Might be an idea to speak to someone who attended the 42 day trial
Sorry but that seems to be your answer to everything when asked for a source. You can say any old rubbish, try to taint the evidence and then make out it’s true by saying - speak to someone at the 42 day trial or you were not at the 42 day trial. You are tying to make it seem the lies you are spreading is actual evidence from the trial, it is not, it is you guessing, surmising and fantasising imo. You were not at the trial either so how can you know. You have never given any source for a lot of the misinformation you put out there other than a blog written by yourself I’m sure. Hardly a credible source. Do you have any other sources? Maybe you are in contact with someone that attended all or most of 42 days of the trial? We know Sandra and Scott are and they also have the defence papers.
How about sticking to facts instead of trying to put out false information to try to confuse matters. Is it any wonder people look to Sandra and Scott and the FB groups when you are spouting rubbish like that. You have a great knowledge of the case and can certainly put up a good argument. We are all free to put out theories and put forward what we think might have happened but please stop trying to make out your theory as fact, it’s getting boring now. When you do stick to the facts you make some great arguments and some very good points but I just feel some of the stuff you come out with then discredits, in some ways, the good points you make.
