If you want to establish facts why are you so careless with them? Eg claiming the wet blood photos are authentic when bogus lawyer GDS and his cronies claim they were taken at a time before the police photographer even arrrived at WHF!? Claiming the marks on NB's arms were caused by fingernails when the pathologist refers to the marks and doesn't attribute them to fingernails. Claiming SC died significantly later than the other victims when all the expert evidence suggests otherwise: Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight.
None of the expert evidence (Dr Craig, Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight) suggests otherwise at all. We have had this argument enough times I don't intend on repeating it. You don't have to share the same view.
Referring to me as "catty" is somewhat hypocritical when you spend hours, if not days, trawling through posters' posts to find something which contradicts their current position. How is this attempting to establish facts and help correct possible injustice? Who gives a flying fig what posters on an internet forum think? I just see it as an opportunity to debate the case and improve my overall understanding of it.
Just to clear things up. I do not "spend hours, if not days, trawling through posters' posts". It all began when someone who has been on the forums a very long time PM'd me and pointed out to me that my efforts in debating Caroline were in vain by showing me lots of her older posts(If you don't believe me I have the PMs). Since Caroline and Jane J are on a relentless campaign to influence opinion and will even follow us to other forums, They have to be dealt with. Posting their old posts is not only easier/quicker than typing out a fresh reply it also demonstrates to other users that they not there to have an honest debate.
The only time I have spent days looking through someone's posts is going through Mikes ten thousand or more uploads looking for case evidence.
