Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: nugnug on July 26, 2014, 03:29:PM
-
the raid team allegedly decided to wait till daylight to enter whf.
the trouble explanation is by the time they entered it had allready been light for 2 hours.
so what was the real reason they waited.
-
the raid team allegedly decided to wait till daylight to enter whf.
the trouble explanation is by the time they entered it had allready been light for 2 hours.
so what was the real reason they waited.
Perhaps to see if anyone came out the back door? It might sound foolish, but you never know, they might have been deep sleepers?
-
could be but why would they need to lie about that.
-
the raid team allegedly decided to wait till daylight to enter whf.
the trouble explanation is by the time they entered it had allready been light for 2 hours.
so what was the real reason they waited.
This claim has been raised 5 times the past 2 weeks in this threads.
The raid team waited until they had enough personnel to raid the building and STILL cover the outside so that a gunman could not rush out a different door and shoot those outside and fle the scene or simply flee the scene.
You set up a perimeter to guard against excape. 7AM a second batch of armed officers arrived and then after their arrival some were staitioned to guard the perimeter while others were to raid the house and they forumated and executed their plan.
-
but they cliamed not to have seen or heard any gunman so why would they.
to do that they would of had to of thought there was a gunman in there.
pluss they allready had enough men to do that anyway by daylight.
-
the raid team allegedly decided to wait till daylight to enter whf.
the trouble explanation is by the time they entered it had allready been light for 2 hours.
so what was the real reason they waited.
What is you're point ?
Are you saying they were against Jeremy from the beginning and a delay in entering would harm Jeremy ? So the raid team deliberately delayed ?
Or are you saying an earlier entry would have benefited Jeremy in some way ?
If you are saying neither, then the raid team entered WHF when they were ready. When that was is not an issue.
-
i am saying what they claimed later wasn't true there were not waiting till daylight.
-
It is documented what time the raid team entered
If that was not the minute it got light, so what ? They were going in when they were ready.
-
it was over 2 hour after it got light.
not a minute.
-
but they cliamed not to have seen or heard any gunman so why would they.
to do that they would of had to of thought there was a gunman in there.
pluss they allready had enough men to do that anyway by daylight.
Jeremy's account was that there was a gunman in there so they had to operate from that assumption. Particualry since the phone was off the hook so they could not call those inside and their only means of communication- megaphone was met with no response.
That means:
1) they were all dead
or
2) any who were living were being kept from answering and the person holding them hostage chose not to answer either
SInce they had no way to know which was the case they had to assume the gunman was alive and could try to escape from a different door if they broke in. They thus set up a perimeter in case the gunman tried to escape and a raid team to clear the house.
-
if they had really seen and heard nothing surely they would no that assumption was wrong.
-
It is documented what time the raid team entered
If that was not the minute it got light, so what ? They were going in when they were ready.
There were two children inside that farmhouse.Time was of the essence,,though by the sound of things,they were as flippant as you sound with your post ! " They were going in when they were ready " !
-
absluty right there wasnt a minute to waste but for some reason even when it got light they still buggered around for 2 hours.
-
if they had really seen and heard nothing surely they would no that assumption was wrong.
Some refuse to answer. Even more likely if someone is in a crazy rage to just ignore the police and not answer.
-
I don't see how what time they went in helps show guilt or innocence.
-
it shows they lying about why they dident go in.
they said they were waiting till daylight and they clearly were not.
-
They were waiting for daylight. If that is what they said.
That does not mean they would go in at that exact minute daylight broke. They will go in when they are also confident and ready. It's called being professional.
Jeremy had told them Sheila was a nutter, looney, psychotic depressive and knew how to handle guns. Neville had rang him saying Sheila had 'gone crazy and had got the gun'. Perhaps a good idea to not rush things.
-
Jeremy's account was that there was a gunman in there so they had to operate from that assumption. Particualry since the phone was off the hook so they could not call those inside and their only means of communication- megaphone was met with no response.
That means:
1) they were all dead
or
2) any who were living were being kept from answering and the person holding them hostage chose not to answer either
SInce they had no way to know which was the case they had to assume the gunman was alive and could try to escape from a different door if they broke in. They thus set up a perimeter in case the gunman tried to escape and a raid team to clear the house.
2 hours with a megaphone and no response?
Gun MAN?
He never told them she had fired any shots ?
For all they knew they were all alive?
-
so therefore absolutely no reason not to go in.
-
They were waiting for daylight. If that is what they said.
That does not mean they would go in at that exact minute daylight broke. They will go in when they are also confident and ready. It's called being professional.
Jeremy had told them Sheila was a nutter, looney, psychotic depressive and knew how to handle guns. Neville had rang him saying Sheila had 'gone crazy and had got the gun'. Perhaps a good idea to not rush things.
-
we have allready proved they couldent of been waiting for daylight becouse they went in 2 hours after daylight.
its not professniol to wait outside when there are 4 hostages inside that could be killed at any time.
-
That's another faux-pas on their behalf. All kitted out in their raid gear,then twiddling their thumbs for over 2 hours ? Weren't they brave ?
-
How do you know ? Are you a raid team officer ?
When they went in is not going to release Jeremy.
Now if you can find proof the police instructed the lab technicians to expertly put incriminating blood inside the silencer....
-
i dont need to be basic common sense tells me that.
they lied about why they waited to go in the qustion is why.
-
You're common sense.
I would rather trust the unbiased experts when there are guns involved.
-
2 hours with a megaphone and no response?
Gun MAN?
He never told them she had fired any shots ?
For all they knew they were all alive?
Someone in possession of a gun is a gunman. The police were told there was a crazy person inside with an arsenal of wepaons at her disposal and that she had used them all. Her escaping as they went in would be a major problem hence why more armed officers were summoned. They were summosed so a perimeter coudl be estbalished with amred personnel and still have enough extra rto clear the structure. That is standard procedure.
You are just demontrating you are too biased to ever face facts. There was a second batch of armed officers summoned and the purpose was to be able to have a perimeter while entry was effected.
-
standard procedure was very diffrent in those days they would have been expected to go in and save the people inside.
in those days they to concerned about a policeman's safety.
-
standard procedure was very diffrent in those days they would have been expected to go in and save the people inside.
in those days they to concerned about a policeman's safety.
Source please about 1985 standard procedure for a raid team in a hostage situation.
It would be good to see how they broke their own protocols. I do not recall Jeremy ever claiming they did.
-
That's another faux-pas on their behalf. All kitted out in their raid gear,then twiddling their thumbs for over 2 hours ? Weren't they brave ?
and the best they could with after was we were waiting till daylight though was an obvios lie but they were never pulled up on it.
-
They were waiting for daylight. If that is what they said.
That does not mean they would go in at that exact minute daylight broke. They will go in when they are also confident and ready. It's called being professional.
Jeremy had told them Sheila was a nutter, looney, psychotic depressive and knew how to handle guns. Neville had rang him saying Sheila had 'gone crazy and had got the gun'. Perhaps a good idea to not rush things.
Groundhog day
-
Groundhog day
I wouldn´t know! ;D
-
Groundhog day
I am looking forward to Numugs source about the standard procedure for a raid team in 1985.
-
I'd like to know where Jeremy got the energy from after having worked all of 17 hours harvesting,then on to slaughter 5 people when it was a known fact that both parents described Jeremy as being inherently lazy. Always too tired to do anything,and there'd be rows galore about his laziness.
One doesn't change overnight. I bet his father had to ring him every morning to get up.
-
This claim has been raised 5 times the past 2 weeks in this threads.
The raid team waited until they had enough personnel to raid the building and STILL cover the outside so that a gunman could not rush out a different door and shoot those outside and fle the scene or simply flee the scene.
You set up a perimeter to guard against excape. 7AM a second batch of armed officers arrived and then after their arrival some were staitioned to guard the perimeter while others were to raid the house and they forumated and executed their plan.
Have I been reading this wrong, I thought there was only one raid team, the one that Bewes called when he pissed himself after running away from the trick of light?
-
At 24, I could summon the energy to do a bit of after hours work if there was a £436,000 reward.
If tired afterwards I could always recover in Amsterdam. Or St Tropez.
-
Have I been reading this wrong, I thought there was only one raid team, the one that Bewes called when he pissed himself after running away from the trick of light?
It just makes matters worse if there were two lots when you think of the time that was wasted.
-
Have I been reading this wrong, I thought there was only one raid team, the one that Bewes called when he pissed himself after running away from the trick of light?
yes there was only one.
the one that seemed to think it was still dark 2 hours after daylight had arrived.
-
Have I been reading this wrong, I thought there was only one raid team, the one that Bewes called when he pissed himself after running away from the trick of light?
A second team was called as backup.
-
why would they need back up they were only dealing with one person.
acording to them they hadent seen or heard anything why would back up be needed.
-
I don't see how what time they went in helps show guilt or innocence.
come on Adam - you have seen the logs - stop playing the innocent
They obviously thought someone was moving about in the house . I am not saying that is true , I am saying that's what they thought.
If it had been your children in there I am sure your argument would be completely different.
-
surely the main priority would of been or should getting the hostages out of there someone escaping out the back out the back entrance would not be your main priority.
-
Have I been reading this wrong, I thought there was only one raid team, the one that Bewes called when he pissed himself after running away from the trick of light?
The armed officers arrived in 2 waves. The intiial wave around 5AM and a subsequent wave arrived around 7AM. Some of these armed officers were tasked with defending the perimeter in case someone came running out. The others were tasked with entering the premises and these were called the raid team. Those who entered the structure were the raid team while the other armed officers were outside to protect the perimeter.
-
come on Adam - you have seen the logs - stop playing the innocent
They obviously thought someone was moving about in the house . I am not saying that is true , I am saying that's what they thought.
If it had been your children in there I am sure your argument would be completely different.
I have not seen the logs.
When they entered is of no interest to me. They were not biased and would have entered when they thought appropriate.
However I am looking forward to Numugs source showing the protocol for raid teams in 85. Source has been requested.
-
Adam who is Numugs is it a new member?
-
"Source has been requested." ::) ::) ::)
-
The armed officers arrived in 2 waves. The intiial wave around 5AM and a subsequent wave arrived around 7AM. Some of these armed officers were tasked with defending the perimeter in case someone came running out. The others were tasked with entering the premises and these were called the raid team. Those who entered the structure were the raid team while the other armed officers were outside to protect the perimeter.
defending the perimeter from what.
-
defending the perimeter from what.
Sheila coming out of a different door with a gun and trying to shoot unarmed police who try to stop her from fleeing the scene or fleeing the scene without any cops even noticing.
-
Sheila coming out of a different door with a gun and trying to shoot unarmed police who try to stop her from fleeing the scene or fleeing the scene without any cops even noticing.
Oh,,Sheila was it ?
-
Oh,,Sheila was it ?
Well since Jeremy claimed his father stated Sheila had a gun and was threatening the family with it, was crazy and had an arsenal at her disposal that she knew how to use - yes they feared Sheila.
-
Ha Ha Adam you mean nugnugs don't you trying to confuse me :'(
-
Well since Jeremy claimed his father stated Sheila had a gun and was threatening the family with it, was crazy and had an arsenal at her disposal that she knew how to use - yes they feared Sheila.
what even though they hadent seen or heard her all night.
-
Well since Jeremy claimed his father stated Sheila had a gun and was threatening the family with it, was crazy and had an arsenal at her disposal that she knew how to use - yes they feared Sheila.
So you believe all that about the father phoning too ?
-
how many policeman were each in raid team.
-
come on Adam - you have seen the logs - stop playing the innocent
They obviously thought someone was moving about in the house . I am not saying that is true , I am saying that's what they thought.
If it had been your children in there I am sure your argument would be completely different.
They did report noises from within the house I believe?
-
but if everyone was dead there cant of been noises.
-
how many policeman were each in raid team.
PS Adams arrived at 5AM with the Firearms Team and took charge
DI Montgomery arrived at 7AM assumed command, Adams 2nd in charge they coordinated efforts.
After the second batch arrived the outer buildings were cleared before doing anything else. Then the decision was made to enter and a team of 3 were selected to look for the best entry location with the kitchen door being sleected.
Prior to Montgomery and his firearms team there were only 6 on scene:
Sgt Adams
Alexander-Smart
Collins
Delgado
Dermott
Matthews
With Mongtomery and his personnel that jumped to 18 men (1 was actually female)
Raid team
Alexander-Smart
Collins
Delgado
Hall
Manners
Woodcock
Containment:
Adams
Montgomery
Brown
Moule
MacIntosh
Matthews
Jeapes
Dermott
Mercer
Rozga
Mildinhall
Webb
The final 3 members of the containment team were called inside WHF to help cover the officers who were clearing the rooms.
Raid members who cleared the upstairs rooms and found the 5 bodies:
Collins
Delgado
Woodcock
Provided cover to these 3 and thus subsequently saw the bodies:
Hall
Manners
Webb (did not see bedroom well, only saw June from a distance)
So 5 men from the raid team had ented the bedroom and seen both bodies in it, eveyrone who entered only saw 1 in the kitchen.
Shortly after the structure was cleared 4 supervisors entered to inspect the premises and saw all 5 bodies so rather quickly saw the 2 bodied in the master bedroom.
Gibbons
Harris
Montgomery
Adams
-
They did report noises from within the house I believe?
Now now Grahame. You know that Crispy barking does not count.
-
they had enough men allready to do all that needed to be done.
-
PS Adams arrived at 5AM with the Firearms Team and took charge
DI Montgomery arrived at 7AM assumed command, Adams 2nd in charge they coordinated efforts.
After the second batch arrived the outer buildings were cleared before doing anything else. Then the decision was made to enter and a team of 3 were selected to look for the best entry location with the kitchen door being sleected.
Prior to Montgomery and his firearms team there were only 6 on scene:
Sgt Adams
Alexander-Smart
Collins
Delgado
Dermott
Matthews
With Mongtomery and his personnel that jumped to 18 men (1 was actually female)
Raid team
Alexander-Smart
Collins
Delgado
Hall
Manners
Woodcock
Containment:
Adams
Montgomery
Brown
Moule
MacIntosh
Matthews
Jeapes
Dermott
Mercer
Rozga
Mildinhall
Webb
The final 3 members of the containment team were called inside WHF to help cover the officers who were clearing the rooms.
Raid members who cleared the upstairs rooms and found the 5 bodies:
Collins
Delgado
Woodcock
Provided cover to these 3 and thus subsequently saw the bodies:
Hall
Manners
Webb (did not see bedroom well, only saw June from a distance)
So 5 men from the raid team had ented the bedroom and seen both bodies in it, eveyrone who entered only saw 1 in the kitchen.
Shortly after the structure was cleared 4 supervisors entered to inspect the premises and saw all 5 bodies so rather quickly saw the 2 bodied in the master bedroom.
Gibbons
Harris
Montgomery
Adams
One heck of an area of contamination.
-
if they thought they needed more men there why did they take so long to ask for them.
-
PS Adams arrived at 5AM with the Firearms Team and took charge
DI Montgomery arrived at 7AM assumed command, Adams 2nd in charge they coordinated efforts.
After the second batch arrived the outer buildings were cleared before doing anything else. Then the decision was made to enter and a team of 3 were selected to look for the best entry location with the kitchen door being sleected.
Prior to Montgomery and his firearms team there were only 6 on scene:
Sgt Adams
Alexander-Smart
Collins
Delgado
Dermott
Matthews
With Mongtomery and his personnel that jumped to 18 men (1 was actually female)
Raid team
Alexander-Smart
Collins
Delgado
Hall
Manners
Woodcock
Containment:
Adams
Montgomery
Brown
Moule
MacIntosh
Matthews
Jeapes
Dermott
Mercer
Rozga
Mildinhall
Webb
The final 3 members of the containment team were called inside WHF to help cover the officers who were clearing the rooms.
Raid members who cleared the upstairs rooms and found the 5 bodies:
Collins
Delgado
Woodcock
Provided cover to these 3 and thus subsequently saw the bodies:
Hall
Manners
Webb (did not see bedroom well, only saw June from a distance)
So 5 men from the raid team had ented the bedroom and seen both bodies in it, eveyrone who entered only saw 1 in the kitchen.
Shortly after the structure was cleared 4 supervisors entered to inspect the premises and saw all 5 bodies so rather quickly saw the 2 bodied in the master bedroom.
Gibbons
Harris
Montgomery
Adams
Isn't that RATHER a lot of big, burly men to prevent one girl from escaping?
-
Now now Grahame. You know that Crispy barking does not count.
Well of course he can't count. He's a dog. ;D
-
Isn't that RATHER a lot of big, burly men to prevent one girl from escaping?
i thought that to.
-
Isn't that RATHER a lot of big, burly men to prevent one girl from escaping?
Well you know what the cops are like. They need 3 police cars to stop you from speeding. One from the front, one from the back and one to look out for black people to arrest. :)
-
Isn't that RATHER a lot of big, burly men to prevent one girl from escaping?
One girl who weirdly people think was capable overcoming and murdering June and Nevill and then killing her own children?
A person apparently capable of using all the guns (which are all loaded) in the house?
I don't think you can have it both ways. :-\
-
yes but 18 of them for one person.
what would they have thought there were 3 armed people to deal with.
-
One girl who weirdly people think was capable overcoming and murdering June and Nevill and then killing her own children?
A person apparently capable of using all the guns (which are all loaded) in the house?
I don't think you can have it both ways. :-\
WHAT did they think she was going to do, FCS? Come out shooting with a gun -sorry, rifle- in each hand, spares under her arms? 1 girl, 30+ men!!!!!!!!
-
WHAT did they think she was going to do, FCS? Come out shooting with a gun -sorry, rifle- in each hand, spares under her arms? 1 girl, 30+ men!!!!!!!!
They were trying to ensure nobody would be in danger, are you suggesting Sheila was incapable of causing danger? Incapable of murder?
The police presence was quite normal.
-
WHAT did they think she was going to do, FCS? Come out shooting with a gun -sorry, rifle- in each hand, spares under her arms? 1 girl, 30+ men!!!!!!!!
they thought it was going to be like butch casidy and the sun dance kid.
-
I know that someone is going to snap at me, but to me it looks as if they were there to protect each other, and didn´t give it so much priority to protect and possibly save potential survivors inside the house.
-
Isn't that RATHER a lot of big, burly men to prevent one girl from escaping?
The raid team consisted of 6 men initially and then 3 more went in so 9 total clearing the house. Excluding the supervisors who obviously did nothing but plan and order others around that left 6 men and 1 woman for containment. one of those men was the k9 unit which had been ready to go in if necessary so only 2 people were there on each of the 3 other sides acting as containment.
The initial batch had a supervisor and 5 men so basically that owuld allow 2 men to clear the house with 1 acting as containment on each of the 3 other sides. Not a very strong force structure.
-
I know that someone is going to snap at me, but to me it looks as if they were there to protect each other, and didn´t give it so much priority to protect and possibly save potential survivors inside the house.
well it certainly seems like they dident give a toss about that.
and its strange because the armed would certainly have come up against thing like that before.
-
I know that someone is going to snap at me, but to me it looks as if they were there to protect each other, and didn´t give it so much priority to protect and possibly save potential survivors inside the house.
Strangely enough this is normal police procedure even up to the present date. In a hostage situation they simply wait. If it were in the daytime they would still wait. They use as many police as possible. The theory is to try and end the seige without bloodshed. Just recall the Iranian Embassy seige in the 80's. The police did exactly the same thing. Until the hastage takers started killing people. It was at that moment that they decided to send in the SAS.
Another reason they would use so many police is to overwhelm the suspect so that they wouldn't get the chance to use any weapons. The fact is they just didn't know what to expect. Even if Jeremy had not clued them in about Sheila the mere mention of a gun puts the police on high alert.
-
I know that someone is going to snap at me, but to me it looks as if they were there to protect each other, and didn´t give it so much priority to protect and possibly save potential survivors inside the house.
Alias, that puts me in mind of the chorus of policemen in Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias, that puts me in mind of the chorus of policemen in Gilbert and Sullivan's Pirates of Penzance ;D ;D ;D
A policeman's lot is not a happy one?
-
Strangely enough this is normal police procedure even up to the present date. In a hostage situation they simply wait. If it were in the daytime they would still wait. They use as many police as possible. The theory is to try and end the seige without bloodshed. Just recall the Iranian Embassy seige in the 80's. The police did exactly the same thing. Until the hastage takers started killing people. It was at that moment that they decided to send in the SAS.
Another reason they would use so many police is to overwhelm the suspect so that they wouldn't get the chance to use any weapons. The fact is they just didn't know what to expect. Even if Jeremy had not clued them in about Sheila the mere mention of a gun puts the police on high alert.
there was a case near me where a girl was shot by her ex and she lay dying in the arms of her neighbours . The armed police that arrived on the scene prevented the ambulance staff going in , even though the neighbours were on the phone explaining that the murderer had gone and taken the gun with him.
It was very sad and tremendously traumatic for the people involved.
-
so this is all to deal with somone they cliam not to have seen or heard from all night.
and they needed that much back why hadent they asked for it before.
-
there was a case near me where a girl was shot by her ex and she lay dying in the arms of her neighbours . The armed police that arrived on the scene police the ambulance going in , even though the neighbours were on the phone explaining that the murderer had gone and taken the gun with him.
It was very sad and tremendously traumatic for the people involved.
I'm afraid the police can be very annoying at times. There was a small outbuilding caught fire at Langford and the bloke was trying to put it out, but was hindered by this policeman who threatened to arrest him if he didn't stay back. The man just ignored him and carried on.
-
so this is all to deal with somone they cliam not to have seen or heard from all night.
and they needed that much back why hadent they asked for it before.
Because they didn't have Sylvester Stallone with them. ;D
-
A policeman's lot is not a happy one?
And they're usually shaking in their shoes whilst they're singing it ;D ;D ;D
-
well it certainly seems like they dident give a toss about that.
and its strange because the armed would certainly have come up against thing like that before.
It could equally be said there is nothing or no one would have stopped me from going in if my mum or dad or sister had called for my help?
-
now if they really hadent seen anything or heard anything surely they wouldn't of called for back up would they.
-
It could equally be said there is nothing or no one would have stopped me from going in if my mum or dad or sister had called for my help?
its easy to cliam that if its never happend to you.
id like to think i would as well but untill you have been there you dont know.
-
its easy to cliam that if its never happend to you.
Nothing or no one.
-
It could equally be said there is nothing or no one would have stopped me from going in if my mum or dad or sister had called for my help?
I agree in some respects , however
1) He did not know any shots had been fired , although I think it slowly began to dawn on him as the night progressed
2) perhaps he thought it was best to leave it to the professionals who would know how to sort it out.
-
but they dident seem to have a clue which is strange because the armed unit would of certanly done that sort of thing before.
-
I agree in some respects , however
1) He did not know any shots had been fired , although I think it slowly began to dawn on him as the night progressed
2) perhaps he thought it was best to leave it to the professionals who would know how to sort it out.
In reality we often react differently than we imagine we would. It's difficult to judge imo.
-
most people act diffrently to to how they think they would act.
-
I agree in some respects , however
1) He did not know any shots had been fired , although I think it slowly began to dawn on him as the night progressed
2) perhaps he thought it was best to leave it to the professionals who would know how to sort it out.
Thanks Jansus, the fact is the police did not know anything about the people inside other than what Jeremy told them. Once he told them about the guns and fathers phone call and his sister it is then handed over to the firearms team which then becomes a long drawn out affair.
-
its easy to cliam that if its never happend to you.
id like to think i would as well but untill you have been there you dont know.
It has and it was Essex? But not quite the same.
-
most people act diffrently to to how they think they would act.
Not in this instance, if it were my family, I'd be at the very least asking why they weren't doing something and would be extremely agitated. The longer it went on, the more agitated I would get.
-
how do we know he wasnt.
-
how do we know he wasnt.
Because he would have said so.
-
Because he would have said so.
Not necessarily?
-
Not necessarily?
Come on Grahame you would have gone in like me.
-
I'd at least have thrown something at a window to draw attention. What's a few broken windows ? I certainly couldn't have done nothing,good Lord.
-
I lot here imagine what they would do in Jeremy's place. But then they question why the police did not go in right away? I rather think, me being me that I would do exactly what the police would tell me to do? Why? Because they would have commanded authority. But still we all insist on what we ourselve would do. I suggest that none of us know our own hearts, therefore none of us would know what we would do in this sutuation.
Consider this:
Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow , thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.
But he did deny him and all his disciples ran away. We may profess great things. But I doubt that may of us will perform those great things?
-
I think it's high time we heard these audio tapes that were done by EP while Neville and Jeremys' calls were carried out. Emergency calls are automatically recorded.
It's been said that these tapes were destroyed after 28 days but--------copies which were done on the 12th of September were said to have been destroyed on the 7th ? No record exists as to the destruction of the tapes !
If the jury had heard these tapes,they'd have then heard the TWO phone-calls,proof of which that two calls were made that night.
-
well it would be good to hear jeremys call.
-
I think it's high time we heard these audio tapes that were done by EP while Neville and Jeremys' calls were carried out. Emergency calls are automatically recorded.
It's been said that these tapes were destroyed after 28 days but--------copies which were done on the 12th of September were said to have been destroyed on the 7th ? No record exists as to the destruction of the tapes !
If the jury had heard these tapes,they'd have then heard the TWO phone-calls,proof of which that two calls were made that night.
What 2 phonecalls? ONly deranged peopel believe Nevill made a call and believe it for no reaosn at all because there is absolutely nothing from Bonnet's testimony or on the log he kept which supports the notion he fielded a call from Nevill nor any evidence that anyone else did.
In addition to that, there is so much evidence proving that Sheila can't have done anything, that someone who believes a call was made is someone not to take serious by anyone rational and informed.
-
I'd at least have thrown something at a window to draw attention. What's a few broken windows ? I certainly couldn't have done nothing,good Lord.
Lookout you are such an honest poster and most respected. Respect x
-
I'd at least have thrown something at a window to draw attention. What's a few broken windows ? I certainly couldn't have done nothing,good Lord.
I am at a loss to understand what that would accomplish. If there really was someone with a gun inside that coudl prompt them to open fire at someone.
Most people would try to go inside and if prevented from doing so by first responders would then scream to those inside the house or instead of going inside would be screaming to them.
I don't think rocks through windows would be a wise idea. By the way glass breaking in some instances sounds like shots from a distance. It depends on how the break happens but breaking glass creates a similar noise. So aside from startling in general to make them think someone was breaking in it could be misconstrued as shots and thus prompting harm to hostages for that reason as well.
-
I lot here imagine what they would do in Jeremy's place. But then they question why the police did not go in right away? I rather think, me being me that I would do exactly what the police would tell me to do? Why? Because they would have commanded authority. But still we all insist on what we ourselve would do. I suggest that none of us know our own hearts, therefore none of us would know what we would do in this sutuation.
Consider this: But he did deny him and all his disciples ran away. We may profess great things. But I doubt that may of us will perform those great things?
I do agree Grahame, theoretically we may believe we would behave in a certain way but find in reality we behave in an entirely different way. I would think Jeremy shouting and screaming banging on the door would have been a total pest and would have been taken well away from the house, by force if necessary. Am sure the police would have made it clear they were in charge and knew what they were doing, there was no room for Jeremy to do anything but do as they asked.
Actually, if he was guilty he may have been more likely to make a huge fuss and be seen as desperate to save them all from the wicked Sheila. There is absolutely no proof of guilt because of his subdued behaviour imo.
-
well they will grab you and drag you away if you do that.
i know what the police verson of what happend that night im not to sure what jeremys is.
-
I do agree Grahame, theoretically we may believe we would behave in a certain way but find in reality we behave in an entirely different way. I would think Jeremy shouting and screaming banging on the door would have been a total pest and would have been taken well away from the house, by force if necessary. Am sure the police would have made it clear they were in charge and knew what they were doing, there was no room for Jeremy to do anything but do as they asked.
Actually, if he was guilty he may have been more likely to make a huge fuss and be seen as desperate to save them all from the wicked Sheila. There is absolutely no proof of guilt because of his subdued behaviour imo.
His subdued behavior including no guilt over allegedly leaving the murder weapon out is highly suspicious but after all the evidence is considered then it is obviousl why he acted the way he did. The evidence establishes that Sheila did not kill anyone else nor did she kill herself. Sheila thus didn't find a rifle he left out and kill anyone with it. Jeremy killed them all so that explains his suspicious behavior away. He killed them and knew they were dead already hence why he was not worried about their safety and did not have any guilt over the weapon being left out or other forms of survivor guilt.
-
well they will grab you and drag you away if you do that.
i know what the police verson of what happend that night im not to sure what jeremys is.
Exactly nugnug, we simply don't and probably never will know the whole story so it's really difficult to form an opinion. :-\ :-\
-
His subdued behavior including no guilt over allegedly leaving the murder weapon out is highly suspicious but after all the evidence is considered then it is obviousl why he acted the way he did. The evidence establishes that Sheila did not kill anyone else nor did she kill herself. Sheila thus didn't find a rifle he left out and kill anyone with it. Jeremy killed them all so that explains his suspicious behavior away. He killed them and knew they were dead already hence why he was not worried about their safety and did not have any guilt over the weapon being left out or other forms of survivor guilt.
That is your opinion and that's fair enough but it isn't mine. I feel it' impossible to know the whole truth of what happened outside WHF that night or how Jeremy behaved afterwards as we are only given snapshots many of them from people who didn't like him, this makes it extremely difficult to judge Jeremy's reactions and behaviour imo.
-
well they will grab you and drag you away if you do that.
i know what the police verson of what happend that night im not to sure what Jeremys is.
The first responders would indeed grab a hysterical person who did such but that is not what happened because Jeremy did not act in such manner.
Eventually Jeremy figured he better act upset and forced himself to puke and told Julie how he had forced himself to puke. But for him telling her this she had no way to know he puked at all so he had to have told her it. That was his excuse to go call Julie because he said he was upset and needed comfort. Instead he told her things were great and not to go to work because he was going to have police pick her up so she could confim he called her to say Nevill phoned him to try to bolster his case the call really happened.
In hindsight it is obvious why he did all the things he did and acted as he did, he murdered them so knew they were dead and thus was not worried about their safety.
-
That is your opinion and that's fair enough but it isn't mine. I feel it' impossible to know the whole truth of what happened outside WHF that night or how Jeremy behaved afterwards as we are only given snapshots many of them from people who didn't like him, this makes it extremely difficult to judge Jeremy's reactions and behaviour imo.
You are too biased to see the forest for the trees.
You still think SHeila could have done it without ther ebeign any blood or GSR on her clothes so frankly your opinion is not worth much because it is not based on evidence and rational things just your bias and emotions.
-
is it possble you could learn to debate like an adult.
all theses childish only go to show weak your argumeents really are.
-
is it possble you could learn to debate like an adult.
all theses childish only go to show weak your argumeents really are.
What I posted is not childish. Opinions are not worth anything unless they are founded on evidence and rational thought.
Her's are not, hers are founded upon bias and completely ignore all evidence and raitonal thought.
That is why Jeremy will not get out of prison ever.
Jeremy was convicted ont he basis of a substantial amount of evidence. The only way he coudl ever be established ot be innocent is if that evidence is refuted. His lawyers were unable to refute it at trial, unable to refute it on appeal and his supporters ar eunable to refute it.
Team Jeremy can't refute it and yet insists they beleive he is innocent anyway. All that amounts to is blind faith in Jeremy. Why people are willing to have blind faith in him I don't know or care. That blind faith is worthless in a debate though.
-
its a forum people have different opinions get used to it.
-
The first responders would indeed grab a hysterical person who did such but that is not what happened because Jeremy did not act in such manner.
Eventually Jeremy figured he better act upset and forced himself to puke and told Julie how he had forced himself to puke. But for him telling her this she had no way to know he puked at all so he had to have told her it. That was his excuse to go call Julie because he said he was upset and needed comfort. Instead he told her things were great and not to go to work because he was going to have police pick her up so she could confim he called her to say Nevill phoned him to try to bolster his case the call really happened.
In hindsight it is obvious why he did all the things he did and acted as he did, he murdered them so knew they were dead and thus was not worried about their safety.
You forgot to say, "I presume" after saying all that. You have no way of knowing if he was sick or not, or the reason he called JM?
-
You are too biased to see the forest for the trees.
You still think SHeila could have done it without ther ebeign any blood or GSR on her clothes so frankly your opinion is not worth much because it is not based on evidence and rational things just your bias and emotions.
I suppose you aren't biased? Your opinion as to what happened outside WHF in regard to Jeremy's feelings is still just your opinion. Just because someone doesn't agree with YOU does not make them too biased. It just means they do not agree with you.
May I also suggest that even if some things people are based upon evidence they can also be biased with it, which actually prevents them from seeing other things. An indication of this bias is that they "presume" to know how others are feeling and even judge their motives, which is being biased. You have done both.
-
ive heard nothing about him being sick before and somone who wasnt there would have no way of knowing weather he was or wasnt.
-
ive heard nothing about him being sick before and somone who wasnt there would have no way of knowing weather he was or wasnt.
One of the coppers said he appeard to be sick.
-
You forgot to say, "I presume" after saying all that. You have no way of knowing if he was sick or not, or the reason he called JM?
How did Julie known Jeremy puked? She was not there. He had to have told her afterwards. So her story that he told her about the puking incident had to be true because it is the only way she would have known about it. Why would he have mentioned it later? She said he told her that he stuck his fingers in his throat and forced himself to puke and put on a great act just like the good act she put on when he told her she should have been an actress.
WHy would he fake puking? Becaase he was not actually upset but wanted police to think he was, that is the only reason to do such. The motivation for this is self-evident no presumtion is required.
-
One of the coppers said he appeard to be sick.
well that's hardly reliable evidence.
-
How did Julie known Jeremy puked? She was not there. He had to have told her afterwards. So her story that he told her about the puking incident had to be true because it is the only way she would have known about it. Why would he have mentioned it later? She said he told her that he stuck his fingers in his throat and forced himself to puke and put on a great act just like the good act she put on when he told her she should have been an actress.
WHy would he fake puking? Becaase he was not actually upset but wanted police to think he was, that is the only reason to do such. The motivation for this is self-evident no presumtion is required.
no someone who was there could of told her.
or she could of just made it up altogether.
-
One of the coppers said he appeard to be sick.
To "get sick" is a nice way of saying he puked or barfed or less vulgar "threw up". Puked is such a nice descriptive word though I can't resist. I also use upchucked especially since an incident in high school. I worked with someone named Chuck and he decided he was going to "get sick" so he was running towards the bathroom but did not get far, he upchucked as he was running, then stepped in it slipped and fell in it and was covered in barf. From that day forward we called him upchuck. One day he actually found a girlfriend somehow and we told her the upchuck story because she asked why we called him upchuck. He then quit. With so many interesting ways to say it how can you simple say "got sick".
-
no someone who was there could of told her.
or she could of just made it up altogether.
The police who saw him puke are not the ones who interviewed her. Moreover, he never denied the claim he puked.
-
you yes but no doubt the police who interviewed him would of talked to the police who had been there.
-
you yes but no doubt the police who interviewed him would of talked to the police who had been there.
Police had not speaked to her since early August when she was firmly in Jeremy's corner. There is no evidence at all they mentioned anything about him puking to her nor any reason they would.
Her claim about him telling her he forced himself to puke was included in her September 8 statement to police. She met police on September 7-8 to draft that statement. Police say she told them at this time that Jeremy told her he forced himself to puke.
So basically you are accusing police of telling her Jeremy puked and police making up the lie that he told her he forced himself to puke and for her to simply write it down.
There is nothing to suggest police made her lie about anything let alone something trivial like that. You are so desperate to try to find a way to discount everything that implicates Jeremy that you go to ridiculous lengths to do so.
-
How did Julie known Jeremy puked? She was not there. He had to have told her afterwards. So her story that he told her about the puking incident had to be true because it is the only way she would have known about it. Why would he have mentioned it later? She said he told her that he stuck his fingers in his throat and forced himself to puke and put on a great act just like the good act she put on when he told her she should have been an actress.
WHy would he fake puking? Becaase he was not actually upset but wanted police to think he was, that is the only reason to do such. The motivation for this is self-evident no presumtion is required.
It is still presumtion on your part to say he faked it.
-
Police had not speaked to her since early August when she was firmly in Jeremy's corner. There is no evidence at all they mentioned anything about him puking to her nor any reason they would.
Her claim about him telling her he forced himself to puke was included in her September 8 statement to police. She met police on September 7-8 to draft that statement. Police say she told them at this time that Jeremy told her he forced himself to puke.
So basically you are accusing police of telling her Jeremy puked and police making up the lie that he told her he forced himself to puke and for her to simply write it down.
There is nothing to suggest police made her lie about anything let alone something trivial like that. You are so desperate to try to find a way to discount everything that implicates Jeremy that you go to ridiculous lengths to do so.
yes feeding the witness thats exactly what i am accusing them.
its somthing thats done all the time in this country.
-
It is still presumtion on your part to say he faked it.
The evidence says he faked it.
Julie had no way to know he puked other than him telling her as she claims.
She spoke to police how Jeremy told her he forced his finger down his throat to make himself puke. Police would have no reason to tell her he puked and ask her about such. She talked to them about what she knew. So unless police told her he puked and to agree to lie and say he told her he forced himself to puke then the only way she knew was from Jeremy.
The notion police told her to tell such a lie is ridiculous.
-
yes feeding the witness thats exactly what i am accusing them.
its somthing thats done all the time in this country.
Feeding a witness that he had puked and to tell her to lie and say he admitted to faking it is not credible. You have no evidence to support such and it is not rational.
If we were to assume police can never be trusted, always lie and force all witnesses to lie without any evidence at all to prove it then no one could be convincted in the UK. You are just demosntrating how absurd you are with this garbage and how your beliefs in his innocence are totally irrationally based.
-
obviosly yuve never heard of Stefan kisko or colin stagg or the Birmingham 6.
obviosly your totaly ingnorant of how the police oprate in the uk.
-
well that's hardly reliable evidence.
Exactly. But it gives biased people like scipio another opportunity to condemn Jeremy.
-
obviosly yuve never heard of Stefan kisko or colin stagg or the Birmingham 6.
obviosly your totaly ingnorant of how the police oprate in the uk.
I don't trust them one inch personally.
-
Exactly. But it gives biased people like scipio another opportunity to condemn Jeremy.
a policeman says it so it must be true how can an argument like that seriosly.
-
obviosly yuve never heard of Stefan kisko or colin stagg or the Birmingham 6.
obviosly your totaly ingnorant of how the police oprate in the uk.
I have indeed heard of such cases and there is evidence that established wrongdoing in each. Convictions were not overturned on the simply claim we should not trust police but rather specific evidence establishing specific wrongdoing.
All you are doing is confirming my point that using your ridiculous standard virtually no one could be convicted and crime would jump as a result.
-
The evidence says he faked it.
Julie had no way to know he puked other than him telling her as she claims.
She spoke to police how Jeremy told her he forced his finger down his throat to make himself puke. Police would have no reason to tell her he puked and ask her about such. She talked to them about what she knew. So unless police told her he puked and to agree to lie and say he told her he forced himself to puke then the only way she knew was from Jeremy.
The notion police told her to tell such a lie is ridiculous.
You mean that Mugford said he faked it?
-
the same julie mugford who implicated a totally innocent man ie mathew macdonald.
the same jullie mugford who said jeremy strangled rats with his bare hands.
-
the same julie mugford who implicated a totally innocent man ie mathew macdonald.
the same jullie mugford who said jeremy strangled rats with his bare hands.
I don't believe that. Even I would not try and catch a rat in order to strangle the thing. But of course some are free to believe such nonsence because it comes from Mugford.
-
to me that proves her statement isnt credible.
-
to me that proves her statement isnt credible.
What proves her statment is not credible? That police took it?
-
when she said he strangled rats with his bare hands that pretty much discredits completly in my opinion.
-
You mean that Mugford said he faked it?
Jeremy had no reason at all to tell Julie he puked unless he did it in the context she said of saying he was a good actor liek her and had forced himself to puke so police would believe he wa supset.
Police had no reaosn to tell Julie tha the puked unless they told her to lie and say he told her that he faked it.
There would be no way for Julie to find out he puked and make it up on her own.
The notion police make the lie up for her is reidiclous the only credible account is that Jeremy told her he was acting.
-
when she said he strangled rats with his bare hands that pretty much discredits completly in my opinion.
1) how come you don't hold Jeremy to that standard and say since he lied that means everything he says is a lie?
2) She still would be in no posiiton to make up such a lie herself the on;y possiiblities are that police mad eup the lie or Jeremy admitted he forced himself to puke.
-
Jeremy had no reason at all to tell Julie he puked unless he did it in the context she said of saying he was a good actor liek her and had forced himself to puke so police would believe he wa supset.
Police had no reaosn to tell Julie tha the puked unless they told her to lie and say he told her that he faked it.
There would be no way for Julie to find out he puked and make it up on her own.
The notion police make the lie up for her is reidiclous the only credible account is that Jeremy told her he was acting.
Still Mugford's words. I have no reason to believe this woman. Taff Jones soon saw through her. June certainly did and I suspect the relatives did as well? They certainly didn't like her. Hmm, I wonder why? ::)
-
1) how come you don't hold Jeremy to that standard and say since he lied that means everything he says is a lie?
2) She still would be in no posiiton to make up such a lie herself the on;y possiiblities are that police mad eup the lie or Jeremy admitted he forced himself to puke.
Of course she would. There were other ways she could have found out these things, especially after she was interviewed 32 times odd. Excuse me scipio, but you appear to be very naive about this woman and about what goes on in the interview rooms? Or could it be your biased mind that is thinking for you? ::)
-
well the 32 interviews is dodgy for a start ive never heard of a witness being interviewd that many times.
-
The taped ones would be interesting !
-
i mean what possble reason would they have for interviewing her 32 times unless of course they were helping her get her story straght.
-
1) how come you don't hold Jeremy to that standard and say since he lied that means everything he says is a lie?
2) She still would be in no posiiton to make up such a lie herself the on;y possiiblities are that police mad eup the lie or Jeremy admitted he forced himself to puke.
How come you don't hold Mugford to the same standard as you do Jeremy? It is only her word against his effectively.
-
i mean what possble reason would they have for interviewing her 32 times unless of course they were helping her get her story straght.
They must have been rehearsing for the trial some of the time.
BTW, Julie was paid for every single second of those 32 interviews - or whatever they were.
-
we need no actully we need you say this now.
-
They must have been rehearsing for the trial some of the time.
BTW, Julie was paid for every single second of those 32 interviews - or whatever they were.
To my mind the ONLY reason they interviewed her 32 times was to coach her. There could be no other reason. They were determined to get a conviction and she was their star witness. But one thing stands out in the majority of her testimony is that it cannot be backed up by anyone else. And still there are those who are gullible enough to believe her. ::)
-
her gender went a long way a man less likely to be credible.
-
her gender went a long way a man less likely to be credible.
I'll give you this. She was a very convincing liar. But read the first testimony that Patti posted and maybe you will get a better idea as to the type of person she was/is?
-
I'll give you this. She was a very convincing liar. But read the first testimony that Patti posted and maybe you will get a better idea as to the type of person she was/is?
I can look at someone and have a guess who that person is in this case I was not fooled or sold so easily.
-
well im not sure she really was.
i mean anyone can be a convincing liar if they have told what to say and how to say it.
-
I can look at someone and have a guess who that person is in this case I was not fooled or sold so easily.
Me neither Mertol.
-
I'll give you this. She was a very convincing liar. But read the first testimony that Patti posted and maybe you will get a better idea as to the type of person she was/is?
What evidence do you have that she lied?
-
well the strangling rats bit is a rather obvious lie.
-
well the strangling rats bit is a rather obvious lie.
Of course it's a lie,unless it was already dead and he'd pretended to strangle it,but I can't even imagine he'd handle one somehow.
-
well the strangling rats bit is a rather obvious lie.
Post precisely what she alleged with respect to the rats.
I have caught rats with a box and then picked them up (wearing gloves because I didn't want to touch them) . I suppose if I were rotten I could have strangled them instead of tossing them in the water to let them swim away.
Whether her claims are impossible and obvious lies depends on what precisely she claimed.
-
What evidence do you have that she lied?
What evidence do you have that she didn't?
-
Of course it's a lie,unless it was already dead and he'd pretended to strangle it,but I can't even imagine he'd handle one somehow.
Well did she say it was alive and he killed it or that he was practicing on dead rats?
I'd never handle one with my bare hands unless forced to do but I woudl not kill my family either so...
Some of them have sharp nails which is a reaosn beyond being scared of rabies that I would only use gloves. Rats are different sizes too I saw a water rat bigger than some small dogs and that thing I would not go near. Were they just plain little rats or what.
-
Post precisely what she alleged with respect to the rats.
I have caught rats with a box and then picked them up (wearing gloves because I didn't want to touch them) . I suppose if I were rotten I could have strangled them instead of tossing them in the water to let them swim away.
Whether her claims are impossible and obvious lies depends on what precisely she claimed.
So he didn't strangle rats then? It is only yet another story made up by the biased guilty brigate in order to blacken his name. ::) Well I never. You are contuing to unwittingly reveal the lies put about by the biased guilty party.
-
What evidence do you have that she didn't?
You asserted she was lying I have no need to prove a negative but you do need to have evidence to prove she lied unless you jsut want to admit you have no evidence and simply don't want to believe her period like nug which fails to achieve anything.
-
So he didn't strangle rats then? It is only yet another story made up by the biased guilty brigate in order to blacken his name. ::) Well I never. You are contuing to unwittingly reveal the lies put about by the biased guilty party.
Let's see the exact claims because you and your brethren so far have a hsistory of claiming things that don't bear out including the claim Boutflour had somethign up his sleeve that no one coudl find any evidence was actually said.
-
Post precisely what she alleged with respect to the rats.
I have caught rats with a box and then picked them up (wearing gloves because I didn't want to touch them) . I suppose if I were rotten I could have strangled them instead of tossing them in the water to let them swim away.
Whether her claims are impossible and obvious lies depends on what precisely she claimed.
she cliamed he strangled rats with his bare hands.
now anyone who knows a bit about knows this is complete rubbish.
-
You asserted she was lying I have no need to prove a negative but you do need to have evidence to prove she lied unless you jsut want to admit you have no evidence and simply don't want to believe her period like nug which fails to achieve anything.
You you do and it is not a negative her testimony was believed by 10 of the jury. But I do not believe her and the reason why I believe that she was lying is that there is absolutely no one to back up the story that Jeremy told her the things she claims he told her in private. He denies he told her anything. It is I who do not have to prove a negative it is you you have to.
-
Let's see the exact claims because you and your brethren so far have a hsistory of claiming things that don't bear out including the claim Boutflour had somethign up his sleeve that no one coudl find any evidence was actually said.
Well on this occasion you have just proved that it is not I who have made things up but the biased guilty party who made this story up. It is not any of the supporters who made this one up I'm afraid old man.
-
You you do and it is not a negative her testimony was believed by 10 of the jury. But I do not believe her and the reason why I believe that she was lying is that there is absolutely no one to back up the story that Jeremy told her the things she claims he told her in private. He denies he told her anything. It is I who do not have to prove a negative it is you you have to.
Many of the things she said are things that the evidence supports and that she woudl be unlikely to make up.
Jeremy is a known liar and the evidence proves he lied about many things includign the phone call from Nevill. You chose to ignore such and believe anythign Jeremy says anyway. That makes you just the sort of fool you call those who know he is guilty, it is called projection. Eveyrthing she says must be a lie because you choose to believe him don't want ot believe her and ignore all the relevant evidence like the evidence proving SHeila killed no one and can't have killed herself.
-
thruthfull and honest witness don't need to be interviewed 32 times.
they also make up rubbish strangling rats.
they also dont name totally innocent people as hitman.
-
Many of the things she said are things that the evidence supports and that she woudl be unlikely to make up.
Jeremy is a known liar and the evidence proves he lied about many things includign the phone call from Nevill. You chose to ignore such and believe anythign Jeremy says anyway. That makes you just the sort of fool you call those who know he is guilty, it is called projection. Eveyrthing she says must be a lie because you choose to believe him don't want ot believe her and ignore all the relevant evidence like the evidence proving SHeila killed no one and can't have killed herself.
Most things she said cannot be backed up. It is called a grain of truth carried upon the back of a big downright lie.
By the way as I said before I argue from both sides. You continually scoff at me because I do not agree with you it has nothing to do with evidence but your own biased beliefs.
-
well you dont really need 32 interviews to tell the truth.
-
thruthfull and honest witness don't need to be interviewed 32 times.
they also make up rubbish strangling rats.
they also dont name totally innocent people as hitman.
Jeremy obviously made up the hitman story and named MM. Someone making up a story to get Jeremy in trouble KNOWING he had no alibi would not make up a hitman account and worse name the hitman so he can then establish to police that the claim was false.
But hey you are so clueless you still think it was possible for Sheila to kill eveyrone without getting a scrathc on her or any blood or GSR on her clothes so in terms of making accurate assessments you are not someone that a rational person would consult.
-
probely because the police thought there was hitman because they were trying explian away the phonecall.
how was MacDonald had a cast iron albi.
why told jeremy tell her a hitman had done it if he had it himself.
-
probely because the police thought there was hitman because they were trying explian away the phonecall.
how was MacDonald had a cast iron albi.
why told jeremy tell her a hitman had done it if he had it himself.
A hitman theory in no way explains away the phone call.
-
Jeremy obviously made up the hitman story and named MM. Someone making up a story to get Jeremy in trouble KNOWING he had no alibi would not make up a hitman account and worse name the hitman so he can then establish to police that the claim was false.
But hey you are so clueless you still think it was possible for Sheila to kill eveyrone without getting a scrathc on her or any blood or GSR on her clothes so in terms of making accurate assessments you are not someone that a rational person would consult.
What kind of silly statement is that? She tells a lie and you blame Jeremy. That is biased reasoning for a start. ROFLMAO. ;D ;D ;D There's no obvious about it. You'd rather believe that Jeremy lied to Muggy instead of calling her statement a lie. Now that has to be one wonky type of reasoning. ::)
-
A hitman theory in no way explains away the phone call.
Indeed the hitman claims conflict with the alleged phonecall.
-
he had no reason to name macdonald to her if hed done it himself why would he what difference would it make.
-
Indeed the hitman claims conflict with the alleged phonecall.
I'm looking forward to finding out Nugs logic of how a hitman would help the police explain the call away. "Help, Sheila's got the gun." - must be a hitman. :-\
Have a feeling we'll be waiting a long time for an explanation.
-
A hitman theory in no way explains away the phone call.
if the phone call happened it would have to be a hitman thats why i think MacDonald was named in the first place.
-
he had no reason to name macdonald to her if hed done it himself why would he what difference would it make.
1) so she would not know he was so coldblooded that he killed the kids himeslf
2) so that she would be scared to say anything because she had to fear a hitman getting her
3) if she did talk the hitman story woudl be proved false and he could get agood laugh
In contrast what did she get if she made up a hitman story? Nothing. If she were making up a story then she woudl have balemed him alone, you make up a histman when the person you want to blame had a solid alibi and coudl not personally have done it. Jeremy had no such alibi and she well knew that. If she were going to just invent a tale out of thin air she would have said he admitted he killed eveyrone himself.
-
if the phone call happened it would have to be a hitman thats why i think MacDonald was named in the first place.
:o
That makes no sense.
-
1) so she would not know he was so coldblooded that he killed the kids himeslf
2) so that she would be scared to say anything because she had to fear a hitman getting her
3) if she did talk the hitman story woudl be proved false and he could get agood laugh
In contrast what did she get if she made up a hitman story? Nothing. If she were making up a story then she woudl have balemed him alone, you make up a histman when the person you want to blame had a solid alibi and coudl not personally have done it. Jeremy had no such alibi and she well knew that. If she were going to just invent a tale out of thin air she would have said he admitted he killed eveyrone himself.
hiring a hitman to kill your family would make you know less cold blooded than if you done it yourself.
-
if the phone call happened it would have to be a hitman thats why i think MacDonald was named in the first place.
He simply could have phoned his answering machine and that woudl show up as a phone call from WHF to him.
Another alternative would have been to leave it ringing as he went hom eand pic it up when he rrived home.
But there was no evidence to establish any call was actually made and no reason to believe such a call was ever made.
They had no need to make up a co-conspirator to call to Jeremy.
In the meantime to make up a co-conspirator who coudl be proved innocent would be STUPID. You claim he never identified the hitman in that case. You don't finger an innocent man who can then establish the claim is false. That makes no sense at all.
-
hiring a hitman to kill your family would make you know less cold blooded than if you done it yourself.
If you hire someone to kill someone because you personally can't do it then you are less scary then if you did it yourself especially if you coudl kill small children like that.
-
they did if they knew the phonecall happend.
the faact the tried to time how long it took to get there means in opinion that they must of done.
-
they did if they knew the phonecall happend.
the faact the tried to time how long it took to get there means in opinion that they must of done.
Knew how? Jermey can't prove it happened. Only if Jeremy could prove it happened would they need to prove how though they had the 2 mothods I posted at their disposal if it could be proven.
You are demosntrating you are a foll for 2 different reaosns:
1) the bogus claim they knew the call happened
2) the ABSURD claim that a hitman lie would help where the alleged hitman coudl prove he was not involved.
How does a man proving he was not invovled and thus that th ehitman story was false help prove he made the pheon call to Jeremy? How coudl he make the phoen call if he wasn't invovled?
DO you even try to think before you post?
-
Knew how? Jermey can't prove it happened. Only if Jeremy could prove it happened would they need to prove how though they had the 2 mothods I posted at their disposal if it could be proven.
You are demosntrating you are a foll for 2 different reaosns:
1) the bogus claim they knew the call happened
2) the ABSURD claim that a hitman lie would help where the alleged hitman coudl prove he was not involved.
How does a man proving he was not invovled and thus that th ehitman story was false help prove he made the pheon call to Jeremy? How coudl he make the phoen call if he wasn't invovled?
DO you even try to think before you post?
Please do not call nugnug a fool. I hope guilty supporter Caroline will pick you up on this.
The very fact that he can't prove the telephone call actually happened is probably proof in and of itself that it did happen? If he had been prepared for a year to do this thing he would have made sure he could prove it.
-
The very fact that he can't prove the telephone call actually happened is probably proof in and of itself that it did happen?
;D
Grahame.... There are no words for that.
-
The very fact that he can't prove the telephone call actually happened is probably proof in and of itself that it did happen? If he had been prepared for a year to do this thing he would have made sure he could prove it.
Huh? ???
-
Stop talking about Macdonalds. You're making me hungry. :(
-
Please do not call nugnug a fool. I hope guilty supporter Caroline will pick you up on this.
The very fact that he can't prove the telephone call actually happened is probably proof in and of itself that it did happen? If he had been prepared for a year to do this thing he would have made sure he could prove it.
You post extremely illogical points always. The fact there was no way to prove the call was made is why he would no bother because it would be a wasted effort. There thus is no reason at all to believe the call was made and if he was actually going to make a call he would simply call his answering machine. But why would he bother doing that in light of the fact no one would know?
His call to Julie was his "proof" that a call was made the same way a rape victim says ". I told a friend I was raped". HIs plan was for her to say he called to tell her he received a call from Nevill and this was supposed to help prove he did receive it.
The problems with this are multiple:
1) why would he call her at all let alone before police simply to wake her up and say there is trouble at WHF? Unless he expected her to go with him or to comfort him or something there is no reason at all to wake her. So it clearly was for an ulterior motive.
2) He testifed that at first he was not worried and did not think there was any urgency but after he thought about it he realized it was serious. Why would he wake Julie when he supposedly did not think it was serious?
3) He revealed that ulterior motive when he called her again at 6AM (well before the bodies were found) to tell her not to go to work so she could be picked up by police and corroborate his tale about Nevill phoning.
-
;D
Grahame.... There are no words for that.
I get exactly what he means
-
;D
Grahame.... There are no words for that.
Let me explain it to you. If Jeremy had been planning this thing for a year, then why couldn't he make up a more convincing alibi or story?
The fact that he claimed that his father had phoned him that night would be more of an indication that he was innocent than if he were guilty. Why? Because obviously he wasn't believed. If he had a year thinking around this thing, then surely if he's done the crime he would have thought he would have invented a better "alibi" than this?
I conclude from that, that probably the phone call was true? It is only my own opinion. But unless he was an incredibly stupid man (one of scipios favourite expressions there) some people think he was, then this phone call seems to ring true if you are of an unbiased mind?
PS: Let me put this in whilst I have the chance. I can see quite clearly other things that militate against Bamber being innocent. But (I don't know why I have to try and justify myself like this?) at this very moment in time I am looking at the question of the phone call. Instead of Bamber trying to prove it in court it appears because of the guilty leanings from the judge in that he referred to it as "mysterious" thus planting boubts in the jury's minds, Bamber found himself in the position of having to prove that the phone call actually happened instead of the prosecution proving that it didn't happen. Which was round the wrong way as it it always up to the prosecution to prove that it didn't happen.
This they failed to do. Instead the judge insinuated that it didn't happen thereby planting the doubt in the jury's mind.
Get it now?
-
Let me explain it to you. If Jeremy had been planning this thing for a year, then why couldn't he make up a more convincing alibi or story?
The fact that he claimed that his father had phoned him that night would be more of an indication that he was innocent than if he were guilty. Why? Because obviously he wasn't believed. If he had a year thinking around this thing, then surely if he's done the crime he would have thought he would have invented a better "alibi" than this?
I conclude from that, that probably the phone call was true? It is only my own opinion. But unless he was an incredibly stupid man (one of scipios favourite expressions there) some people think he was, then this phone call seems to ring true if you are of an unbiased mind?
PS: Let me put this in whilst I have the chance. I can see quite clearly other things that militate against Bamber being innocent. But (I don't know why I have to try and justify myself like this?) at this very moment in time I am looking at the question of the phone call. Instead of Bamber trying to prove it in court it appears because of the guilty leanings from the judge in that he referred to it as "mysterious" thus planting boubts in the jury's minds, Bamber found himself in the position of having to prove that the phone call actually happened instead of the prosecution proving that it didn't happen. Which was round the wrong way as it it always up to the prosecution to prove that it didn't happen.
This they failed to do. Instead the judge insinuated that it didn't happen thereby planting the doubt in the jury's mind.
Get it now?
What an incredibly biased post. ::) :P
-
If Jeremy had planned this,there'd have been NO mention of any phone calls.
-
If Jeremy had planned this,there'd have been NO mention of any phone calls.
Why? ???
-
Why? ???
He'd have remained under the sheets.
-
Hello lookout
think Jeremy thought the phone calls would be his alibi just my thoughts of course I have no proof one way or other as we say in Yorkshire.
-
He'd have remained under the sheets.
What, pretending to be a ghost? ::)
-
Hello lookout
think Jeremy thought the phone calls would be his alibi just my thoughts of course I have no proof one way or other as we say in Yorkshire.
Hi Susan,,they don't always need alibis. Jeremy relied on the fact that he was telling the truth,regardless of the phone debacle. I have known of past cases where there'd been no alibi ( I must try and find one as an example )
Prejudicial evidence by the judge got Jeremy convicted,as a jury is more likely to take notice of what he says rather than what the case is about,indepth. This is why the trial was so unfair,along with the venue too.
-
Hi Susan,,they don't always need alibis. Jeremy relied on the fact that he was telling the truth,regardless of the phone debacle. I have known of past cases where there'd been no alibi ( I must try and find one as an example )
Prejudicial evidence by the judge got Jeremy convicted,as a jury is more likely to take notice of what he says rather than what the case is about,indepth. This is why the trial was so unfair,along with the venue too.
An alibi presupposes that a person is guilty and therefore has to find something to cover themselves in case they are questioned about it. Jeremy had none of this. It rather is an indication of innocence rather than guilt. Because a guilty man would have made sure he had an airtight "alibi". Jeremy had none and neither did he ever say that the phonecall was an alibi.
-
I can bet that the courtroom was mainly full of people who disliked Jeremy,which wouldn't bode well with the whole outcome anyway. That in itself would have affected the summing up.
-
An alibi presupposes that a person is guilty and therefore has to find something to cover themselves in case they are questioned about it. Jeremy had none of this. It rather is an indication of innocence rather than guilt. Because a guilty man would have made sure he had an airtight "alibi". Jeremy had none and neither did he ever say that the phonecall was an alibi.
I would agree entirely that a guilty person requires an airtight alibi, but here's the problem; it depends very largely on how far thinking/intelligent is the guilty person and how he sees the level of intelligence of the MOST intelligent person he's trying to convince. The less bright he is, the less he'll be able to judge what questions another person might ask because he only has, as a yardstick, the questions HE would ask.
-
I would agree entirely that a guilty person requires an airtight alibi, but here's the problem; it depends very largely on how far thinking/intelligent is the guilty person and how he sees the level of intelligence of the MOST intelligent person he's trying to convince. The less bright he is, the less he'll be able to judge what questions another person might ask because he only has, as a yardstick, the questions HE would ask.
By definition, a guilty person can't have an alibi.
A guilty person can trick people in to believing they have one, but they can't 'actually' have one.
Jeremy didn't have an alibi.
-
By definition, a guilty person can't have an alibi.
A guilty person can trick people in to believing they have one, but they can't 'actually' have one.
Jeremy didn't have an alibi.
Pedant!!!!! :D
-
he did produce an albi but then if you are innocent you cant chose what your albi is.
if single man stays in on a certan night there will nobody to see him.
-
If you hire someone to kill someone because you personally can't do it then you are less scary then if you did it yourself especially if you coudl kill small children like that.
ive never heard so much crap in all my life.
the fact he paid someone wouldn't make any difference what so ever.
somone who pays somone who pays someone else is just as scary and just as evil as somone who did it themselves.
-
I can bet that the courtroom was mainly full of people who disliked Jeremy,which wouldn't bode well with the whole outcome anyway. That in itself would have affected the summing up.
It was a local trial (Chelmsford) He was denied the option of moving the trial out of the borough.
-
By definition, a guilty person can't have an alibi.
A guilty person can trick people in to believing they have one, but they can't 'actually' have one.
Jeremy didn't have an alibi.
You obviously mean that by definition an "innocent" person need not have an alibi. Quite simply because he is innocent.
A guilty person on the other hand because he had been thinking this over and planning it for a whole year would make sure he had an alibi.
-
an innocent. person does not think they will need an albi a guilty person knows they will.
-
You obviously mean that by definition an "innocent" person need not have an alibi. Quite simply because he is innocent.
A guilty person on the other hand because he had been thinking this over and planning it for a whole year would make sure he had an alibi.
No I don't. If JB is guilty, then he can't have an alibi, no matter how long he's had to plan, he can't be in two places at the same time.
-
Pedant!!!!! :D
;D :-[
-
By definition, a guilty person can't have an alibi.
A guilty person can trick people in to believing they have one, but they can't 'actually' have one.
Jeremy didn't have an alibi.
You stole my line!
Contrary to Graham's claims Jeremy did try convincing people he had an alibi and that alibi is being at home to receive a phone call from Nevill and police seeing him arrive after them.
Of course he can't prove Nevill actually called him and the whole claim Nevill did call him is ridiculous for a whole host of reasons ranging from if left alone he woudl have armed himself and/or called police to Sheila would have shot him while he was on the phone not marched him upstairs to shoot him with June.
So he indeed had no alibi. In fact his alibi helped cement he was the killer because it proved he knew about the murders and once it became appararent Sheila could not have been the killer that left him on the hook.
-
the police tried to fit the evedence around this phonecall the timed bike ride the hitman theory thats proof enough to me it happend.
-
the police tried to fit the evedence around this phonecall the timed bike ride the hitman theory thats proof enough to me it happend.
That makes no sense at all. Police also looked at whether other weapons could have bene used. So using your illogic that means other guns were used.
Police did their job which is to look at all angles including how long it would take on bike since Julie stated he told her he planned ot use a bike and right before the crimes a bike appeared at his place.
In the meantime as was alreayd pointed out your claim that police had her invent a hitman to get aorund the phone call is STUPID. How does naming a guy who was not involved and woudl be able to prove it help their case against him?
There is no evidence at all that a call was made from WHF to Goldhange ran dno reaosn to believe there was especially not from Nevill.
Do you ever actually use your head or just always thing totally illogically and simply make up what you choose to beleive?
The murders went down with the killer opening fire in the master bedroom on both parents.
Explain:
1) how Nevill would be able to make the call- where was Sheila at the time that he would be able to make the call without her interrupting.
2) If Nevill was so worried why did he not try to disarm her himself? He was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so if Jeremy could disarm her than so could he. Moreover, he is the adult who had the most calming effect on her. Freddie said that upon seeing him she recognized him (though she recognized no one else) stopped having delusions and instantly calmed down. Instead of disarming her and trying to calm her down why woudl he leave her with a gun wanfering around to freely to kill the boys or June?
3) Why didn't June get the boys and hide with them somewhere instea dof all 3 styaing in bed as Sheila was raging with a gun?
4) If Nevill did leave her raging and thus risk her shooting the others why would he call Jeremy knowing it would take Jeremy minutes to answer the phone if he even heard it at all from his bedroom and that the answering machine would have picked up? Worse why would he call him knowing that between answering and dressing and driving there would take 20 minutes? If anythign he woudl clal 999 if things were too hot for him to handle why risk his son's life too and eveyrone else's by doign nothing hoping Jeremy could come save the day in time?
5) If actually alone in the kitchen to make the call that means he would have been able to access the other guns, knives and other potential weapons that could have been used to disarm Sheila so even if scared to do it with his bare hands (like he allegedly expected smaller weaker Jeremy to do) then he still had other options.
6) Upon seeing him on the phone why would Sheila grab the phone form him and hang it up then take it off the hook so no one else could call or alternatively to push the buttons on the phone down instead of shooting Nevill upon seeing him on the phone? What was she doing while he was making this long call and why would she march him upstairs to shoot him with June instead of killing him in the kitchen? WHy didn't Nevill try to take the gun away when she had only one hand on it and was grabbing the phone from him or pushing the buttons on the phone down to disconnect the call?
Do you have the balls to actually address this or are you going to run away like you always do when confronted with such things and hide in your cave pretending that Nevill called because that is what you want to believe and the evidence be damned...
Graham says I am a bully because I try to force peopel to think. If that is the cas ei plead guilty are you going to think or run away from it?
-
you dont try to fir evedence around somthing that dident happen.
-
you dont try to fir evedence around somthing that dident happen.
The answer is no you have no balls to address it and are sticking with your pathetic claim that because police investigated whether the call happened that means the call had to have happened.
I think it is no accident that all Jeremy supporters suffer from the same delusions and illogic, it is a requirement to believe he is innocent in the face of all the evidence that proves his guilt.
-
You stole my line!
Contrary to Graham's claims Jeremy did try convincing people he had an alibi and that alibi is being at home to receive a phone call from Nevill and police seeing him arrive after them.
Of course he can't prove Nevill actually called him and the whole claim Nevill did call him is ridiculous for a whole host of reasons ranging from if left alone he woudl have armed himself and/or called police to Sheila would have shot him while he was on the phone not marched him upstairs to shoot him with June.
So he indeed had no alibi. In fact his alibi helped cement he was the killer because it proved he knew about the murders and once it became appararent Sheila could not have been the killer that left him on the hook.
There you go again. Telling people I have said what I never said.
-
That makes no sense at all. Police also looked at whether other weapons could have bene used. So using your illogic that means other guns were used.
Police did their job which is to look at all angles including how long it would take on bike since Julie stated he told her he planned ot use a bike and right before the crimes a bike appeared at his place.
In the meantime as was alreayd pointed out your claim that police had her invent a hitman to get aorund the phone call is STUPID. How does naming a guy who was not involved and woudl be able to prove it help their case against him?
There is no evidence at all that a call was made from WHF to Goldhange ran dno reaosn to believe there was especially not from Nevill.
Do you ever actually use your head or just always thing totally illogically and simply make up what you choose to beleive?
The murders went down with the killer opening fire in the master bedroom on both parents.
Explain:
1) how Nevill would be able to make the call- where was Sheila at the time that he would be able to make the call without her interrupting.
2) If Nevill was so worried why did he not try to disarm her himself? He was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so if Jeremy could disarm her than so could he. Moreover, he is the adult who had the most calming effect on her. Freddie said that upon seeing him she recognized him (though she recognized no one else) stopped having delusions and instantly calmed down. Instead of disarming her and trying to calm her down why woudl he leave her with a gun wanfering around to freely to kill the boys or June?
3) Why didn't June get the boys and hide with them somewhere instea dof all 3 styaing in bed as Sheila was raging with a gun?
4) If Nevill did leave her raging and thus risk her shooting the others why would he call Jeremy knowing it would take Jeremy minutes to answer the phone if he even heard it at all from his bedroom and that the answering machine would have picked up? Worse why would he call him knowing that between answering and dressing and driving there would take 20 minutes? If anythign he woudl clal 999 if things were too hot for him to handle why risk his son's life too and eveyrone else's by doign nothing hoping Jeremy could come save the day in time?
5) If actually alone in the kitchen to make the call that means he would have been able to access the other guns, knives and other potential weapons that could have been used to disarm Sheila so even if scared to do it with his bare hands (like he allegedly expected smaller weaker Jeremy to do) then he still had other options.
6) Upon seeing him on the phone why would Sheila grab the phone form him and hang it up then take it off the hook so no one else could call or alternatively to push the buttons on the phone down instead of shooting Nevill upon seeing him on the phone? What was she doing while he was making this long call and why would she march him upstairs to shoot him with June instead of killing him in the kitchen? WHy didn't Nevill try to take the gun away when she had only one hand on it and was grabbing the phone from him or pushing the buttons on the phone down to disconnect the call?
Do you have the balls to actually address this or are you going to run away like you always do when confronted with such things and hide in your cave pretending that Nevill called because that is what you want to believe and the evidence be damned...
Graham says I am a bully because I try to force peopel to think. If that is the cas ei plead guilty are you going to think or run away from it?
I never said that. You are a bully by nature.
-
The answer is no you have no balls to address it and are sticking with your pathetic claim that because police investigated whether the call happened that means the call had to have happened.
I think it is no accident that all Jeremy supporters suffer from the same delusions and illogic, it is a requirement to believe he is innocent in the face of all the evidence that proves his guilt.
they did more than investigate they tried to fit the evidence around as ive already demonstrated several times.
to check weather it happened would be easy.
it does not require timed bike rides that would only be required if they knew it did happen.
-
That makes no sense at all. Police also looked at whether other weapons could have bene used. So using your illogic that means other guns were used.
Police did their job which is to look at all angles including how long it would take on bike since Julie stated he told her he planned ot use a bike and right before the crimes a bike appeared at his place.
In the meantime as was alreayd pointed out your claim that police had her invent a hitman to get aorund the phone call is STUPID. How does naming a guy who was not involved and woudl be able to prove it help their case against him?
There is no evidence at all that a call was made from WHF to Goldhange ran dno reaosn to believe there was especially not from Nevill.
Do you ever actually use your head or just always thing totally illogically and simply make up what you choose to beleive?
The murders went down with the killer opening fire in the master bedroom on both parents.
Explain:
1) how Nevill would be able to make the call- where was Sheila at the time that he would be able to make the call without her interrupting.
2) If Nevill was so worried why did he not try to disarm her himself? He was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so if Jeremy could disarm her than so could he. Moreover, he is the adult who had the most calming effect on her. Freddie said that upon seeing him she recognized him (though she recognized no one else) stopped having delusions and instantly calmed down. Instead of disarming her and trying to calm her down why woudl he leave her with a gun wanfering around to freely to kill the boys or June?
3) Why didn't June get the boys and hide with them somewhere instea dof all 3 styaing in bed as Sheila was raging with a gun?
4) If Nevill did leave her raging and thus risk her shooting the others why would he call Jeremy knowing it would take Jeremy minutes to answer the phone if he even heard it at all from his bedroom and that the answering machine would have picked up? Worse why would he call him knowing that between answering and dressing and driving there would take 20 minutes? If anythign he woudl clal 999 if things were too hot for him to handle why risk his son's life too and eveyrone else's by doign nothing hoping Jeremy could come save the day in time?
5) If actually alone in the kitchen to make the call that means he would have been able to access the other guns, knives and other potential weapons that could have been used to disarm Sheila so even if scared to do it with his bare hands (like he allegedly expected smaller weaker Jeremy to do) then he still had other options.
6) Upon seeing him on the phone why would Sheila grab the phone form him and hang it up then take it off the hook so no one else could call or alternatively to push the buttons on the phone down instead of shooting Nevill upon seeing him on the phone? What was she doing while he was making this long call and why would she march him upstairs to shoot him with June instead of killing him in the kitchen? WHy didn't Nevill try to take the gun away when she had only one hand on it and was grabbing the phone from him or pushing the buttons on the phone down to disconnect the call?
Do you have the balls to actually address this or are you going to run away like you always do when confronted with such things and hide in your cave pretending that Nevill called because that is what you want to believe and the evidence be damned...
Graham says I am a bully because I try to force peopel to think. If that is the cas ei plead guilty are you going to think or run away from it?
I've never said that. What I say is that she invented the lie all by herself and you cannot prove that she didn't.
-
There you go again. Telling people I have said what I never said.
"Because a guilty man would have made sure he had an airtight "alibi". Jeremy had none and neither did he ever say that the phonecall was an alibi."
Who wrote those words Graham? I realize you can't remember what you wrote 2 minutes aog but i assure you that you wrote them.
The reality is that Jeremy did try to use the fake phone call from Nevill as an alibi. It was meant to establish that he was at home not at the murder scene when the trouble was going on.
-
I never said that. You are a bully by nature.
Anytime I challenge people to think that is when you claim I am bullying them.
-
Anytime I challenge people to think that is when you claim I am bullying them.
No, it is when you call people stupid, fools, Bamberettes, pathetic, liars and on and on and on. Just skip the insults, and everything will be fine.
You were polite the first half day or so - it was fine, then you showed your true face: you are here to stir shit. I have proof (your own words) that that is what you do. You just get off on hurling insults at strangers on the internet. Pretty weird, but that´s you!
-
"Because a guilty man would have made sure he had an airtight "alibi". Jeremy had none and neither did he ever say that the phonecall was an alibi."
Who wrote those words Graham? I realize you can't remember what you wrote 2 minutes aog but i assure you that you wrote them.
The reality is that Jeremy did try to use the fake phone call from Nevill as an alibi. It was meant to establish that he was at home not at the murder scene when the trouble was going on.
I thought you said that Hartley stole your line by saying a guilty person cannot have an alibi?
-
Anytime I challenge people to think that is when you claim I am bullying them.
Because of the belittling words you use to make them look small. scipio do me a favour. Grow up. You're becoming very childish and constantly insult and disrespect long standing members. You didn't even introduce yourself in the foyer. You just barged in and started insulting people. But as I said it is not your challenges to make people think that is so obnoxious. It is simply in your ill mannered nature to be a bully.
-
Because of the belittling words you use to make them look small. scipio do me a favour. Grow up. You're becoming very childish and constantly insult and disrespect long standing members. You didn't even introduce yourself in the foyer. You just barged in and started insulting people.
He sweepingly stated that all Europeans are spineless cowards. I don´t know what he is doing here, really.
To me his input regarding the case itself is more than welcome; the perpetual, nasty, degrading insults, absolutely not! :o
-
Anytime I challenge people to think that is when you claim I am bullying them.
If you act like a bully, it's reasonable to assume you'll find ylourself accused of being one. Whether you mean it as such isn't relevant. If enough people FEEL themselves to be bullied by you, that's what you have become.
-
He sweepingly stated that all Europeans are spineless cowards. I don´t know what he is doing here, really.
To me his input regarding the case itself is more than welcome; the perpetual, nasty, degrading insults, absolutely not! :o
I never stated that but I think the Europe's response to Russia's actions in Ukraine informs about that subject quite nicely not to mention the lack of any guts to deal with Human Rights abuses being conducted by Hamas et all aroudn the world though wanting to try CIA member...
-
I never stated that but I think the Europe's response to Russia's actions in Ukraine informs about that subject quite nicely not to mention the lack of any guts to deal with Human Rights abuses being conducted by Hamas et all aroudn the world though wanting to try CIA member...
Careful scipio, you are in danger of changing the subject....AGAIN. ::)
-
thats what hes trying to do but i hope we are not going to fall for it this tine.
-
I never stated that but I think the Europe's response to Russia's actions in Ukraine informs about that subject quite nicely not to mention the lack of any guts to deal with Human Rights abuses being conducted by Hamas et all aroudn the world though wanting to try CIA member...
We are many different states in Europe, you cannot make a uniform judgement - impossible! Much like with the members on this board, come to think of it, we are many different individuals, but you tend to see us as one undifferentiated bunch of people. Maybe it is your problem?
-
please dont fall for the distraction.
-
We are many different states in Europe, you cannot make a uniform judgement - impossible! Much like with the members on this board, come to think of it, we are many different individuals, but you tend to see us as one undifferentiated bunch of people. Maybe it is your problem?
Hey Alias if vyou carry on he will accuse you of changing the subject. ;D Don't worry. Not all Americans are like him. He's just doing his best to give them a bad name. Now lets get back to the subject.
-
ive never heard so much crap in all my life.
the fact he paid someone wouldn't make any difference what so ever.
somone who pays somone who pays someone else is just as scary and just as evil as somone who did it themselves.
I love your posts - so straight to the point .
the mafia comes to mind :)
-
well yes i mean would anyone not be scared of mafia boss becouse he dident do the killing personally.
-
well yes i mean would anyone not be scared of mafia boss becouse he dident do the killing personally.
glad you got my point because when I read it back it looked like I was accusing you of being the mafia :o
but you got what I meant completely . Trashing Scipios theory.
(wait for it - lengthy post will follow)
-
I never stated that but I think the Europe's response to Russia's actions in Ukraine informs about that subject quite nicely not to mention the lack of any guts to deal with Human Rights abuses being conducted by Hamas et all aroudn the world though wanting to try CIA member...
Here, Folks, we have a shining example of what Scipio does every time he finds himself on the back foot. He changes the subject into one of spiteful and personal attacks, not just on US but on OUR Continent.
NOTE TO SCIPIO. If you're looking for a political forum, you're off course. We would prefer that you didn't use this one for political vendettas. I'm not asking you to stay on topic, but I AM asking you politely to PLEASE stay off this one. Thank-you :)
-
Here, Folks, we have a shining example of what Scipio does every time he finds himself on the back foot. He changes the subject into one of spiteful and personal attacks, not just on US but on OUR Continent.
NOTE TO SCIPIO. If you're looking for a political forum, you're off course. We would prefer that you didn't use this one for political vendettas. I'm not asking you to stay on topic, but I AM asking you politely to PLEASE stay off this one. Thank-you :)
How did I change the subject? Someone else brought up the issue not me. They did so to deflect from the issues. You are the ones with the vendetta constantly criticizing me because I am American because you can't beat me on the issues.
you are the one who posted that stupid precedent thread which smacks purely of a vendetta and all you did was embarrass yourself in it.
ALias- on eof your mods- is the one who ran off topic and I responded. Maybe you should all take your own admive instead of projecting and trying to pretend I am the problem.
Your problem is that you have decided for irrational reaosns to support Jeremy, you post many erroenousl things including not questiioning things made up by Mike and others supporting Jeremy and thus when there is a real debate of facts you get crushed. It hads nothing to do with my naitionality or my personality it has to do with you making nonsense claims that are unsupportable and not liking it when others show your nonsens for what it is so you lash out childishly.
A defflection is what you all did when I wanted proof that Boutflour said he had something up his sleeve. I asked for proof and the context if he did say it. So many of you were asking over and over what he meant and suggesting it proved wrongdoing. You all ran away fast enough and changed the subject when I wanted proof he said it.
People sitting in glass houses criticize me hoping to get peopel to throw rocks at me instead of their vulnerable house.
-
Here, Folks, we have a shining example of what Scipio does every time he finds himself on the back foot. He changes the subject into one of spiteful and personal attacks, not just on US but on OUR Continent.
NOTE TO SCIPIO. If you're looking for a political forum, you're off course. We would prefer that you didn't use this one for political vendettas. I'm not asking you to stay on topic, but I AM asking you politely to PLEASE stay off this one. Thank-you :)
it will be ok now why know what hes trying and know not to fall for it.