Murders at White House Farm by Carol Ann Lee.

[Adam]

See what I mean ? Centre stage,or else !! Tsk.

TomG keeps saying on this/ the only thread he is posting on, I have 'straw man arguments'.

But I'm just asking questions or reacting to his weak posts on Bamber's innocence.

He initially denies saying things & asks me to find & quote his post. Which takes time.

When I do find his former posts, he won't back up his claims with any answers.

[guest1199]

You keep denying saying things. Probably because you have realised it is another rubbish idea.

I have had to look and re quote you're posts on 5 different things. It takes time to find them. So I won't be doing it again.

Either come up with valid arguments or quit posting.

Good night Adam.
Hold on to something tight.
Hoots!

[Adam]

TomG keeps saying on this/ the only thread he is posting on, I have 'straw man arguments'.

But I'm just asking questions or reacting to his posts on Bamber's innocence.

He initially denies saying things & asks me to quote his post. When I do, he won't back up his claims with any answers.

To be fair TomG did post counter arguments to my reasons why Bamber chose the actual murder weapon. Claiming my reasons were a straw man argument.

However when I asked him what weapon Bamber should have used instead, he denied saying Bamber used the wrong weapon.  Asking me (again) to find proof he said this.   

When I quoted his post saying Bamber used a 'totally inappropriate weapon' he still wouldn't answer or even say what other weapons were available at WHF.

This can only mean Bamber used the best available weapon at WHF and all my reasons were right. 

TomG's & Roch's claim that Bamber would have chosen another weapon has been dismissed.

[Caroline]

To be fair TomG did post counter arguments to my reasons why Bamber chose the actual murder weapon. Claiming my reasons were a straw man argument.

However when I asked him what weapon Bamber should have used instead, he denied saying Bamber used the wrong weapon.  Asking me (again) to find proof he said this.   

When I quoted his post saying Bamber used a 'totally inappropriate weapon' he still wouldn't answer or even say what other weapons were available at WHF.

This can only mean Bamber used the best available weapon at WHF and all my reasons were right. 

TomG's & Roch's claim that Bamber would have chosen another weapon has been dismissed.

The only other weapons were shotguns - they would be inappropriate given the number of times you would need to reload. He also wouldn't be able to use his story about leaving out the rifle  out. He factored in the rifle in his plan, not the shot gun.

[Adam]

The only other weapons were shotguns - they would be inappropriate given the number of times you would need to reload. He also wouldn't be able to use his story about leaving out the rifle  out. He factored in the rifle in his plan, not the shot gun.

One of my 8 reasons why Bamber chose this rifle was that loading it & apparently leaving it out wouldn't create suspision. Either to the relatives earlier or police when he started insinuating Sheila. As the rifle was used for shooting rabbits.

Hopefully TomG has realised if he is going to claim other peoples reasons are 'straw man', he must have alternatives. Rather than just denying posting something when asked for these alternatives. 

Roch has also said Bamber used the wrong weapon. But wisely did not get involved in a debate on the subject after I created a thread.

[susan]

One of my 8 reasons why Bamber chose this rifle was that loading it & apparently leaving it out wouldn't create suspision. Either to the relatives earlier or police when he started insinuating Sheila. As the rifle was used for shooting rabbits.

Hopefully TomG has realised if he is going to claim other peoples reasons are 'straw man', he must have alternatives. Rather than just denying posting something when asked for these alternatives. 

Roch has also said Bamber used the wrong weapon. But wisely did not get involved in a debate on the subject after I created a thread.

Adam
Jeremy shooting rabbits and leaving out the rifle may mean nothing at all it could be just a coincidence or not of course we need to look at this from both angles

[mike tesko]

To be fair TomG did post counter arguments to my reasons why Bamber chose the actual murder weapon. Claiming my reasons were a straw man argument.

However when I asked him what weapon Bamber should have used instead, he denied saying Bamber used the wrong weapon.  Asking me (again) to find proof he said this.   

When I quoted his post saying Bamber used a 'totally inappropriate weapon' he still wouldn't answer or even say what other weapons were available at WHF.

This can only mean Bamber used the best available weapon at WHF and all my reasons were right. 

TomG's & Roch's claim that Bamber would have chosen another weapon has been dismissed.

Jeremy Bamber didn't use any weapon to shoot his sister, either downstairs in the kitchen, or later at 9.13am, when she got killed by the shot under the chin with her body n the main bedroom floor!

[guest1199]

The only other weapons were shotguns - they would be inappropriate given the number of times you would need to reload. He also wouldn't be able to use his story about leaving out the rifle  out. He factored in the rifle in his plan, not the shot gun.

Hi Caroline

I sent you a personal message in response to you theory of the crime.  It is rather long, it also includes a few diverse references,  but be patient and give it a thorough reading.  I would normally have posted this sort of thing on the forum, but I'm a bit concerned about the inclinations that some members have of responding to posts that are not intended for them.

All this can be aggravated by the possibility that one or perhaps two people on the forum seem to be unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say, or is it me that has the problem?  I don't know, but a personal message is the only way in this instance since my PM is a direct response to your post upthread.  If you can understand it grammatically at least let me know.  I think I'd be vindicated if you do.

Oh I've also removed my avatar, I'm aware that it might be giving people the wrong impression of me.

Hoots!

[Steve_uk]

Hi Caroline

I sent you a personal message in response to you theory of the crime.  It is rather long, it also includes a few diverse references,  but be patient and give it a thorough reading.  I would normally have posted this sort of thing on the forum, but I'm a bit concerned about the inclinations that some members have of responding to posts that are not intended for them.

All this can be aggravated by the possibility that one or perhaps two people on the forum seem to be unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say, or is it me that has the problem?  I don't know, but a personal message is the only way in this instance since my PM is a direct response to your post upthread.  If you can understand it grammatically at least let me know.  I think I'd be vindicated if you do.

Oh I've also removed my avatar, I'm aware that it might be giving people the wrong impression of me.

Hoots!

This is ridiculous. We're not going to change Forum rules exclusively for your benefit and have a hundred private conversations circulating simultaneously. If you don't have confidence in yourself or your posts then don't bother to post at all.

[lookout]

This is ridiculous. We're not going to change Forum rules exclusively for your benefit and have a hundred private conversations circulating simultaneously. If you don't have confidence in yourself or your posts then don't bother to post at all.

Unusual to see you stroppy,Steve.
For what it's worth--------nothing and nobody is worth the effort of caring two " Hoots ".

[guest7363]

This is ridiculous. We're not going to change Forum rules exclusively for your benefit and have a hundred private conversations circulating simultaneously. If you don't have confidence in yourself or your posts then don't bother to post at all.

Quite right Steve, why come on the forum to tell someone they have sent them a personal message, why not just send it, strange way to have a dig at other posters.

[Steve_uk]

Unusual to see you stroppy,Steve.
For what it's worth--------nothing and nobody is worth the effort of caring two " Hoots ".

Yes sorry I do seem to have become cantankerous of late. Let him send it I suppose. But secrecy on here seems to have become ingrained with so many developments not now in the public domain and this forum has suffered as a result.

[Steve_uk]

Quite right Steve, why come on the forum to tell someone they have sent them a personal message, why not just send it, strange way to have a dig at other posters.

Yes those were my thoughts.

[lookout]

Yes sorry I do seem to have become cantankerous of late. Let him send it I suppose. But secrecy on here seems to have become ingrained with so many developments not now in the public domain and this forum has suffered as a result.

No need to apologise Steve. Where ignorance is bliss,etc etc. Bad manners,but there you are.
Pity you didn't see his remark on Twitter ! But we won't go into that.

[Roch]

Yes sorry I do seem to have become cantankerous of late. Let him send it I suppose. But secrecy on here seems to have become ingrained with so many developments not now in the public domain and this forum has suffered as a result.

Sometimes this forum is its' own worst enemy.  It cannot afford to exist in a silo, separate from developments, when there are other people either willing to give insight and information or at least participate.  Well it can actually exist like that - but at what price?  Ever-decreasing relevance to the case?