Author Topic: The baclava and wetsuit theories  (Read 6709 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Holly Goodhead

Re: The baclava and wetsuit theories
« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2014, 08:46:24 PM »
The dog was in case there was  agunman inside who needed to be subdued.  The dog attacks the gunmen so that police can then safely jump in and disarm the gunmen without being shot at.

There is no evidence the dog was trained to sniff out gunshot residue, a dog trained as a sniffer dog doesn't search on its own it does so when commanded to do so which no one order it sto sniff Jeremy to see if he had GSR on his body, and dogs trained to detect GSR are unreliable.  DOgs cross trained to sniff GSR and other things are notoriously unreliable.  Dogs exclusively trained to search for one thing are more reliable.  It is only the past few years that dogs have been trained exclusively to look for GSR and they are rare, most training is for drugs and explosives. 

Your desperation is quite apparent.  At this point you are pulling out all the BS the blue board has claimed.  When you start have to resort to posting lies like that there is a police record indicating Nevill phoned police it means you admit you have nothing valid at all to support Jeremy's innocence.

As per usual we just have your rambling rhetoric and no links to any supporting evidence  @)(++(*
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: The baclava and wetsuit theories
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2014, 09:28:12 PM »
As per usual we just have your rambling rhetoric and no links to any supporting evidence  @)(++(*

Once again you are projecting.  The rhetoric without any evidentiary support is coming from you.

Why is a k-9 unit brought to a scene where there might be an armed perp?  To do exactly what I stated, to bring down a perp if needbe so that police officers do not have to risk their lives doing such.

You are the one asserting there was a dog trained to detect gunshot residue, that it sniffed Jeremy and failed ot detect.  The burden is thus yours to provide proof that there was a dog trained to detect gunsho residue brought to the scene, that police had it sniff Jeremy and that the response was negative.

You can't do so because your pals at the blue forum made up the claim that jeremy wa ssniffed by a dog trained to detect GSR.

Prove me wrong and produce evidence to prove they are correct.  I guarantee you can't.

I don't need to disprove your claims you need to prove them.

Crash and burn as always. You are batting 0 for 1000 and counting. 
“...there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.”  Niccolò Machiavelli