Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Jane on July 11, 2014, 02:48:PM
-
It seems to me that much of what Scipio denies about this case is based on there being no precedent. Whilst some of this MAY be so, it's my belief that some isn't. ie, it appears that because he doesn't believe that a woman may choose to wear two pairs of knickers, during OR pre-empting menstruation, for added protection, meaning that the two soaking pairs were from two separate occasions. I'm perfectly certain that in the grand scheme of things, this small fact -women NEVER wear two pairs of knickers- hardly matters BUT, as he backs up SO much of what he says by saying that there's no precedent for anything WE may say, it causes me to wonder at what point something IS accepted as being a precedent.
EVERYTHING has a starting point so EVERY situation has to, at some time, have been a first. My next question has to address the time taken before allowing that, at a specific point, a precedent WAS set and how many innocent people spend time -maybe YEARS- in prisons because of it.
-
It seems to me that much of what Scipio denies about this case is based on there being no precedent. Whilst some of this MAY be so, it's my belief that some isn't. ie, it appears that because he doesn't believe that a woman may choose to wear two pairs of knickers, during OR pre-empting menstruation, for added protection, meaning that the two soaking pairs were from two separate occasions. I'm perfectly certain that in the grand scheme of things, this small fact -women NEVER wear two pairs of knickers- hardly matters BUT, as he backs up SO much of what he says by saying that there's no precedent for anything WE may say, it causes me to wonder at what point something IS accepted as being a precedent.
EVERYTHING has a starting point so EVERY situation has to, at some time, have been a first. My next question has to address the time taken before allowing that, at a specific point, a precedent WAS set and how many innocent people spend time -maybe YEARS- in prisons because of it.
that is very true. There may not have been a case like this before it could be unique , but from an innocent or guilty stance it could be a first.
-
It seems to me that much of what Scipio denies about this case is based on there being no precedent.
Precedent is mainly a legal term of art. It means in essence that in the future law is to be applied to a like set of facts in the same manner as in the instance decision. Prcedent is rarely used outside the legal context and when it is it still is means to set an example that is copied and repeated in the future. Precedent is not a good word to use for the matter at hand.
Whilst some of this MAY be so, it's my belief that some isn't. ie, it appears that because he doesn't believe that a woman may choose to wear two pairs of knickers, during OR pre-empting menstruation, for added protection, meaning that the two soaking pairs were from two separate occasions. I'm perfectly certain that in the grand scheme of things, this small fact -women NEVER wear two pairs of knickers- hardly matters BUT, as he backs up SO much of what he says by saying that there's no precedent for anything WE may say, it causes me to wonder at what point something IS accepted as being a precedent.
EVERYTHING has a starting point so EVERY situation has to, at some time, have been a first. My next question has to address the time taken before allowing that, at a specific point, a precedent WAS set and how many innocent people spend time -maybe YEARS- in prisons because of it.
People can rebutt the norm with evidence to establish something different happened.
Wearing 2 pairs of panties for exrta absorbancy makes no sense though. The whole reaosn maxipads and tampons exist is to protect clothing from being ruined. Why would a woman opt to use 2 pairs of panties which woudl result in ruining 2 pairs of panties instead of a maxipad or tampon which would not only save the panties but is more absorbant than 2 pairs of panties anyway? How many women would decide to do that? Do you know any who would?
When might a woman do that? When they have no maxipads or tampons and need to go to the store to buy some? And in that case which panties would they use? Ones they could throw away most likely. Who would use good ones that you intended to then clean?
So already the notion she worse 2 panties to soak up blood that intended to wash later is not likely. What eveidence is there to establish this unlikely thing happened as opposed to her wearing the 2 panties as separate times. None. Woudl it matter if the did wear 2 at onece? Not really.
All the clothing proves is that Sheila menstruated in her panties and that it leaked into her leggings as well. Could this have happened prior to the murders? Yes. Is it highly likely that it happened prior to the murders? Yes. Is there any evidence to suggest it happened during or after the murders? No.
Are these clothes relevant to the murders? No.
Jeremy defenders want to pretend that this clothing proves that Sheila washed and changed after murdering everyone and that is why she had no physical evidence on her body or clothing.
All it demontrates is that she menstruated in her panties and leggings while she was wearing them. Is there any evidence she was wearing the leggings and panties at the time of the murders? No. She had a tampon inserted when killed. It makes no sense at all to ruin underwear, then bother to place them in a bucket to soak and insert a tampon right before killing herself. Who bothers to wash clothing knowing you are dying and won't need them anymore? Who inserts a tampon right before blowing their brains out to prevent menstrual blood from getting on their nightgown and the floor?
Is it likely she would be wearing panties and leggings at the time of the murders? No
After speaking to Pam she went to bed. There is no indication she would sleep in panties and leggings at all let alone when menstrauting. She had tampons at her disposal and one was in her when she was killed. Why would she go to bed in extra pairs of panties and leggings instead of using the tampon and nightgown?
If she did go to bed in leggings and panties she still needed to wear either a gown to cover her top or at minimum a shirt. If she committed the murders then she either had to do it topless or nude in order to avoid getting GSR and blood spatter on a shirt or gown. No shirt or gown she could have been wearing during the murders was found with blood or GSR on it. Nor did the leggings or panties have any reported blood spatter only stains in the crotch areas. So there is no evidence that she committed the murders and then changed out of clothing containing spatter from the victims or GSR.
That is the issue. Jeremy supporters suggest she changed and washed but have put forth: 1) no reason why she would do so. A) The claim that ritualistic killers sometimes do ritualistic things like bathe doesn't have any relation to allegations of a crazy person going wild it applies only to ritualistic killings. B) the only other reaosn peopel wash up and change and dispose of blood clothing used in a crime is to avoid liability but someone who murders with the intention of committing suicide doesn't bother
2) no evidence that she changed her clothing. There was no clothing found anywhewre other than on her body that she would likely have been wearing during the murders let alone any that was found containing blood spatter or GSR.
The law is concerned with what makes sense and can be proven.
Jeremy defenders constantly make claims that make no sense and that they can't prove. They constantly ignore that once someone is convicted the burden is to disprove the evidence used in order to establish a wrongful conviction. Disproving it requires solid proof not half baked scenarios one simply thought up on the fly but had no evidence to establish occurred.
-
No this is left to the guilters who now can bring up half baked scenarios til their hearts content. ;)
1) You are betraying yourself again Grahame. I don't know why you insist on lying and pretending you are objective and not a Jeremy supporter despite constantly revleaing you are one of the most staunch on this site. That kind of dishonesty is easy to see through so instea dof folling anyone just reveals you do be dishonest. My advice is to give up the charade and just admit what everyone knows.
2) the half baked unsupported claims are coming mainly from the Pro-Jeremy camp. Trying to use the knickers ad panties to pretend Sheila changed after the murders is a perfect example but I can provide many others.
Considering this is a site full of people supportive of Jeremy for many years I expected such supporters woudl be able to clearly define their case and evidence to support their claims but on the contrary what I have discovered is that most Jeremy supports simply decide to believe he is innocent for absurd reasons and not because of evidence and thus are unable to do so and anything they come up with is pretty much ad hoc and changes with the wind.
-
Precedent is mainly a legal term of art. It means in essence that in the future law is to be applied to a like set of facts in the same manner as in the instance decision. Prcedent is rarely used outside the legal context and when it is it still is means to set an example that is copied and repeated in the future. Precedent is not a good word to use for the matter at hand.
People can rebutt the norm with evidence to establish something different happened.
Wearing 2 pairs of panties for exrta absorbancy makes no sense though. The whole reaosn maxipads and tampons exist is to protect clothing from being ruined. Why would a woman opt to use 2 pairs of panties which woudl result in ruining 2 pairs of panties instead of a maxipad or tampon which would not only save the panties but is more absorbant than 2 pairs of panties anyway? How many women would decide to do that? Do you know any who would?
When might a woman do that? When they have no maxipads or tampons and need to go to the store to buy some? And in that case which panties would they use? Ones they could throw away most likely. Who would use good ones that you intended to then clean?
So already the notion she worse 2 panties to soak up blood that intended to wash later is not likely. What eveidence is there to establish this unlikely thing happened as opposed to her wearing the 2 panties as separate times. None. Woudl it matter if the did wear 2 at onece? Not really.
All the clothing proves is that Sheila menstruated in her panties and that it leaked into her leggings as well. Could this have happened prior to the murders? Yes. Is it highly likely that it happened prior to the murders? Yes. Is there any evidence to suggest it happened during or after the murders? No.
Are these clothes relevant to the murders? No.
Jeremy defenders want to pretend that this clothing proves that Sheila washed and changed after murdering everyone and that is why she had no physical evidence on her body or clothing.
All it demontrates is that she menstruated in her panties and leggings while she was wearing them. Is there any evidence she was wearing the leggings and panties at the time of the murders? No. She had a tampon inserted when killed. It makes no sense at all to ruin underwear, then bother to place them in a bucket to soak and insert a tampon right before killing herself. Who bothers to wash clothing knowing you are dying and won't need them anymore? Who inserts a tampon right before blowing their brains out to prevent menstrual blood from getting on their nightgown and the floor?
Is it likely she would be wearing panties and leggings at the time of the murders? No
After speaking to Pam she went to bed. There is no indication she would sleep in panties and leggings at all let alone when menstrauting. She had tampons at her disposal and one was in her when she was killed. Why would she go to bed in extra pairs of panties and leggings instead of using the tampon and nightgown?
If she did go to bed in leggings and panties she still needed to wear either a gown to cover her top or at minimum a shirt. If she committed the murders then she either had to do it topless or nude in order to avoid getting GSR and blood spatter on a shirt or gown. No shirt or gown she could have been wearing during the murders was found with blood or GSR on it. Nor did the leggings or panties have any reported blood spatter only stains in the crotch areas. So there is no evidence that she committed the murders and then changed out of clothing containing spatter from the victims or GSR.
That is the issue. Jeremy supporters suggest she changed and washed but have put forth: 1) no reason why she would do so. A) The claim that ritualistic killers sometimes do ritualistic things like bathe doesn't have any relation to allegations of a crazy person going wild it applies only to ritualistic killings. B) the only other reaosn peopel wash up and change and dispose of blood clothing used in a crime is to avoid liability but someone who murders with the intention of committing suicide doesn't bother
2) no evidence that she changed her clothing. There was no clothing found anywhewre other than on her body that she would likely have been wearing during the murders let alone any that was found containing blood spatter or GSR.
The law is concerned with what makes sense and can be proven.
Jeremy defenders constantly make claims that make no sense and that they can't prove. They constantly ignore that once someone is convicted the burden is to disprove the evidence used in order to establish a wrongful conviction. Disproving it requires solid proof not half baked scenarios one simply thought up on the fly but had no evidence to establish occurred.
D'ya know, your audacity AMAZES me. There YOU are -a male- giving we females a lesson in the art of dealing with the logistics of menstruation based entirely on male assumptions.
It may not have crossed your mind that in order to take advantage of the menstrual aids you mention, one either needs to have them to hand OR go and buy them. Given that Sheila wasn't within walking distance of a shop and couldn't drive, it seems she may have decided to manage with what she had, one box of 10 tampons -which may, or not have been sufficient, and she decided not to use until it was absolutely necessary- PLUS possibly, two pairs of knickers over night to prevent an accident occurring in someone else's bed, the logic being that underwear, possibly jogging bottoms and nightdresses are easier to wash than sheets and POSSIBLY, mattresses.
There's NO reason that she couldn't have used this routine until her period started and being constantly short of money and relying on food parcels from her parents, this routine MAY have been her norm. Remember, too, she probably came to the farm with no money. I don't know how other women feel about it but I would REALLY feel I'd hit rock bottom the day I had to ask my mother for money to buy menstrual aids.
There really was no need to state that "these clothes" aren't relevant to the murders. I had already said that in the grand scheme of things it meant little. MY point was about precedents being set and the fact that a man is telling a woman how women cope with menstruation. Perhaps you have other knowledge, re this strictly female occurrence, that we don't know about.
-
D'ya know, your audacity AMAZES me. There YOU are -a male- giving we females a lesson in the art of dealing with the logistics of menstruation based entirely on male assumptions.
Given that Sheila wasn't within walking distance of a shop and couldn't drive, it seems she may have decided to manage with what she had, one box of 10 tampons -which may, or not have been sufficient, and she decided not to use until it was absolutely necessary- PLUS possibly, two pairs of knickers over night to prevent an accident occurring in someone else's bed, the logic being that underwear, possibly jogging bottoms and nightdresses are easier to wash than sheets and POSSIBLY, mattresses.
It doesn't matter what gender you are, deciding not to use a tampon because she might run out of them the following day at some point so instead to sleep in 2 pairs of underwear and track bottoms makes no sense at all. You use the tampon and tell your family you need them to take you to buy more or go buy more for you.
Thinking the tampon will not be enough and that you need 2 pairs of panties and track bottoms as well to catch the blood doesn't make too much sense either but worse there is no evidence to support that unlikely belief was helpd by Sheila and that she went to bed in such.
What are the chances of so much blood making it through the tampon and then through 2 pairs of panties to heavily stain the crotch of the track bottoms?
Why would someone who decided she was going to kill herself and had just killed her family decide to soak the panties and track bottoms before killing herself?
That would be no more sensible than me deciding I was going to kill myself but before I do so tossing the clothes in my hamper in the washing machine. I can't use my clothes dead so what do I care if my clothes are in the hamper dirty or found in he washing machine instead?
This has to do with common sense and logic not gender.
-
I think you better change your name to stupido. I thought you were more intelligent than that. But now I see that you have just revealed your true nature. You're just a wanker aren't you stupido scipio. Go back to killing innocent Iraqis again. ;)
Grahame - I see your posts are being deleted due to threats of violence/swearing/nastiness. I suggest you log off and just calm down? :-\ Or I'd guess a ban would come your way. :-\
-
Couldn't give a monkey's mate. What about his accusations and nastiness?
He isn't threatening to beat you up though.... Don't let your anger make a fool of you, a 5 minute break would calm you down. Just friendly advice.
-
Or maybe I just don't want to be lumped together with a big headed know-it-all like you. Whose head is so far up his arse he doesn't know how to be civil to people. I'm getting a bit sick of reading your garrulous drivel where half of it is devoted to trying to humiliate people.
I don't humilate people, they do that all by themselves. I just give people enough rope to hang themselves. In the meantime things like your suggestion that I should go off to kill Iraqis can't even be attributed to me providing the rope- you brought your own.
-
Come on people enough is enough - we're not kids! Argue the point or lose the post.
-
When he accuses me of being a liar Caroline. I've tried to have a civilised conversation with him. But its a bit difficult when dealing with a big head with no common decency in him at all. A bit like putting a prize ruby in the snout of a pig.
Grahame, you KNOW you're not a liar, how can you be a liar? All of us have opinions - they can ONLY be opinions because we weren't there. Things can happen and opinions change. We aren't in a court and some things are just based on gut feelings. If people can't accept that (on both sides) then that's their problem!
-
Well I'm ok with the fact that scipio is only a blinkered fool who thinks just because others don't agree with him they must be wrong. I really can't see how he is still alive? I would have thought he'd be poisoned by his own ego by now? What a strange small minded fellow he must be? Very sad.
It struck a cord because you know I am right. That is why you are lashing out like a child in every thread.
The reality is that everyone knows you are Jeremy supporter so instead of a wasted denial you might as well just be honest.
You already stated numerous times how your friend who supposedly met Jeremy believes he would not be capable so neigther do you. That alone is an admission you think he is innocent. Worse though, you entertain claims from Mike that are complete shams and that most guilters don't even respond to because they know are clear shams. People say you even said that you wished you did it so Jeremy could be free. When someone who believes Jeremy is guilty questioned why Jeremy did not complain with how long police were taking to enter you tried to draw attention away from Jeremy and did a long song and dance about police procedure and how it was textbook for police to wait for a hostage situation. Along comes Richardson claiming that the police waiting means they knew shots were fired already and that Jeremy was innocent and framed by them and you praise his post. You criticize any posts suggesting Jeremy is guilty and praise posts asserting he is innocent. You routinely mock "guilters" including with the post above while defending claims of his innocence.
Since you keep betraying your position time and time again it is a futile effort to pretend you are not a Jeremy supporter and simply an objective fence sitter. The lip service you give to objectivity doesn't convince those you want to convince of your objectivity so is a wasted effort that just makes you look dishonest.
If you want people to believe you are objective then you need to demonstrate it not just claim to be it.
Lashing out as you are doing just makes it look even worse for you. If you want respect you have to earn it and you can't earn respect by immaturely lashing out or by simply claiming to be objective when your posts say otherwise. You earn respect by being consistent and making rational claims that you can support with reason and evidence.
I could just whisper behind your back but I don't do that I tell people to their faces. While other people might like me more if I were like those who snicker and talk about people behind their backs but to their face put on an act, I would not like myself.
-
Bravo,Grahame.
-
It doesn't matter what gender you are, deciding not to use a tampon because she might run out of them the following day at some point so instead to sleep in 2 pairs of underwear and track bottoms makes no sense at all. You use the tampon and tell your family you need them to take you to buy more or go buy more for you.
Thinking the tampon will not be enough and that you need 2 pairs of panties and track bottoms as well to catch the blood doesn't make too much sense either but worse there is no evidence to support that unlikely belief was helpd by Sheila and that she went to bed in such.
What are the chances of so much blood making it through the tampon and then through 2 pairs of panties to heavily stain the crotch of the track bottoms?
Why would someone who decided she was going to kill herself and had just killed her family decide to soak the panties and track bottoms before killing herself?
That would be no more sensible than me deciding I was going to kill myself but before I do so tossing the clothes in my hamper in the washing machine. I can't use my clothes dead so what do I care if my clothes are in the hamper dirty or found in he washing machine instead?
This has to do with common sense and logic not gender.
Gracious Heavens, it seems that even that previously sacrosanct bastion of femininity, the menstrual cycle, isn't free of Scipio knows better!!!! If ONLY all life conformed to where you would have it be.
I rather imagine that if Sheila HAD had a conversation with June regarding this natural female function, it MAY have been the first one ever. I'm going to jump in here with one of the assumptions you so frequently jump to, but consider, in this case, I'm more qualified than you, to make. I don't imagine that the subject had EVER been touched upon between them. I think June had probably picked up from her own mother that menstruation was God's way of ridding women of their uncleanness -recall how Eve was condemned by God for Adam's fall from grace- which would sit very well with June calling Sheila a child of the Devil. I'm convinced Sheila would have been in no hurry to remind her mother that she was right because here was the proof. I think Sheila would have resorted to every trick in the book to have prevented her mother from knowing she was menstruating, including protecting herself from an overnight onset -and soiling her mother's bed linen- by wearing knickers RATHER than using the few tampons she had with her.
Do I see a sneer of disbelief? These things don't happen in the modern world. Oh really? Welcome to the secret world of female superstition. My Muslim friend was married against her will after both her parents, university lectures, died very young. During menstruation, because she was considered to be unclean, she was forced to live in a shed in the garden of a LONDON!!! house. Her food was pushed through a hatch in the door to avoid touching her. My mother forbade me to bathe or wash my hair. My school matron was of the same opinion -I can only assume they believed our foulness would contaminate the water supply- our protection had to be wrapped in newspaper and disposed of overnight.
I would hope this attitude has changed, but I suspect that like female circumcision/MUTILATION, because it's done in secret, it hasn't. You seem to think you know as much about the subject as do those of us who experience it first hand. Undoubtedly, you've read books and spoken with female friends but until/UNLESS you get into the psychology which underlies it and has been in existence long before books on the subject were written, you won't begin to understand it.
-
That is so sad,April. You're right about June too.
I'm of the belief that whatever Sheila did that night,was in defiance of her mother. The open box of tampons,the soiled underwear,which could well have been there before anyone was killed.
-
It doesn't matter what gender you are, deciding not to use a tampon because she might run out of them the following day at some point so instead to sleep in 2 pairs of underwear and track bottoms makes no sense at all. You use the tampon and tell your family you need them to take you to buy more or go buy more for you.
Thinking the tampon will not be enough and that you need 2 pairs of panties and track bottoms as well to catch the blood doesn't make too much sense either but worse there is no evidence to support that unlikely belief was helpd by Sheila and that she went to bed in such.
What are the chances of so much blood making it through the tampon and then through 2 pairs of panties to heavily stain the crotch of the track bottoms?
Why would someone who decided she was going to kill herself and had just killed her family decide to soak the panties and track bottoms before killing herself?
That would be no more sensible than me deciding I was going to kill myself but before I do so tossing the clothes in my hamper in the washing machine. I can't use my clothes dead so what do I care if my clothes are in the hamper dirty or found in he washing machine instead?
This has to do with common sense and logic not gender.
If Scipio had spent any time with people having psychotic episodes [as I have], he would understand that 'common sense and logic' is not something that applies to their behavior.
-
Agreed,Lebaleb. There's no reasoning with them whatsoever. I was with one such person a couple of weeks ago, so very sad yet I couldn't/wouldn't allow myself to have her committed.
I'm afraid Scipio has NO idea of the illness and reading up about it doesn't help because each individual acts out their psychosis in different ways.
Sheilas' problem was borne out of years of emotional and mental abuse meted out by her mother.
-
Gracious Heavens, it seems that even that previously sacrosanct bastion of femininity, the menstrual cycle, isn't free of Scipio knows better!!!! If ONLY all life conformed to where you would have it be.
I rather imagine that if Sheila HAD had a conversation with June regarding this natural female function, it MAY have been the first one ever. I'm going to jump in here with one of the assumptions you so frequently jump to, but consider, in this case, I'm more qualified than you, to make. I don't imagine that the subject had EVER been touched upon between them. I think June had probably picked up from her own mother that menstruation was God's way of ridding women of their uncleanness -recall how Eve was condemned by God for Adam's fall from grace- which would sit very well with June calling Sheila a child of the Devil. I'm convinced Sheila would have been in no hurry to remind her mother that she was right because here was the proof. I think Sheila would have resorted to every trick in the book to have prevented her mother from knowing she was menstruating, including protecting herself from an overnight onset -and soiling her mother's bed linen- by wearing knickers RATHER than using the few tampons she had with her.
Do I see a sneer of disbelief? These things don't happen in the modern world. Oh really? Welcome to the secret world of female superstition. My Muslim friend was married against her will after both her parents, university lectures, died very young. During menstruation, because she was considered to be unclean, she was forced to live in a shed in the garden of a LONDON!!! house. Her food was pushed through a hatch in the door to avoid touching her. My mother forbade me to bathe or wash my hair. My school matron was of the same opinion -I can only assume they believed our foulness would contaminate the water supply- our protection had to be wrapped in newspaper and disposed of overnight.
I would hope this attitude has changed, but I suspect that like female circumcision/MUTILATION, because it's done in secret, it hasn't. You seem to think you know as much about the subject as do those of us who experience it first hand. Undoubtedly, you've read books and spoken with female friends but until/UNLESS you get into the psychology which underlies it and has been in existence long before books on the subject were written, you won't begin to understand it.
1) You are the one making assumptions and they are extremely improvident. You assume that June was so much of a religious nut that she would have seen menstruating as wrong. You have nothing at all to base such on. Menstruating women being unclean is not part of Christian doctrine. Some sects that make up their own ultra insane doctrines assert such perhaps but not any mainstream sects. Not even Jeremy painted June as that crazy and he was the one who insisted she was ultra religious. The extended family and various friends denied she was a zealot they considered Jeremy to be lying and that is one of the many lies he told that made them suspicious.
2) Puttiing bloody clothing in a bucket in the kitchen to hide from June that Sheila was menstruating sounds logical to whom?
3) Leaving tampon wrapper sin the den to hide form June that Sheila was menstruating sounds logical to whom?
The fact of the matter is that you are making wild assumptions that a man has to call you out on because they are absurd for anyone to be making but especially a woman.
The 2 most common reasons for menstrual stained panties are: because the woman was unprepared for her period so didn't prepare by wearing maxis/tampons or was out of tampons/maxis so had no choice but to go without until buying more.
The notion of a woman deciding to save them instead of using them so to ruin clothes makes no sense at all. But worse yet you suggest perhaps she refused to use the tampon until after she decided to kill herself. She refused to use it but then stuck underwear in a bucket to soak though she was going to kill herself so would not need them anymore and inserted a tampon then killed herself.
Your suggestions would be akin to me having 5-10 tissues left and deciding that I will wipe my snot on my shirt and save the tissues because maybe I will need the tissues even more in the future before I get a chance to go buy more. So instead of using them all up before wreching any shirts I will ruin a shirt right away. It doesn't matter what gender you are such suggestions are stupid.
Your female clit mutilation claims have no bearing at all on the matter and show the extent to which you are grasping at straws to try to salvage your claim that a man can't be debating this topic but quite the contrary is the case. Indeed it is men who are most grossed out by menstruation and the source of things like genital mutilation and looking down on women because they menstruate. Women don't like menstratuion because it is a pain in the ass to endure not because of some religious notion.
-
Sheila had some sort of injury to her stomach/abdomen which was covered by a dressing. Was this caused by a pellet from a shotgun ?? As it's something else which was mentioned as well as her having the two gunshot wounds.
Was this done on a prior occasion like the marks on Neville and Junes' black eye ?
-
1) You are the one making assumptions and they are extremely improvident. You assume that June was so much of a religious nut that she would have seen menstruating as wrong. You have nothing at all to base such on. Menstruating women being unclean is not part of Christian doctrine. Some sects that make up their own ultra insane doctrines assert such perhaps but not any mainstream sects. Not even Jeremy painted June as that crazy and he was the one who insisted she was ultra religious. The extended family and various friends denied she was a zealot they considered Jeremy to be lying and that is one of the many lies he told that made them suspicious.
2) Puttiing bloody clothing in a bucket in the kitchen to hide from June that Sheila was menstruating sounds logical to whom?
3) Leaving tampon wrapper sin the den to hide form June that Sheila was menstruating sounds logical to whom?
The fact of the matter is that you are making wild assumptions that a man has to call you out on because they are absurd for anyone to be making but especially a woman.
The 2 most common reasons for menstrual stained panties are: because the woman was unprepared for her period so didn't prepare by wearing maxis/tampons or was out of tampons/maxis so had no choice but to go without until buying more.
The notion of a woman deciding to save them instead of using them so to ruin clothes makes no sense at all. But worse yet you suggest perhaps she refused to use the tampon until after she decided to kill herself. She refused to use it but then stuck underwear in a bucket to soak though she was going to kill herself so would not need them anymore and inserted a tampon then killed herself.
Your suggestions would be akin to me having 5-10 tissues left and deciding that I will wipe my snot on my shirt and save the tissues because maybe I will need the tissues even more in the future before I get a chance to go buy more. So instead of using them all up before wreching any shirts I will ruin a shirt right away. It doesn't matter what gender you are such suggestions are stupid.
Your female clit mutilation claims have no bearing at all on the matter and show the extent to which you are grasping at straws to try to salvage your claim that a man can't be debating this topic but quite the contrary is the case. Indeed it is men who are most grossed out by menstruation and the source of things like genital mutilation and looking down on women because they menstruate. Women don't like menstratuion because it is a pain in the ass to endure not because of some religious notion.
NO, Scipio, I'm not making as many assumptions as are you. Much of my information about June comes from those of my friends who were friends of hers.
I'm not going to carry on this conversation any longer. There is no point. You seem -deliberately?- to have twisted what I've said in order to put across the points you wish to make in order to be seen as being right, although you'll undoubtedly deny it. As you said in your introduction, you like to argue and this seems to be your raison d'etre, and an argument, for you, appears to be no more than point scoring, it has little to do with conversation or debate because you appear totally disinterested in the other person or where they're coming from.
My claim certainly ISN'T that men can't debate this topic, but I experience you as not knowing how because you seem to be insisting that you have more knowledge of it than I.
-
NO, Scipio, I'm not making as many assumptions as are you. Much of my information about June comes from those of my friends who were friends of hers.
Quite the contrary, you are making absurd baseless assumptions hence running from this debate.
None of her friends or family provide ANY basis at all for you to suggest she would have looked down on Sheila for having her period and for Sheila to need to conceal it.
Provide such evidence. You can't hence why you say you are not going to continue this debate.
Worse though, the very thing you point to would not have hid anything from June. Buckets of menstrual stained clothes in her kitchen would highlight to her that SHeila wa shaving her period as would the packaging left in the living room.
I'm not going to carry on this conversation any longer. There is no point. You seem -deliberately?- to have twisted what I've said in order to put across the points you wish to make in order to be seen as being right, although you'll undoubtedly deny it. As you said in your introduction, you like to argue and this seems to be your raison d'etre, and an argument, for you, appears to be no more than point scoring, it has little to do with conversation or debate because you appear totally disinterested in the other person or where they're coming from.
My claim certainly ISN'T that men can't debate this topic, but I experience you as not knowing how because you seem to be insisting that you have more knowledge of it than I.
I'm not twisting anything.
I have logic and facts supporting the arguments that I made.
This issue has always been a nonstarter. The police considered menstraul stained clothing to be completely unrelated to the murder and to have been soaking from before the murders, the prosecution thinks the same thing and even the defense found no evidence to establish otherwise. The most common claim is to try to suggest that water with diluted blood could have been used to plant blood in the moderator but water with diuted blood would not be able to account for the deposits in the moderator which is why the defense lawyers made no attempt to ever suggest such.
-
Quite the contrary, you are making absurd baseless assumptions hence running from this debate.
None of her friends or family provide ANY basis at all for you to suggest she would have looked down on Sheila for having her period and for Sheila to need to conceal it.
Provide such evidence. You can't hence why you say you are not going to continue this debate.
Worse though, the very thing you point to would not have hid anything from June. Buckets of menstrual stained clothes in her kitchen would highlight to her that SHeila wa shaving her period as would the packagin
g left in the living room.
I'm not twisting anything.
I have logic and facts supporting the arguments that I made.
This issue has always been a nonstarter. The police considered menstraul stained clothing to be completely unrelated to the murder and to have been soaking from before the murders, the prosecution thinks the same thing and even the defense found no evidence to establish otherwise. The most common claim is to try to suggest that water with diluted blood could have been used to plant blood in the moderator but water with diuted blood would not be able to account for the deposits in the moderator which is why the defense lawyers made no attempt to ever suggest such.
Well now, if you're telling me I DON'T know any friends of June's you must be saying that I'm a liar.
Provide evidence!!! What, provide names!!! You're not it court, you're just another forum member with an opinion.
I don't recall saying OR implying June "looked down" on Sheila because she was menstruating. YOUR words.
I suppose it didn't cross your mind that June may have been in bed.
WHEN did I ever state that soiled garments WERE case related? In fact I've said TWICE that in the grand scheme of things, they mean little -you seem to have missed that- my entire interest has been the dynamic between June and Sheila -NOT in the immediacy of those last days- but the entrenched from the beginning. You chose to move my goal posts.
-
NO, Scipio, I'm not making as many assumptions as are you. Much of my information about June comes from those of my friends who were friends of hers.
My supposed assumptions are founded on actual evidence in the case. Yours is based on nothing and is absurd and goes well beyond simply looking at the facts and evidence.
Which alleged friends provide a basis for the following belief and precisely what do they say about June that provides the basis:
"I'm going to jump in here with one of the assumptions you so frequently jump to, but consider, in this case, I'm more qualified than you, to make. I don't imagine that the subject had EVER been touched upon between them. I think June had probably picked up from her own mother that menstruation was God's way of ridding women of their uncleanness -recall how Eve was condemned by God for Adam's fall from grace- which would sit very well with June calling Sheila a child of the Devil. I'm convinced Sheila would have been in no hurry to remind her mother that she was right because here was the proof. I think Sheila would have resorted to every trick in the book to have prevented her mother from knowing she was menstruating, including protecting herself from an overnight onset -and soiling her mother's bed linen- by wearing knickers RATHER than using the few tampons she had with her."
I don't see any comments form friends reuslting in this babble but rather a combination of you not knowing crap about religion combining with you not knowing crap about June and simply your bias resulting in your making absurd assumptions that you should be embarrassed for making and which instead of showing me up make you look foolish.
I'm not going to carry on this conversation any longer. There is no point. You seem -deliberately?- to have twisted what I've said in order to put across the points you wish to make in order to be seen as being right, although you'll undoubtedly deny it. As you said in your introduction, you like to argue and this seems to be your raison d'etre, and an argument, for you, appears to be no more than point scoring, it has little to do with conversation or debate because you appear totally disinterested in the other person or where they're coming from.
My claim certainly ISN'T that men can't debate this topic, but I experience you as not knowing how because you seem to be insisting that you have more knowledge of it than I.
I am right I don't just appear to be right. I didn't start this thread you did and it blew up in your face.
-
NO, Scipio, I'm not making as many assumptions as are you. Much of my information about June comes from those of my friends who were friends of hers.
I'm not going to carry on this conversation any longer. There is no point. You seem -deliberately?- to have twisted what I've said in order to put across the points you wish to make in order to be seen as being right, although you'll undoubtedly deny it. As you said in your introduction, you like to argue and this seems to be your raison d'etre, and an argument, for you, appears to be no more than point scoring, it has little to do with conversation or debate because you appear totally disinterested in the other person or where they're coming from.
My claim certainly ISN'T that men can't debate this topic, but I experience you as not knowing how because you seem to be insisting that you have more knowledge of it than I.
-
I misread the title. I thought you wrote, "When Does A President Become Accepted As Such"? I was going to say, "When he's sworn in". ;D
-
I misread the title. I thought you wrote, "When Does A President Become Accepted As Such"? I was going to say, "When he's sworn in". ;D
Some presidents are just tolerated because we have to and never accepted.
-
Some presidents are just tolerated because we have to and never accepted.
It helps if you use punctuation.
-
:o scipio telling us about what it is like and what you typically do when you have your period! Oh well, perhaps we don´t know all about him/her, and he really is a woman or maybe even a hermaphrodite.
About this subject, I have some questions and thoughts: I always found it strange that Sheila was not wearing panties, but only a tampon. I can say that for me that would be very uncomfortable and "unsafe", especially during menstruation - the panties CAN stop the flow that the tampon does not catch, and you hurry to change the tampon AND the panties if you bleed through. Two panties and leggings would protect additionally - truth.
Could this heavy bleeding explain why she slept on top of the covers to protect as much bed-linnen as possible? It is NOT a nice thought to soil other people´s bed linnen with menstrual blood!
Did she only bring two pairs of panties? She must have expected her period since she had tampons with her - or could she have bought them while at WHF?
Still, two pairs of panties is not much to bring with you, period or not. Why didn´t she borrow panties from June?
Did she have this accident in the middle of the night and had to get up?
If she was only wearing one pair at a time, why would there be two pairs of panties soaking? Why wouldn´t she wash the other pair of panties so it would dry, so that she could wear panties again? :-\
Very sloppy policework to just leave a couple of buckets with bloodied water where very bloody murders have taken place.
I know that scipio says it doesn´t matter; he is welcome to have that view, I happen NOT to share it!
-
Why would the tampons have been on display ? Was it an act of defiance on Sheilas' part, towards her mother who'd gone through all that rigmarole to no avail ?
June was pretty much " anti-sex " anyway,,so seeing those things lying around would have given her the vapours.
I can well imagine that Sheila would have been tormenting her mother over things like this. You've only to read at what Sheila said of the twins to realise how sick Sheilas' mind was.
-
:o scipio telling us about what it is like and what you typically do when you have your period! Oh well, perhaps we don´t know all about him/her, and he really is a woman or maybe even a hermaphrodite.
About this subject, I have some questions and thoughts: I always found it strange that Sheila was not wearing panties, but only a tampon. I can say that for me that would be very uncomfortable and "unsafe", especially during menstruation - the panties CAN stop the flow that the tampon does not catch, and you hurry to change the tampon AND the panties if you bleed through. Two panties and leggings would protect additionally - truth.
Could this heavy bleeding explain why she slept on top of the covers to protect as much bed-linnen as possible? It is NOT a nice thought to soil other people´s bed linnen with menstrual blood!
Did she only bring two pairs of panties? She must have expected her period since she had tampons with her - or could she have bought them while at WHF?
Still, two pairs of panties is not much to bring with you, period or not. Why didn´t she borrow panties from June?
Did she have this accident in the middle of the night and had to get up?
If she was only wearing one pair at a time, why would there be two pairs of panties soaking? Why wouldn´t she wash the other pair of panties so it would dry, so that she could wear panties again? :-\
Very sloppy policework to just leave a couple of buckets with bloodied water where very bloody murders have taken place.
I know that scipio says it doesn´t matter; he is welcome to have that view, I happen NOT to share it!
Alias, thank GOD!!! YOU obviously know what I was talking about. It was entirely lost on Scipio, who although he did his best to b luster his way through it, what the HELL does he know about it? I think the answer in American is SQUAT!!!!!
She was very likely to have had a heavy bleed because she was fitted with a IUD, renowned for causing this problem. It makes sense that she would have pre-empted the onset by wearing panties to go to bed -I suspect the demure nightdress was probably June's- and a nightdress would hav e given extra protection. It's bad ENOUGH to experience such an accident in one's own bed. FAR worse when one is not at home and has to get up and not only clean oneself but strip the bed and soak the sheets.
We have no idea of the overall state of her wardrobe. She seemed to have to rely on her parents for every PENNY -as Colin had the main custody of the boys, I guess he'd have drawn the allowance- so it may very well be that she was down to her last couple of pairs of panties.
As for the two soaking pairs, the first pair could have been protection and the second pair the result of leaking.
-
:o scipio telling us about what it is like and what you typically do when you have your period! Oh well, perhaps we don´t know all about him/her, and he really is a woman or maybe even a hermaphrodite.
About this subject, I have some questions and thoughts: I always found it strange that Sheila was not wearing panties, but only a tampon. I can say that for me that would be very uncomfortable and "unsafe", especially during menstruation - the panties CAN stop the flow that the tampon does not catch, and you hurry to change the tampon AND the panties if you bleed through. Two panties and leggings would protect additionally - truth.
Could this heavy bleeding explain why she slept on top of the covers to protect as much bed-linnen as possible? It is NOT a nice thought to soil other people´s bed linnen with menstrual blood!
Did she only bring two pairs of panties? She must have expected her period since she had tampons with her - or could she have bought them while at WHF?
Still, two pairs of panties is not much to bring with you, period or not. Why didn´t she borrow panties from June?
Did she have this accident in the middle of the night and had to get up?
If she was only wearing one pair at a time, why would there be two pairs of panties soaking? Why wouldn´t she wash the other pair of panties so it would dry, so that she could wear panties again? :-\
Very sloppy policework to just leave a couple of buckets with bloodied water where very bloody murders have taken place.
I know that scipio says it doesn´t matter; he is welcome to have that view, I happen NOT to share it!
Rational people:
Sheila menstruated during the day in her panties and leggings then bought tampons and used them. She went to seep in a nightdress.
Jeremy supporters:
Sheila slept in 2 pairs of panties and leggings and then woke up and changed out of them after murdering everyone leaving them to soak in buckets right before she blew her brains out.
-
1) You are the one making assumptions and they are extremely improvident. You assume that June was so much of a religious nut that she would have seen menstruating as wrong. You have nothing at all to base such on. Menstruating women being unclean is not part of Christian doctrine. Some sects that make up their own ultra insane doctrines assert such perhaps but not any mainstream sects. Not even Jeremy painted June as that crazy and he was the one who insisted she was ultra religious. The extended family and various friends denied she was a zealot they considered Jeremy to be lying and that is one of the many lies he told that made them suspicious.
2) Puttiing bloody clothing in a bucket in the kitchen to hide from June that Sheila was menstruating sounds logical to whom?
3) Leaving tampon wrapper sin the den to hide form June that Sheila was menstruating sounds logical to whom?
The fact of the matter is that you are making wild assumptions that a man has to call you out on because they are absurd for anyone to be making but especially a woman.
The 2 most common reasons for menstrual stained panties are: because the woman was unprepared for her period so didn't prepare by wearing maxis/tampons or was out of tampons/maxis so had no choice but to go without until buying more.
The notion of a woman deciding to save them instead of using them so to ruin clothes makes no sense at all. But worse yet you suggest perhaps she refused to use the tampon until after she decided to kill herself. She refused to use it but then stuck underwear in a bucket to soak though she was going to kill herself so would not need them anymore and inserted a tampon then killed herself.
Your suggestions would be akin to me having 5-10 tissues left and deciding that I will wipe my snot on my shirt and save the tissues because maybe I will need the tissues even more in the future before I get a chance to go buy more. So instead of using them all up before wreching any shirts I will ruin a shirt right away. It doesn't matter what gender you are such suggestions are stupid.
Your female clit mutilation claims have no bearing at all on the matter and show the extent to which you are grasping at straws to try to salvage your claim that a man can't be debating this topic but quite the contrary is the case. Indeed it is men who are most grossed out by menstruation and the source of things like genital mutilation and looking down on women because they menstruate. Women don't like menstratuion because it is a pain in the ass to endure not because of some religious notion.
Oh, but it is! Hear Catholic priests talk about women as "unclean". Listen to Lutheran priests refusing to work with female pastors. Read history books, read the Bible! I´ll help you:
Leviticus 15:19-30 ESV / 93 helpful votes
“When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening.
Read on yourself, I am not making this shit up! http://www.openbible.info/topics/menstruation
BTW, April, bravo for your post, #13 - very true!
-
Rational people:
Sheila menstruated during the day in her panties and leggings then bought tampons and used them. She went to seep in a nightdress.
Jeremy supporters:
Sheila slept in 2 pairs of panties and leggings and then woke up and changed out of them after murdering everyone leaving them to soak in buckets right before she blew her brains out.
Tampons LEAK. FACT!!!!
-
Rational people:
Sheila menstruated during the day in her panties and leggings then bought tampons and used them. She went to seep in a nightdress.
Jeremy supporters:
Sheila slept in 2 pairs of panties and leggings and then woke up and changed out of them after murdering everyone leaving them to soak in buckets right before she blew her brains out.
I don´t know how it happened - and neither do you, so stop this BS. You were driven into a corner and resort to your usual tactics when that happens: belittling people.
For your information, I am not a JB supporter, I am not convinced of his innocense - or his guilt
-
Oh, but it is! Hear Catholic priests talk about women as "unclean". Listen to Lutheran priests refusing to work with female pastors. Read history books, read the Bible! I´ll help you:
Leviticus 15:19-30 ESV / 93 helpful votes
“When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean. Everything also on which she sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. And whoever touches anything on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and be unclean until the evening. Whether it is the bed or anything on which she sits, when he touches it he shall be unclean until the evening.
Read on yourself, I am not making this shit up! http://www.openbible.info/topics/menstruation
BTW, April, bravo for your post, #13 - very true!
All that shows is old testament verses about men staying away from women not what the Catholic Church let alone other Christian offshoots teach. Men having a problem with mensruation are behind the old Testament claims. Suggesting Sheila needed to hide it from her mother for religious reaosns is absurd. What she would want to hide would be her sleeping around so she didn't get lectures.
The suggesitons she needed to hide it from her mother was absurd. The only way to prove otherwise is witness testimony about June having absurd views about menstruation.
-
All that shows is old testament verses about men staying away from women not what the Catholic Church let alone other Christian offshoots teach. Men having a problem with mensruation are behind the old Testament claims. Suggesting Sheila needed to hide it from her mother for religious reaosns is absurd. What she would want to hide would be her sleeping around so she didn't get lectures.
The suggesitons she needed to hide it from her mother was absurd. The only way to prove otherwise is witness testimony about June having absurd views about menstruation.
Absolutely not, you clearly don´t know what you are talking about.
You say it is not in the Christian doctrine that women are regarded as unclean during menstruation - I prove to you that it is. You say, nah, it´s just in the Old Testament - I say: Is Chrisianity defined by the Old AND the New Testament? The answer is simple: Yes.
-
All that shows is old testament verses about men staying away from women not what the Catholic Church let alone other Christian offshoots teach. Men having a problem with mensruation are behind the old Testament claims. Suggesting Sheila needed to hide it from her mother for religious reaosns is absurd. What she would want to hide would be her sleeping around so she didn't get lectures.
The suggesitons she needed to hide it from her mother was absurd. The only way to prove otherwise is witness testimony about June having absurd views about menstruation.
What you've got to bear in mind is that Moses and the tribes of Israel wandered in the desert for 40 years. There Law consisted of two parts. The moral Law and the Ceremonial Law. Those Laws also included special cleanliness laws. What not to eat and what to do to keep clean in the desert. If one person within the camp became infected with something then there was a likelihood that the who camp would have been infected, therefore these laws were strict. Nowadays people are still advised against certain unclean things and certain diseases. In order to understand these Old Testament Laws you therefore have to place yourselves in the same position as those early Israelites.
But of course when the Christian gospel came into being Christ through Grace fullfilled that law (which was a type or a symbol of things to come in Christ) and so the grace of God passed onto all men, not just the Jews. Some people still (incorrectly in my opinion) observe those laws. The Seventh Day Adventists for example.
-
All that shows is old testament verses about men staying away from women not what the Catholic Church let alone other Christian offshoots teach. Men having a problem with mensruation are behind the old Testament claims. Suggesting Sheila needed to hide it from her mother for religious reaosns is absurd. What she would want to hide would be her sleeping around so she didn't get lectures.
The suggesitons she needed to hide it from her mother was absurd. The only way to prove otherwise is witness testimony about June having absurd views about menstruation.
It may well be as you say, MEN'S fear of it, but because of it, women have been indoctrinated with the unclean concept. It isn't necessarily spoken of overtly but the information is received in the way mothers talk, or rather DON'T talk about it. So it follows that if something is hush hush there is something not quite nice about it, but if it isn't talked about no one knows why. Many women of June's generation had peculiar names for it but could never bring themselves to give it its' proper name.
-
Rational people:
Sheila menstruated during the day in her panties and leggings then bought tampons and used them. She went to seep in a nightdress.
Jeremy supporters:
Sheila slept in 2 pairs of panties and leggings and then woke up and changed out of them after murdering everyone leaving them to soak in buckets right before she blew her brains out.
She didn't blow her brains out. It was only a .22 loaded with low velocity amunition.
-
Absolutely not, you clearly don´t know what you are talking about.
You say it is not in the Christian doctrine that women are regarded as unclean during menstruation - I prove to you that it is. You say, nah, it´s just in the Old Testament - I say: Is Chrisianity defined by the Old AND the New Testament? The answer is simple: Yes.
The New testament washes away various things fromt he Old Testament tha tis why it exists. Jesus changed customs and beliefs hence why Jews do not adopt the New Testament.
There was 1 new Testament mention in that list I looked at but it harms the proposition asserted. As least 2 Gospels (they missed at least 1 since I know of 2) include a miracle where a woman was suffereing from dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Though the purity customs of the time said she should not be near men Jesus allowed him to touch her and cured her. This was a rebuke to those customs.
The idea of uncleanlieness is not spiritual to Christians who actually know their faith it purely has to to with hygiene. That is how it started out anyway and men in ancient societies elevated it to a spiritual level in one more of their ways to advance men over women. It's not an accident that man was kicked out of Eden after a stupid woman gave him the forbidden fruit instead of the story being written as him being tempted and then screwing Eve by sharing it with her. The men writing the Old Testament had an agenda.
-
It may well be as you say, MEN'S fear of it, but because of it, women have been indoctrinated with the unclean concept. It isn't necessarily spoken of overtly but the information is received in the way mothers talk, or rather DON'T talk about it. So it follows that if something is hush hush there is something not quite nice about it, but if it isn't talked about no one knows why. Many women of June's generation had peculiar names for it but could never bring themselves to give it its' proper name.
Not going to talk to scipio about this anymore - he just WANTS to be right no matter what. The fact of the matter that this "unclean" stamp still, to this day and age, does stick to girls and women. Doesn´t have to be in zealous Christian environments, just within our culture, which obviously is built on Christian "values".
Girls and women don´t talk too much about having their period, it is still a somewhat hush-hush thing. What you say, April, is absolutely true!
-
The New testament washes away various things fromt he Old Testament tha tis why it exists. Jesus changed customs and beliefs hence why Jews do not adopt the New Testament.
There was 1 new Testament mention in that list I looked at but it harms the proposition asserted. As least 2 Gospels (they missed at least 1 since I know of 2) include a miracle where a woman was suffereing from dysfunctional uterine bleeding. Though the purity customs of the time said she should not be near men Jesus allowed him to touch her and cured her. This was a rebuke to those customs.
The idea of uncleanlieness is not spiritual to Christians who actually know their faith it purely has to to with hygiene. That is how it started out anyway and men in ancient societies elevated it to a spiritual level in one more of their ways to advance men over women. It's not an accident that man was kicked out of Eden after a stupid woman gave him the forbidden fruit instead of the story being written as him being tempted and then screwing Eve by sharing it with her. The men writing the Old Testament had an agenda.
Whatever happened to freedom of will? POOR Adam!! Soooooo helpless. Whatever message men were giving to women to keep the subservient, it WORKED. That message has been subtly passed down for hundreds of years. Thankfully, it may now have lost it's grip. The more open we become the less these superstitions will be part of our lives.
-
Not going to talk to scipio about this anymore - he just WANTS to be right no matter what. The fact of the matter that this "unclean" stamp still, to this day and age, does stick to girls and women. Doesn´t have to be in zealous Christian environments, just within our culture, which obviously is built on Christian "values".
Girls and women don´t talk too much about having their period, it is still a somewhat hush-hush thing. What you say, April, is absolutely true!
Thanks for the validation, Alias :-*
-
Not going to talk to scipio about this anymore - he just WANTS to be right no matter what. The fact of the matter that this "unclean" stamp still, to this day and age, does stick to girls and women. Doesn´t have to be in zealous Christian environments, just within our culture, which obviously is built on Christian "values".
Girls and women don´t talk too much about having their period, it is still a somewhat hush-hush thing. What you say, April, is absolutely true!
The only way the suggestion would have a reasonable basis woudl be if there were evidence that June had some odd view about menstruation. The suggestion she would have such a view based on her religion is not accurate that is outside of the mainstream by a wide margin for Christians.
I went to a Catholic grammar school and half my teachers were nuns so talking about religion is the last thing I want to do, I have little interest in discussing theology but others forced the issue.
Suggesting a woman needed to wear 2 panties because she had no paper towels to stick in her underwear and no maxi pads or tampons and thus did such to the store (thus a practical reason) is within the realm of reason. The whole religious thing and wearing multiple panties to bed to preserve
tampons sounds crazy and at least should have some evidentiary basis before making such a suggestion.
-
Thought I´d throw this into the mix, just for the hell of it Here is what the basis of our culture thinks about women giving birth, and the difference in "uncleanness" between giving birth to a boy and a girl (makes me furious on so many levels!)
Sorry, I found this in Danish and put it through Google Translate:
Say to the Israelites: When a woman is pregnant and gives birth to a boy, she is unclean for seven days; she is unclean as long as during her period.
[......] [. . .]
3 Genesis 12.4 In thirty-three days she must stay at home while she blood of her purifying; She must not touch anything sacred, and she can not get into the sanctuary, until her catharsis days are over.
3 Genesis 12.5 If she gives birth to a girl, she is unclean twice seven days and during her period. In sixty-six days she will stay at home because of the blood of her purifying.
3 Genesis 12,6 When her ablutions days are over and after a son by a daughter, she shall bring a yearling lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeons or turtle dove for a sin offering; she must bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
3 Genesis 12.7, he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her; she is clean after his bleeding.
3 Genesis 12,8 But if she can not afford a lamb, she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement her; she is clean.
After giving birth..... I could vomit literally - and cry! I realize that the Old Testament has a lot of cultural value, but I would like that it would be seperated from our church and only regarded as historical documentation. As is is, this is part of our Christian doctrine.
-
Thought I´d throw this into the mix, just for the hell of it Here is what the basis of our culture thinks about women giving birth, and the difference in "uncleanness" between giving birth to a boy and a girl (makes me furious on so many levels!)
Sorry, I found this in Danish and put it through Google Translate:
Say to the Israelites: When a woman is pregnant and gives birth to a boy, she is unclean for seven days; she is unclean as long as during her period.
[......] [. . .]
3 Genesis 12.4 In thirty-three days she must stay at home while she blood of her purifying; She must not touch anything sacred, and she can not get into the sanctuary, until her catharsis days are over.
3 Genesis 12.5 If she gives birth to a girl, she is unclean twice seven days and during her period. In sixty-six days she will stay at home because of the blood of her purifying.
3 Genesis 12,6 When her ablutions days are over and after a son by a daughter, she shall bring a yearling lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeons or turtle dove for a sin offering; she must bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
3 Genesis 12.7, he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her; she is clean after his bleeding.
3 Genesis 12,8 But if she can not afford a lamb, she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement her; she is clean.
After giving birth..... I could vomit literally - and cry! I realize that the Old Testament has a lot of cultural value, but I would like that it would be seperated from our church and only regarded as historical documentation. As is is, this is part of our Christian doctrine.
Christian doctrine parts ways in significant ways including only God being able to sit in judgment.
People like to think we have souls because the thought of dying and that being the end is quite depressing. That ultimately might be behind the whole notion of heaven and the afterlife so people better enjoy life while they can.
-
Christian doctrine parts ways in significant ways including only God being able to sit in judgment.
People like to think we have souls because the thought of dying and that being the end is quite depressing. That ultimately might be behind the whole notion of heaven and the afterlife so people better enjoy life while they can.
I agree with that.
I happen to be very anti church, but I am not anti the teachings of Jesus. Guess that makes me some sort of a Christian, but I don´t believe all from the New Testament - only the parts about trying to be forgiving and loving.
HAHAHA, hard to tell sometimes!!! At least I know I should try...
-
I agree with that.
I happen to be very anti church, but I am not anti the teachings of Jesus. Guess that makes me some sort of a Christian, but I don´t believe all from the New Testament - only the parts about trying to be forgiving and loving.
HAHAHA, hard to tell sometimes!!! At least I know I should try...
I agree Alias, the teachings of Jesus and the man made power of the church are completely opposite. The church is about power and control whereas Jesus Christ spoke of love and forgiveness. I know which I prefer. :)
-
I agree Alias, the teachings of Jesus and the man made power of the church are completely opposite. The church is about power and control whereas Jesus Christ spoke of love and forgiveness. I know which I prefer. :)
:) Good night on that note.
-
Christian doctrine parts ways in significant ways including only God being able to sit in judgment.
People like to think we have souls because the thought of dying and that being the end is quite depressing. That ultimately might be behind the whole notion of heaven and the afterlife so people better enjoy life while they can.
It very well may be Scipio, but even some scientists now believe life continues after death of the body. Quantum physics opens up a whole new world .... Literally ;D
-
Back to the buckets. 8)
If Sheila had had her menstrual accident during the day or early evening, would she really have put her blood-soaked undies in buckets in THE KITCHEN? Where people moved around and they could be knocked over - where people ate? A kitchen is a kitchen, a scullery a scullery, a laundry room a laundry room. All of those kinds of rooms were at the WHF, why the kitchen? Would June have allowed that?
What was Sheila wearing after the "accident" if it happened during the day?
-
Back to the buckets. 8)
If Sheila had had her menstrual accident during the day or early evening, would she really have put her blood-soaked undies in buckets in THE KITCHEN? Where people moved around and they could be knocked over - where people ate? A kitchen is a kitchen, a scullery a scullery, a laundry room a laundry room. All of those kinds of rooms were at the WHF, why the kitchen? Would June have allowed that?
What was Sheila wearing after the "accident" if it happened during the day?
I'm afraid poor June wouldn't have been aware of " buckets of blood " at that stage.
-
Alias do we know for certain what clothes were soaking in the buckets are we assuming or do we have evidence to support this.
-
Alias do we know for certain what clothes were soaking in the buckets are we assuming or do we have evidence to support this.
Well unfortunately we only have Ann Eaton's word for it as to what the contents of the bucket were and possibly not all the clothes were soaking because of menstral blood? Perhaps the bucket of clothes had nothing whatever to do with the case? Thing is nobody knows?
-
Grahame this is the sad thing about this case what is the truth I know some know what the truth is but are not active forum members. I remember Harters posted sometime ago it was his opinion children's clothes were soaking not sure if he meant in one bucket or two clothes are only left to soak if they are badly stained now we buy stain remover.
-
Back to the buckets. 8)
If Sheila had had her menstrual accident during the day or early evening, would she really have put her blood-soaked undies in buckets in THE KITCHEN? Where people moved around and they could be knocked over - where people ate? A kitchen is a kitchen, a scullery a scullery, a laundry room a laundry room. All of those kinds of rooms were at the WHF, why the kitchen? Would June have allowed that?
What was Sheila wearing after the "accident" if it happened during the day?
1) We don't know the buckets were not moved to the kitchen by someone as the house was being cleaned up. We only know they were in the kitchen when Ann looked through them.
2) We don't know what their habits were. My mother used to soak our stained clothes in buckets in the kitchen because she would fill and empty the buckets in the sink before taking the clothes to the washing machine. She had no sink in the laundry room. If they were in the way when she was cooking she would move them somewhere else like the pantry.
We especially don't know what Sheila's habits were and not to knock the dead but WHF wasn't exactly the most cleanly place. There were all sorts of clothes all over the stairs and for all we know the buckets had been in there but were moved either to go up those stairs. police searching the house or someone who was cleaning out the house later on. It is hard to know whether june woudl have had an issue with the buckets soaking overnight in the kitchen or not. The people who would know best were dead and farm workers who might have a clue were never asked to our knowledge.
Since there were no tops that could have had GSR/blood spatter from the victims no one really cared about the buckets and only Ann bothered to mention them because she rattled on and on about pretty much everything. I don't think it is going out on a limb to assume she was a gossiper.
I don't have a sink in my laundrey room either. My wife soaks clothing for a little while in the kitchen sink sometimes but usually in the bathroom. She will have panties hanging around the tub and buckets with other things soaking and it is always a pain to take a shower because I have to move things. OK correction her clothes soak in the master bathroom. Other clothes that end up stained are soaked downstairs in the kitchen or if soaking long term than outside. She also will put clothes on the deck to dry either over the railing or on the floor even. We have a large clothesline she made me install (the kind with a post) but she rarely uses it. I stopped trying to figure out women and their laundry habits.
-
Alias think Sheila's accident started late on in the day hence the tampon carton found in the lounge think June and Ralph had retired June would I suspect never have allowed buckets with Sheila's stained underwear in the kitchen but hey I am assuming she may have done none of us really knew June did we.
-
Well unfortunately we only have Ann Eaton's word for it as to what the contents of the bucket were and possibly not all the clothes were soaking because of menstral blood? Perhaps the bucket of cloaths had nothing whatever to do with the case? Thing is nobody knows?
The police believed Sheila did it and looked around for evidence of it. If there was a top with what could have been blood on it soaking then they would have taken it for testing to try to explain away the lack of spatter on her dress. Police left such behind because it was something not deemed relevant. They were so irrelevant no one else even bothered to mention them
Ann was put off that police made her take care of them and had to mention how she was forced to ring them out despite not wanting anything to do with them. She loved to mention all indignities like when police asked her if she had ever had an affair with Jeremy.
Since only Ann bothered to discuss them we have no idea if the buckets had always been in the location she found them or not. They could have been brought from another room and dumped there hoping someone else would empty them.
Since someone who just murdered everyone and was planning to shortly commit suicide would not be worried about getting stains out of panties and trying to save them we can safely assume the police were correct that they were of no value to the case.
-
1) We don't know the buckets were not moved to the kitchen by someone as the house was being cleaned up. We only know they were in the kitchen when Ann looked through them.
2) We don't know what their habits were. My mother used to soak our stained clothes in buckets in the kitchen because she would fill and empty the buckets in the sink before taking the clothes to the washing machine. She had no sink in the laundry room. If they were in the way when she was cooking she would move them somewhere else like the pantry.
We especially don't know what Sheila's habits were and not to knock the dead but WHF wasn't exactly the most cleanly place. There were all sorts of clothes all over the stairs and for all we know the buckets had been in there but were moved either to go up those stairs. police searching the house or someone who was cleaning out the house later on. It is hard to know whether june woudl have had an issue with the buckets soaking overnight in the kitchen or not. The people who would know best were dead and farm workers who might have a clue were never asked to our knowledge.
Since there were no tops that could have had GSR/blood spatter from the victims no one really cared about the buckets and only Ann bothered to mention them because she rattled on and on about pretty much everything. I don't think it is going out on a limb to assume she was a gossiper.
I don't have a sink in my laundrey room either. My wife soaks clothing for a little while in the kitchen sink sometimes but usually in the bathroom. She will have panties hanging around the tub and buckets with other things soaking and it is always a pain to take a shower because I have to move things. OK correction her clothes soak in the master bathroom. Other clothes that end up stained are soaked downstairs in the kitchen or if soaking long term than outside. She also will put clothes on the deck to dry either over the railing or on the floor even. We have a large clothesline she made me install (the kind with a post) but she rarely uses it. I stopped trying to figure out women and their laundry habits.
In spite of all differences, I appreciate this answer. Nice post! Nothing is FACT here though. Nothing can be, since the police work was so sloppy (as it so often is)
None of us know what items of clothing were in those two buckets, or what kind of blood, the police did not gather them, Ann Eaton did, and we have to take her word. Also that it was menstrual blood, because "it smells differently"
Now, THAT is what I call science!
-
In spite of all differences, I appreciate this answer. Nice post! Nothing is FACT here though. Nothing can be, since the police work was so sloppy (as it so often is)
None of us know what items of clothing were in those two buckets, or what kind of blood, the police did not gather them, Ann Eaton did, and we have to take her word. Also that it was menstrual blood, because "it smells differently"
Now, THAT is what I call science!
The garments, location of the stains and size of the stains are what says it was menstrual. Stains on bottoms of female clothes in crotch areas without anyone haveing been wounded in a crotch area prior to the murders or during are what leads to the conclusion it was menstrual.
As a practical matter menstrual blood has a lot of mucus, whether that effects the smell I don't know. It also contains vaginal and uterine epithelial cells. Since some women stink down there and some don't maybe some menstrual blood smells and some doesn't. That would be pretty funny if she is right considering how much people mocked the smell thing but the location of the blood and amount is sufficient for me to make an assessment so there is no need for me to bother to consult a gynecologist about the smell thing.
-
The garments, location of the stains and size of the stains are what says it was menstrual. Stains on bottoms of female clothes in crotch areas without anyone haveing been wounded in a crotch area prior to the murders or during are what leads to the conclusion it was menstrual.
As a practical matter menstrual blood has a lot of mucus, whether that effects the smell I don't know. It also contains vaginal and uterine epithelial cells. Since some women stink down there and some don't maybe some menstrual blood smells and some doesn't. That would be pretty funny if she is right considering how much people mocked the smell thing but the location of the blood and amount is sufficient for me to make an assessment so there is no need for me to bother to consult a gynecologist about the smell thing.
Ooooh Scipio!!! TOO much information at breakfast time!!!!!
-
Ooooh Scipio!!! TOO much information at breakfast time!!!!!
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sick016.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
Whatever next ? He must have a full set of encyclopaedias at his side !!
-
Or Google, but I'd be worried about what would come up. :-\
-
Well yes,Harters. I was quite behind the times just then. I won't even go there,Googling.
-
Well yes,Harters. I was quite behind the times just then. I won't even go there,Googling.
I think this all stems from a point where Scipio simply cannot BEAR to have anyone else know more than he about a given subject, thus going out of his way (giving too much information) to try and prove it :o
-
I think this all stems from a point where Scipio simply cannot BEAR to have anyone else know more than he about a given subject, thus going out of his way (giving too much information) to try and prove it :o
My defence is that I know nowt about nothing. :D
-
My defence is that I know nowt about nothing. :D
As opposed to everything about nothing. :-\
-
As opposed to everything about nothing. :-\
Could we say something about (almost) everything? :)
-
Could we say something about (almost) everything? :)
Not sure, I'll check on google. :P
-
Whatever next ? He must have a full set of encyclopaedias at his side !!
I have a good memory and remember all sorts of little tidbits including a forensic episode (not the fiction ones the documentary type shows like Forensic Files) where they established blood came from a victims nose because it has mucus in it and that the only other blood with a lot of mucus was from the vagina which also has vaginal and utermine Epithelials to distinguish from nose blood but as a man he didn't have a vagina so...
If people actually pay attention they can pick up all sorts of tidbits that are seemingly useless but might come in handy one day in the distant future.
The show mentioned nothing about smell nor has any other show or thing I have ever read mentioned a thing about smell of vaginal blood aside from Ann. So that aspect I know nothing about. While I could research it I don't have enough motivation to do so because blood stains on the crotches of bottoms belonging to a woman who was menstruating is obviously menstrual.
-
I just have a spattering of enough to get me by,,,but no way would I profess to knowing everything because I don't,but nevertheless I'm learning all the time.
-
I think this all stems from a point where Scipio simply cannot BEAR to have anyone else know more than he about a given subject, thus going out of his way (giving too much information) to try and prove it :o
Yes he certainly gives that impression. As when I posted something that he overlooked he claimed immediately that he thought of it first. ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes he certainly gives that impression. As when I posted something that he overlooked he claimed immediately that he thought of it first. ;D ;D ;D
I didn't overlook anything. I did indeed think of it already and stated it many times including in a post where you responded by quoting me:
Post 109 in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5343.msg232501.html#msg232501
In the gray which is a quote from me was the following:
"The defense had their own expert lift and test blood from the suppressor so had the ability to test the blood for anything desired. One common sign of planted blood is for said blood to have a preservative agent in it. Blood samples usually have preservative agents added. So if blood from a sample is used this will be a tell-tale sign."
Note how long ago that was, back in May.
Far from you thinking up something I neve rthought of you thought up something you never thought of evne though is had been stated by me many times because either you never bothered to read it or it went over your head.
Oops!
-
I didn't overlook anything. I did indeed think of it already and stated it many times including in a post where you responded by quoting me:
Post 109 in this thread:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5343.msg232501.html#msg232501
In the gray which is a quote from me was the following:
"The defense had their own expert lift and test blood from the suppressor so had the ability to test the blood for anything desired. One common sign of planted blood is for said blood to have a preservative agent in it. Blood samples usually have preservative agents added. So if blood from a sample is used this will be a tell-tale sign."
Note how long ago that was, back in May.
Far from you thinking up something I neve rthought of you thought up something you never thought of evne though is had been stated by me many times because either you never bothered to read it or it went over your head.
Oops!
Excuse me god but you have not said anything in either of those "quotes" of your posts that pertains anything like that which I said. I said that you never mentioned (and I'm right) that it would be impossible for the family to use blood to "spray" into the silencer because the clotting time for blood was only 2 to 5 minutes.
Moreover in passing I added that they could only do it if they had access to an anti clotting agent. However even if they did have access to this it would not act on blood that was already clotted.
So mister brain of America and Britain show me where you stated that they relatives could not have sprayed blood into the silencer because it would have already have been clotted. You can't because I said it, not you. So don't try and twist things and claim that you said it first. You didn't. All you did was rabbit on about not being able to duplicate the spray patterns in the silencer or some other unproven rubbish. You completely missed the best argument you could have used. Where do you get off from being up your own arse all the time. For goodness sake man give others some credit over your ignorance for a change.
-
Excuse me god but you have not said anything in either of those "quotes" of your posts that pertains anything like that which I said. I said that you never mentioned (and I'm right) that it would be impossible for the family to use blood to "spray" into the silencer because the clotting time for blood was only 2 to 5 minutes.
Moreover in passing I added that they could only do it if they had access to an anti clotting agent. However even if they did have access to this it would not act on blood that was already clotted.
So mister brain of America and Britain show me where you stated that they relatives could not have sprayed blood into the silencer because it would have already have been clotted. You can't because I said it, not you. So don't try and twist things and claim that you said it first. You didn't. All you did was rabbit on about not being able to duplicate the spray patterns in the silencer or some other unproven rubbish. You completely missed the best argument you could have used. Where do you get off from being up your own arse all the time. For goodness sake man give others some credit over your ignorance for a change.
I said the blood would have to have a preservative unless they took blood instantly from someone to use.
Your 5 minutes time is not accurate. It is possible to take blood form someone and then isntantly plant it a veyr shoort time after drawing such blood. That is what many suggest, that Boutflour;s blood was drawn than instantly planted. That would require knowing he matched Sheila's blood though and knowing he rwound was a contact wound and all about drawback.
If instead the claim is blood was taken and used at a later date then it would have apreservative agaent in it.
That is how it goes.
You ignored the possibility of planting the blood soon after drawing it or alternatively using a preserving agent with even the simple ones will enable the blood to last 24 hours.
-
I said the blood would have to have a preservative unless they took blood instantly from someone to use.
Your 5 minutes time is not accurate. It is possible to take blood form someone and then isntantly plant it a veyr shoort time after drawing such blood. That is what many suggest, that Boutflour;s blood was drawn than instantly planted. That would require knowing he matched Sheila's blood though and knowing he rwound was a contact wound and all about drawback.
If instead the claim is blood was taken and used at a later date then it would have apreservative agaent in it.
That is how it goes.
You ignored the possibility of planting the blood soon after drawing it or alternatively using a preserving agent with even the simple ones will enable the blood to last 24 hours.
No I didn't. What I said concerning this was that RWB probably did not use his blood (which by default meant he would have had to use it right away) because he probably would not have known that his blood group was the same as Sheila. Not many people in England know their own blood group.
Ps: Normal blood clotting time is 2 to 6 minutes. There was no new blood from Sheila to take. So it was not an option.
-
The garments, location of the stains and size of the stains are what says it was menstrual. Stains on bottoms of female clothes in crotch areas without anyone haveing been wounded in a crotch area prior to the murders or during are what leads to the conclusion it was menstrual.
As a practical matter menstrual blood has a lot of mucus, whether that effects the smell I don't know. It also contains vaginal and uterine epithelial cells. Since some women stink down there and some don't maybe some menstrual blood smells and some doesn't. That would be pretty funny if she is right considering how much people mocked the smell thing but the location of the blood and amount is sufficient for me to make an assessment so there is no need for me to bother to consult a gynecologist about the smell thing.
To the first part: police never looked at those clothes, we only have Ann Eaton´s word for how the clothes looked, smelled, which items were in the buckets, where the stains were, etc - and that is simply not enough for me. It is for you, fine, not me.
Why did she wash the clothes - then throw them out? Errrr, how does that even make sense? She kept one of Sheila´s dresses for years, nagging the police to test it - yet she threw away bloodied clothes.
To the second part of your post: EW!
-
To the first part: police never looked at those clothes, we only have Ann Eaton´s word for how the clothes looked, smelled, which items were in the buckets, where the stains were, etc - and that is simply not enough for me. It is for you, fine, not me.
Why did she wash the clothes - then throw them out? Errrr, how does that even make sense? She kept one of Sheila´s dresses for years, nagging the police to test it - yet she threw away bloodied clothes.
To the second part of your post: EW!
Possibly a psychological thing? Let's face it Jeremy did some out of character things after the murders and he gets condemned as acting guilty by some. But this terrible trajedy that took place that morning of the 7th 1985 was a tremendous shock for everyone and I suppose that Ann was still in shock when she was doing these things? I don't suppose she could answer why she did the things she did even now in 2014?
I think people on the forum have got into the habit of handling evidence as "cold meat" so to speak. Hardly any of us stop to try and comprehend the fragile state of folk's minds following that shocking event? I reckon it hit the whole family including Jeremy as a ton weight. Everybody, not only Jeremy were doing and saying things that were quite frankly abnormal. And to tell you the truth I think Jeremy was right, Jones WAS a hard bastard who had no consideration of the tremendous loss that was suffered by all including Jeremy. And all some on this forum can say is, "Oh he changed his statement there and he lied here" etc etc. But they lack the insight that we all need in order to appreciate that shocking bolt from the blue that rocked that family to the very foundations that day.
-
Possibly a psychological thing? Let's face it Jeremy did some out of character things after the murders and he gets condemned as acting guilty by some. But this terrible trajedy that took place that morning of the 7th 1985 was a tremendous shock for everyone and I suppose that Ann was still in shock when she was doing these things? I don't suppose she could answer why she did the things she did even now in 2014?
I think people on the forum have got into the habit of handling evidence as "cold meat" so to speak. Hardly any of us stop to try and comprehend the fragile state of folk's minds following that shocking event? I reckon it hot the whole family including Jeremy as a ton weight. Everybody, not only Jeremy were doing and saying things that were quite frankly abnormal. And to tell you the truth I think Jeremy was right, Jones WAS a hard bastard who had no consideration of the tremendous loss that was suffered by all including Jeremy. And all some on this forum can say is, "Oh he changed his statement there and he lied here" etc etc. But they lack the insight that we all need in order to appreciate that shocking bolt from the blue that rocked that family to the very foundations that day.
A very insightful post, Grahame.
-
To the first part: police never looked at those clothes, we only have Ann Eaton´s word for how the clothes looked, smelled, which items were in the buckets, where the stains were, etc - and that is simply not enough for me. It is for you, fine, not me.
Why did she wash the clothes - then throw them out? Errrr, how does that even make sense? She kept one of Sheila´s dresses for years, nagging the police to test it - yet she threw away bloodied clothes.
To the second part of your post: EW!
How do you know police never looked at them? The publicly released documents only concern items of import that police took not what they left behind and saw to be valueles and never collected.
In fact you don't evne know if they ever existed. All you have is a claim form Eaton that they did.
So that is all you have to work off of.
The assumption that police never saw them and left them because they never looked at them is not sound at all and something you go by because it is the only way you can try suggesting maybe there was other clothes hidden somewhere never found or reported by anyone not even Ann.
Such assumptions and wild speculation mean nothign because you need evidence to prove that there was such clothing tha tpolice missed, wild speculation made form the frame of reference of not knowing what police did or know means operating form a position of ignorance.
If you believe they exist by trusting Ann's words then you have no reason to doubt her words as to what clothing it was and where the stains were.
My position on why it was menstrual is sound. Even a woman or especially a woman should fell that significant staining in the crotch areas of panties and leggings would be from menstratuon where no females were wounded in such area.
As to why she would throw menstrual stained clothing away it is obvious. What value could they hold to the investigation? None! Why would she keep them?
Rinsing them out to throw them away is something obvious to do in order to throw the water away and then dispose of them.
You seem to always quesiton things that make perfect sense and fail to quesiton the things that make no sense which Jeremy and his supporters claim.
-
scipio, you feel the need to defend the EP for not examining bloodied clothes found at a murder scene, fine, keep it up.
You know I disagree, can´t go on arguing about the same issue. Bottom line for me: we cannot be absolutely sure what was in those buckets, the material was not forensically tested.
I´m done with this, what I say is completely logical, I have said what I have to say, and unlike you, I am not much for endless repetition.
-
scipio, you feel the need to defend the EP for not examining bloodied clothes found at a murder scene, fine, keep it up.
You know I disagree, can´t go on arguing about the same issue. Bottom line for me: we cannot be absolutely sure what was in those buckets, the material was not forensically tested.
I´m done with this, what I say is completely logical, I have said what I have to say, and unlike you, I am not much for endless repetition.
Alias, you beat me to it :D I was just about to ask HOW we know, and from WHOM, that the soaking clothes were the result of a menstrual accident. Without the availability of examining them, surely there was no way of knowing.
-
scipio, you feel the need to defend the EP for not examining bloodied clothes found at a murder scene, fine, keep it up.
You know I disagree, can´t go on arguing about the same issue. Bottom line for me: we cannot be absolutely sure what was in those buckets, the material was not forensically tested.
I´m done with this, what I say is completely logical, I have said what I have to say, and unlike you, I am not much for endless repetition.
Far from being logical you are just demonstrating how biased you look at this case.
All Jeremy supporters do the same exact thing, make wild accusations and speculation thinking that unsupported speciulation acocmplishes something and assuming on the basis of very little information you know everything police did.
It is not logical to take and test panties and leggings with blood int he crotch area. It is logical to recognize that such blood would come from menstraul bleeding since no female victims has wounds that would result in blood to the crotch area. There is no vlaue to them the claim that they might have been is nonsense.
You can't posit any way it could have been of any use you just say maybe it somehow could have. Posit a way- you can't.
The fact they left behind somethign OBVIOUSLY not related to the murders is not evidence to suggest there was clothing they left behind that was related ot the murders. Ann Eaton mentioned what clothing she found and taking clothing she thought could have been related. No tops with possible blood spatter was mentioned. The fact she EVEN mentioned worthless menstrual stained clothing clearly unrelated to the murders means for sure she would have mentioned finding something that coudl have had blood spatter on it.
What you are doing is to try to PRETEND that Ann got rid of what could have been evidence and police left it behind so this means Police could have left other evidence as well that Ann threw out. Such argument fails miderably.
Go pout all you like it changes nothing.
-
Far from being logical you are just demonstrating how biased you look at this case.
All Jeremy supporters do the same exact thing, make wild accusations and speculation thinking that unsupported speciulation acocmplishes something and assuming on the basis of very little information you know everything police did.
It is not logical to take and test panties and leggings with blood int he crotch area. It is logical to recognize that such blood would come from menstraul bleeding since no female victims has wounds that would result in blood to the crotch area. There is no vlaue to them the claim that they might have been is nonsense.
You can't posit any way it could have been of any use you just say maybe it somehow could have. Posit a way- you can't.
The fact they left behind somethign OBVIOUSLY not related to the murders is not evidence to suggest there was clothing they left behind that was related ot the murders. Ann Eaton mentioned what clothing she found and taking clothing she thought could have been related. No tops with possible blood spatter was mentioned. The fact she EVEN mentioned worthless menstrual stained clothing clearly unrelated to the murders means for sure she would have mentioned finding something that coudl have had blood spatter on it.
What you are doing is to try to PRETEND that Ann got rid of what could have been evidence and police left it behind so this means Police could have left other evidence as well that Ann threw out. Such argument fails miderably.
Go pout all you like it changes nothing.
Hahahaha. You really cannot see yourself can you scipio. You are really a bit thick aren't you? Just because a person doesn't agree with you that does not mean that they are biased. ;D ;D ;D ;D ROFLMAO. You wanna know the funniest bit? It is that you just cannot see that it is you yourself who is probably the most biased person on the forum. Excluding Adam of course, but everyone knows that he doesn't count. ::)
-
Far from being logical you are just demonstrating how biased you look at this case.
All Jeremy supporters do the same exact thing, make wild accusations and speculation thinking that unsupported speciulation acocmplishes something and assuming on the basis of very little information you know everything police did.
It is not logical to take and test panties and leggings with blood int he crotch area. It is logical to recognize that such blood would come from menstraul bleeding since no female victims has wounds that would result in blood to the crotch area. There is no vlaue to them the claim that they might have been is nonsense.
You can't posit any way it could have been of any use you just say maybe it somehow could have. Posit a way- you can't.
The fact they left behind somethign OBVIOUSLY not related to the murders is not evidence to suggest there was clothing they left behind that was related ot the murders. Ann Eaton mentioned what clothing she found and taking clothing she thought could have been related. No tops with possible blood spatter was mentioned. The fact she EVEN mentioned worthless menstrual stained clothing clearly unrelated to the murders means for sure she would have mentioned finding something that coudl have had blood spatter on it.
What you are doing is to try to PRETEND that Ann got rid of what could have been evidence and police left it behind so this means Police could have left other evidence as well that Ann threw out. Such argument fails miderably.
Go pout all you like it changes nothing.
You are putting words in my mouth - I never said anything remotely like that. Stop pretending you know what people think, thanks.
-
You are putting words in my mouth - I never said anything remotely like that. Stop pretending you know what people think, thanks.
Let's just hope he isn't planning on being a therapist any time soon. His listening skills require a lot more practice.................................like a lifetime!!!!!
-
Hahahaha. You really cannot see yourself can you scipio. You are really a bit thick aren't you? Just because a person doesn't agree with you that does not mean that they are biased. ;D ;D ;D ;D ROFLMAO. You wanna know the funniest bit? It is that you just cannot see that it is you yourself who is probably the most biased person on the forum. Excluding Adam of course, but everyone knows that he doesn't count. ::)
I don't call things illogical or absurd simply if I disagree. I call them illogical and absurd when they objectively are and one such case is when peopel suggest that panties with blood int he crotch area are related to the murders and major evidence or worse thry to suggest that since police left them behind tha tmeans they might have left clothes with victim blood spatter.
The fact Ann Eaton mentioned eveyr little thing found even durty kid's clothes and kept all potentioal clothing from the bedrooms she though could have held evidence then obviously she didn't find any such clothing either not just police failed to find such.
When people try spinning to say otherwise is is simply being made up and not evidence based so not merely a different interpretation of the evidence.
-
I don't call things illogical or absurd simply if I disagree. I call them illogical and absurd when they objectively are and one such case is when peopel suggest that panties with blood int he crotch area are related to the murders and major evidence or worse thry to suggest that since police left them behind tha tmeans they might have left clothes with victim blood spatter.
The fact Ann Eaton mentioned eveyr little thing found even durty kid's clothes and kept all potentioal clothing from the bedrooms she though could have held evidence then obviously she didn't find any such clothing either not just police failed to find such.
When people try spinning to say otherwise is is simply being made up and not evidence based so not merely a different interpretation of the evidence.
In actual fact I don't think the crotch area is ever mentioned by Ann Eaton?
-
In actual fact I don't think the crotch area is ever mentioned by Ann Eaton?
(http://s7.postimg.org/e5c4sbn5n/anncrotch.jpg)
-
(http://s7.postimg.org/e5c4sbn5n/anncrotch.jpg)
Oh well. Me wrong again. ::)