Maggie, his posts are actually quite offensive. They are also insulting to the memory of Daniel, Nicholas, June, Nevill and Sheila.
What is being claimed is that I am attempting to mislead and pull wool over people's eyes regarding wounds upon the back of Sheila's right hand; an angled cut on the left side of her right index finger which matches the shape of an engineered rifle part; and wounds upon her right arm.
I personally feel you should be commended for being forthright and honest in your acknowledgement of the wounds on the open forum.
The wounds in question were passed off as 'smearing'. I have repeatedly asked how a gunshot neck wound pouring with blood would cause such 'smearing'. I think we both know that blood doesn't behave in a manner that would cause the marks in question. It doesn't of itself break the skin either.
Hmmmm.
There is a long list of previous attempts to mislead people in to believing that JB is innocent, the majority of which have been carried out intentionally with that agenda in mind. The perpetrators of such actions vary from the the Campaign Team, previous Legal Representatives, the founder of this forum and numerous members of this and other forums.
There are of course some assertions which are put forward with genuine belief, which may or may not be found wanting.
That is the simple historic truth of the matter.
Maggie seemed to be a little spiky when I mentioned that she had made three attempts at replying to a post, she had replied twice before and then deleted them before rewording a third reply. Nothing else was meant by it.
With regards to the blood staining on Sheila's hands, it is simply the case that a member of this forum has given an opinion that they are actually injuries, this is based on nothing more than a visual inspection of poor quality manipulated photographs.
There is no other evidence suggesting that the marks are injuries, in fact the opposite is true, given the pathologist's reports and photographs previously available since trial. The blood stains were SPECIFICALLY mentioned in court and discussed. There are no other accounts from any other witness that Sheila's hand were injured. Whilst there is the old adage that the absence of evidence is not an indication of evidence of absence, it is hardly a compelling argument in this instance.
People may choose to accept the claims, or not, it doesn't really matter, however if we are being even handed in portraying forum members behaviour, then Maggie certainly does appear blind to Roch's antics.
