http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5566.15.htmlIn the above thread Grahame calls the post from the supposed newbie thought provoking.
However, in the past Grahame posted about how these unarmed police followed standard procedure and the armed personnel did as well and that any suggestion they should have immediately entered the premises is wrong.
Grahame doesn't bother to challenge the claims of the pro Jeremy newbie though on the same grounds he was arguing with Adam and others. Grahame is not in the least bit consistent.
For that matter no one there effectively challenged him. Adam's responses are a mess tha tis why they like him there he is incompetent.
Why is it that not a single person called him out for his bogus claims that police were aware shots were fired? He bases the claim EXCLUSIVELY on the fact the unarmed personnel were scared to go inside. He makes the assumption that they had to know shots had already been fired or they would not have been scared to go inside.
First of all to know shots had been fired before they arrived would require someone telling them shots had been fired. Who could have done so let alone did do such? No one. The only person to summon them was Jeremy and he claimed his father said Sheila was armed. They were scared to go in not because they knew shots had already been fired but because they were told there was an armed person in the house threatening the other occupants. They wanted more details from Jeremy before they did anything so that was why they wanted to speak with him. After they did speak to him things got worse. He told them she had an arsenal at her disposal and was proficient with all the weapons.
Robertson's assumptions that police had to know shots were fired or they would have ran inside are unfounded assumptions easy to refute.
Instead of refuting them people like Grahame suggest it is very interesting and thought provoking while Adam does his usual worhtless dance instead of explicitly addressing the subject at hand.
Robertson claims that for years he has studied the first 2 hours of events but nothing else. That would mean no effort to actually study the murders in detail just the police actions the first 2 hours. That sounds pretty absurd and worthless but if true just means he made no serious inquiry of any value into the case. It also seems like many wasted years if all you can come up with is a stupid suggestion that they would have to have known shots had been fired or they would have went inside though they were unarmed and told there was a crazy woman with an arsenal inside.
When he escalated to blaming Stanley Jones then that brought out Caroline and Neil.
Caroline didn't bother to refute his part about them knowing shots had been fired but instead took the following tact:
"You seem to be suggesting that it was known by most (if not all) of the early responders that shots had been fired. This being the case, it would have been well known among all concerned that Jeremy was innocent - so why was this not communicated to the relatives? Why did no one mention anything about KNOWING Sheila was responsible during the whole time she was 'suspected' and the relatives were suspicious about Jeremy's involvement?"
Neil also chimed in that it would be extraordinary for Stan Jones to just frame Jeremy because of some instant dislike.
Matt chimed in about how not even Jeremy heard any shots fired.
But Robertson didn't say police heard shots fired he said they knew that shots had been fired before they arrived which by definition means they would not have been in a position to hear them. He said that their actions demonstrated they knew shots had been fired. He also attacked Bonnet in an unspecified manner. He has not fully laid out his claims but it seems like if he were challenged with my counter and pushed he would end up claiming Nevill let police know shots had been fired and that Bonnet later eliminated Nevill's call from the records.