the bloodstains to Sheila's neck

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7805.msg369805.html#msg369805

Of course it was, that's where Jeremy left it. I see you have posted 'your theory' on the Injustice Anywhere forum - lead balloon springs to mind.  I also see that true to form, you're bragging about the 'vast amount of information' YOU have collected? I wonder why you haven't bothered to credit Mike or this forum as a the source of that information? Old habits? 

I will have you on ignore from now on.

[Romeo]

Thank you Romeo, when the goading starts, you know they're losing. I think David should send errrr 'his' second theory to Jeremy's lawyers - although it's another thing that has been debated here  and already formed part of submissions to the CCRC and rejected. In fact any theory by David should form the basis for any and all submissions that Jeremy makes in the future, after all - he's an expert in everything and if he states it, it becomes fact! 

  You sure Caroline!     

[Adam]

I've never understood why a poster would put another poster on ignore.

It means they can't read or respond to another posters posts. The poster who has been ignored then has a free reign to disagree and discredit the other persons posts, knowing they won't be challenged by that person.

A former poster put me on ignore once for a short period as my posts were so damaging for Bamber. She spent the whole time telling the forum she had done this, and replying to my posts when other posters quoted them. So was obviously itching to read my posts  and respond. The poster had just put me on ignore to deflect attention onto me as an undermining attempt. 

[David1819]

A former poster put me on ignore once for a short period as my posts were so damaging for Bamber. She spent the whole time telling the forum she had done this, and replying to my posts when other posters quoted them. So was obviously itching to read my posts  and respond. The poster had just put me on ignore to deflect attention onto me as an undermining attempt.

It was actually because your posts were annoying her. but nevermind

[lookout]

I've never understood why a poster would put another poster on ignore.

It means they can't read or respond to another posters posts. The poster who has been ignored then has a free reign to disagree and discredit the other persons posts, knowing they won't be challenged by that person.

A former poster put me on ignore once for a short period as my posts were so damaging for Bamber. She spent the whole time telling the forum she had done this, and replying to my posts when other posters quoted them. So was obviously itching to read my posts  and respond. The poster had just put me on ignore to deflect attention onto me as an undermining attempt.

You should be so lucky-------------that you've got a fan.!

[sami]

It was actually because your posts were annoying her. but nevermind

yes the truth can be very annoying when someone tries to ignore it

[David1819]

yes the truth can be very annoying when someone tries to ignore it

I will take your word for it Sami 

[sami]

I will take your word for it Sami 

thanks for understanding david.is lookout right you were in the guilty camp some years back

[David1819]

thanks for understanding david.is lookout right you were in the guilty camp some years back

When I first found out about the case and began looking into it around 2014, yes I very much leaned towards guilt.

[notsure]

It would help enormously if you could provide a workable scenario of what you believe happened. It does no good to say that X happened when you can't provide a logical/plausible follow-up OR when X can be ruled out.

what was your logical/plausible scenario janej when you thought  sc had comitted the murders .

[Jane]

what was your logical/plausible scenario janej when you thought  sc had comitted the murders .

Not sure, I never saw Sheila as 'going mad' in the conventional sense. I saw her as being lost in her own world -unable to be reached- speaking/humming to herself whilst cradling the gun. This COULD have been Nevill's chance to phone Jeremy, during which Sheila, who until that point hadn't harmed anyone, slips upstairs, a wholly unsuspecting Nevill hanging on, waiting for Jeremy to answer. He drops the phone, having said a few words to Jeremy and follows her.....................alone, in it's immediacy, it works. It doesn't stand closer inspection and the questions it raises don't have satisfactory answers.