Author Topic: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap  (Read 13600 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline scipio_usmc

A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« on: July 07, 2014, 11:02:57 PM »
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5566.15.html

In 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.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 10:29:49 PM by John »
“...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

Offline puglove

Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2014, 07:53:58 AM »
There are so many basic flaws in Bill's theory, it actually made me snork when I read it! Although, he writes well enough. And no one takes Gladys seriously, that's why he is so  8()(((@#.

I still can't believe that forum got rid of you and Hartley, but kept Gladys and susan.   8-)(--)
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 10:32:02 PM by John »
An old woman called Mrs. H*rt*n
Would usually watch Graham N*rt*n.
But in January
She watched ITV
And the b*tsh*t old b**t finally caught on!!

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11050
  • Total likes: 839
  • Evil Beyond Belief Or Victim Of A Gross Injustice?
Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2014, 08:43:12 AM »
Ditto: well written but many flaws.  Poster seems to be implying that he's ex police?  To my mind it has something of the Martin ring to it  >@@(*&)

It deserves a second read which I'll do later when I have more time.
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy,  victims of a poorly arranged closed adoption from the so-called baby-scoop era.

https://youtu.be/5hVbokTpYeg

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2014, 09:29:02 AM »
Grahame is full of crap! What a shocker!  8-)(--)

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2014, 06:09:13 PM »
Ditto: well written but many flaws.  Poster seems to be implying that he's ex police?  To my mind it has something of the Martin ring to it  >@@(*&)

It deserves a second read which I'll do later when I have more time.

He didn't say he was ex-police and I don't have any reason at all to believe that he is.  in fact the things he says makes it clear to me there is no way was ever a cop.  People suggested he is an ex-cop because he said he made the trip and they made the giant leap that he was speeding and would have to be a cop to speed.  He simply didn't bother to correct their error so his deception is more subtle than to say he is an ex cop.  His deception is not correcting them. 
“...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

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2014, 06:16:30 PM »
Grahame is full of crap! What a shocker!  8-)(--)

If I was not banned I would be throwing his posts back in his face asking him how come he inssited in the past he insisted police followed proper procedures and no way would they rush in but now suddenly he agrees they would have.  What did he learn to change his mind or is his bias driving him again.

Robertson has made some new claims and Grahame agrees with all of them.  It is amusing watching Grahame always buy every Jeremy supporter claim out there no matter how absurd and yet to swear up and down he is not a Jeremy supporter and to stop calling him one.  He even erased a post where he stated he will never believe Jeremy is guilty because some friend of his who knew Jeremy said there is no way Jeremy could have done it.  I referred to that post in another thread as proof he is a Jeremy supporter and biased so he deleted it and pretended he never wrote it. 

 
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 10:33:33 PM by John »
“...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

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2014, 07:35:10 PM »
Scipio how does a yank become so au fait with an old British murder case?

Did you follow many of the US notorious cases like The Menendez Brothers, Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias? I found the Arias trial riveting on live TV.

Offline scipio_usmc

Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2014, 08:20:43 PM »
Scipio how does a yank become so au fait with an old British murder case?

Did you follow many of the US notorious cases like The Menendez Brothers, Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias? I found the Arias trial riveting on live TV.

A British friend who is interested in the Amityville Murders (there is some play being performed in the UK about the murders so apparently some interest in the case) told me about this case.  Someone also posted about it on an Amityville message board as the UK's Amityville equivalent.  I talked about the many differences in both and saw all the various articles and claims that made it look like Jeremy was innocent so decided to look in more detail if that is true.  I was open to the idea he was actually innocent which made it more interesting but after researching it was clear those defending Jeremy are full of crap and the press simply publishing unfounded claims the defense has been making.

After seeing the evidence against the Menendez Brothers and Arias it was so clear they were guilty that it was not really worth following the court cases in much detail, just what the news showed.  Most care about the raunchy sex stories and supposed beauty of Arias instead of the case itself anyway. That is what was sensationized and written about extensively in tabloids and articles.

The Casey Anthony case I didnd't follow in great deatail because the conclusion was obvious. They had evidence suggesting she hid the corpse but no evidence of her killing the child.  They had nothing that could overcome her claim the child died by accident as opposed to in some nefarious way.  In our system it was obvious they lacked the necessary evidence to prove murder or even manslaughter.  So I was not surprised by the verdict at all and predicted it to people who wanted to discuss the matter but I chose not to watch it unfold. I personally believe that at minimum her negligence led to the death so wish they could have got her for something relatively serious.  They framed their case all wrong though.

As far as modern cases I mostly look at ones where people vanish and there thus are giant unknowns. Some like Holly Bobo they have resolved but others like Jessica Heeringa remain unsolved.


   
“...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

Offline puglove

Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2014, 07:46:29 AM »
If I was not banned I would be throwing his posts back in his face asking him how come he inssited in the past he insisted police followed proper procedures and no way would they rush in but now suddenly he agrees they would have.  What did he learn to change his mind or is his bias driving him again.

Robertson has made some new claims and Grahame agrees with all of them.  It is amusing watching Grahame always buy every Jeremy supporter claim out there no matter how absurd and yet to swear up and down he is not a Jeremy supporter and to stop calling him one.  He even erased a post where he stated he will never believe Jeremy is guilty because some friend of his who knew Jeremy said there is no way Jeremy could have done it.  I referred to that post in another thread as proof he is a Jeremy supporter and biased so he deleted it and pretended he never wrote it. 

 

"Grahame, I like your ability to step back from the fray; a cool head."     @)(++(*

Oh, "Bill", that's your credibilty STRAIGHT out of the window!!    8)-)))
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 10:38:23 PM by John »
An old woman called Mrs. H*rt*n
Would usually watch Graham N*rt*n.
But in January
She watched ITV
And the b*tsh*t old b**t finally caught on!!

Offline Holly Goodhead

  • Senior Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11050
  • Total likes: 839
  • Evil Beyond Belief Or Victim Of A Gross Injustice?
Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2014, 12:53:45 PM »
"Grahame, I like your ability to step back from the fray; a cool head."     @)(++(*

Oh, "Bill", that's your credibilty STRAIGHT out of the window!!    8)-)))

Hohoho "Bill" obviously hasn't witnessed all the Beltdowns  @)(++(*
Justice for Sheila and Jeremy,  victims of a poorly arranged closed adoption from the so-called baby-scoop era.

https://youtu.be/5hVbokTpYeg

Offline Andrea

Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #10 on: July 12, 2014, 11:00:10 AM »
Jackie Preece is back posting on blue, with exciting news to tell the forum.

Offline puglove

Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2014, 12:08:19 PM »
I think the blue forum need to talk about Gladys. Even I'm starting to feel sorry for him.
An old woman called Mrs. H*rt*n
Would usually watch Graham N*rt*n.
But in January
She watched ITV
And the b*tsh*t old b**t finally caught on!!

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2014, 12:31:36 PM »
Jackie Preece is back posting on blue, with exciting news to tell the forum.

Has old Nelly really let 'Chloe 23' back on Tesco's! Nelly is a forgiving chap considering 'Chloe 23' exposed his full details and errrmmm interesting past to the World!

@)(++(*

And she's back on the Bamber case too with 'exciting news' ... oh goody! Jeremy Bamber himself dumped her like a bad habit but Tesco's will always have her back!

Offline Tim Invictus

Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2014, 02:18:51 PM »
 @)(++(*

I had to have a look at 'Chloe 23's' new ramblings and I see the old skanky phone sex worker is using my full name in her posts! As NGB is obviously condoning personal information being used by that barren tramp, I have to assume he is happy for the personal wars to start again! Your choice Nelly!

And I see another classic from Gladys too! He actually says that he is not going to believe in Bamber's guilt because of Scipio's "depraved" posts! Only a complete plonker like Gladys could base his belief in Bamber's guilt or innocence by the attitude of other posters! Forget the facts and evidence, Gladys makes his mind up based upon whose supporters he gets on with!

 @)(++(*


Offline Tim Invictus

Re: A good example of how Grahame is full of crap
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2014, 03:37:34 PM »
Can we have a 'Chloe 23' thread please .... seeing as the skanky phonesex worker is using my name on her posts tagline?

We could have a 'mass debate' about a 50 something munter pretending she is 23 to talk dirty to very sad losers for money! My opinion is the phone s...k is even more tacky and sad than the pervs who pay her!

Can't the courts do something about this .... under the Trade Descriptions Act!

 @)(++(*