How does one question the truthfulness of information being supplied to the forum without making it personal? Or must we politely accept everything we are told by other members without question or doubt?
You simply say I think you're wrong and here's why setting out your reasons then giving your opponent an opportunity to respond. I think debate here does generally unearth the truthfulness of a situation where its black and white but many aspects are not black and white and are down to interpretation.
In terms of whether the murder weapon was handed to AA by the police I think it so unlikely it can be ruled out. But AA made clear she did not know whether or not it was the murder weapon just that it was A firearm. It may be it was a low powered air rifle JB owned as a boy that did not require a licence. In which case it could have been handed over to AA as it wouldn't require a licence and was JB's property.
The wetsuit again was JB's property so may well have been handed over to AA.
The police disposed of all trial exhibits circa 1996 so items that may have been seized from JB's cottage may have been returned to someone of JB's choice.
