muggins (2,260) Says:
February 25th, 2013 at 4:59 pm

Judith, you are making a big Joe whatsit of yourself again. If a bullet fragment with white fibres on it was found under Laniet that means a bullet was found under Laniet and white fibres on that bullet was found under Laniet.
And it was never proved what those fibres were made of.
And the police did not have to be looking for a piece of cloth with a bullet hole in it. If it was there they would probably have found it.

But Muggins, white fibres were also found on the other bullet fragments including the one found two meters away on the chair, that Ferris also knew nothing about. Mucking around with the words only demonstrates the way you like to misrepresent things to suit yourself.

It was proved what those fibers were made of, they were cotton.

Really? You expect given the quality of the police investigation, in which they did not cut out the carpet with the sockprints on it, and all the other incompetent things they did, that they would have found a piece of fabric or item with a hole in it that would have been very small. You have seen photos of the house. They weren’t looking for it, they were examining the scene as if the bullet was fired directly from the gun. Unless the fabric had blood on it, they would not have taken any notice of a small hole.

She is lying and we all know why. She does not believe that magazine could have stayed upright where it is in the photograph when Robin Bain’s outstretched hand hit the floor any more than I do.

‘More lies and misrepresentation by Muggins.’

Judith, I challenge you to find a single post in the thousands posted by him on any of the Bain threads that the silly old goat hasn’t lied, misrepresented and ‘twisted’ the evidence to suit his own conspiracy theories! Challenge for you one piece of relevant ‘factual’ evidence anywhere posted by him!

Speculation, ‘spin’ and bullcrap is a far more accurate description for any ‘evidence’ that Aunt Fanny has posted here!

February 25th, 2013 at 4:42 pm
muggins (2,257) Says:
February 25th, 2013 at 4:27 pm

——————————
Where did I say the white fibres were found under Laniet?
I said the bullet fragment with white fibres on it was found under Laniet.

The object that the bullet was fired through was not found, because the white fibres on the bullet fragments were not found until after the house had been destroyed. The police didn’t know they existed and had not bothered looking for them. There is nothing logged in any of the investigators notes of the looking for the source, and nothing was logged in the meeting sheets of the team that indicated they knew about it before their ‘discovery’ by forensics.

Judith, you are making a big Joe whatsit of yourself again. If a bullet fragment with white fibres on it was found under Laniet that means a bullet was found under Laniet and white fibres on that bullet was found under Laniet.
And it was never proved what those fibres were made of.
And the police did not have to be looking for a piece of cloth with a bullet hole in it. If it was there they would probably have found it.

muggins (2,259) Says:
February 25th, 2013 at 4:47 pm
Judith says that the jury at the first trial were not told that the cartridge was knocked over. I believe she meant to say magazine.
Ok, but at the retrial it was made quite clear that the magazine was knocked over long after the photo of it sitting within a millimetre of Robin Bain’s hand was taken.
Judith would have you believe it was knocked over before that photo was taken. It was not.

More lies and misrepresentation by Muggins.

The photos taken of the crime scene were done by 5 different police photographers. The times that the photos were taken was not recorded by the photographers and the officer in charge of the Scene did not record them either. When it came to working out who took what photo the photographers could not identify which ones they had taken.

Therefore the time the photo of the magazine was taken is not known.

The photos were such a mess that even photos taken by the police in their reinactment were presented to the court as originals. However it was discovered that what they were saying was blood was in fact tomato sauce.

Some friend of Muggins (so muggins reckons) has been able to sort out the order the photos were taken in, however, it is not possible to do that because the times were not recorded, and they were not cameras that could do that. In some cases the negatives had been destroyed.

There was also a video taken of the scene that Muggins tries to say was the original. It was not. The original was thrown out and Weir presented an edited video which he attributed the editing to a photographer who stated clearly in court that he had NOT edited it. The person who edited it and threw out the original has never been found.

The video does not show the lens in stephens room as Muggins states it does.

muggins (2,258) Says:
February 25th, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Judith is still misrepresenting the facts.
It wasn’t proven that there was no blood on that Gondolier’s T-shirt. It was never proven what that stain was caused by. It could have been blood.

It was proven that it wasn’t blood because blood has DNA and there was no DNA found on the shirt. What is more, when they found the shirt in the laundry it was recorded as being ‘dry’ and yet in the first trial they tried to state that David must have tried to sponge blood off the shirt and left the patch of diluted blood on it. As I said, subsequent testing proved the stain wasn’t blood and there wasn’t any blood on the shirt at all. They did not do the many tests that would have been required to find out exactly what the substance was, because not being blood, it didn’t matter.

No, you stated quite clearly just a few minutes ago that you had never used the word ACT, but I just found a statement by you regarding the information where you had used it.

:You can’t say you never did it, because it is there, used when you were talking about the information you had received. That was just what I found in this thread, there are of course other threads that I haven’t looked.

Regarding the posting of links to photos, yes I have, and the links are still available in those posts, I suggest you look before you confirm yourself to be the lying piece of … that you are.

——————————
Where did I say the white fibres were found under Laniet?
I said the bullet fragment with white fibres on it was found under Laniet.

The object that the bullet was fired through was not found, because the white fibres on the bullet fragments were not found until after the house had been destroyed. The police didn’t know they existed and had not bothered looking for them. There is nothing logged in any of the investigators notes of the looking for the source, and nothing was logged in the meeting sheets of the team that indicated they knew about it before their ‘discovery’ by forensics.

February 25th, 2013 at 4:32 pm
You added the word act when that word was never mentioned,so you have made a big joe h**t of yourself

But you did use the word ACT.

muggins (2,255) Says:
February 8th, 2013 at 8:50 pm

…There seems to be some confusion between my official request and a request made under the official information act…

Now who is the joe whatever??

I did not use the word act when I said I made that request. I used the word act when trying to explain that you were confused.
As I am using it now.

So that makes you an even bigger Joe H**t than you were before.

muggins (2,257) Says:
February 25th, 2013 at 4:32 pm
Who was it who told the police that the washing machine cycle took between 3/4′s of an hour and an hour?
It was David Bain, and who would know better than him.

Mr Preston the washing machine specialist actually gave evidence to. He stated that when the dial was turned to the top position for the long cycle normally 45 mins, that many times it defaulted and did the short cycle instead. David made that statement because he thought he had selected the long cycle, but the machine was not working correctly and either cycle could have been done.

Either way, the 111 operators did not record the police getting to David before 7.36 am and the laundry was after that, which means the washing would have had plenty of time to finish for either cycle.

You added the word act when that word was never mentioned,so you have made a big joe h**t of yourself

But you did use the word ACT.

muggins (2,255) Says:
February 8th, 2013 at 8:50 pm

…There seems to be some confusion between my official request and a request made under the official information act…

Now who is the joe whatever??

I’m not going to play with you any more, Judith. I hate you.

Play nicely, children.

If you haven’t got something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.

More misrepresentation of the facts by Judith.