Clive Wismayer wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:
Back to straw and flannel, eh? Once again, no. I have never said this or even hinted at it. I have explained this at least twice before.
'This'?
Oh for Christ sake.
This this:
Clive Wismayer wrote:
you say no guilty person would act so suspiciously as Bamber did.
No, Clive. No I don't say this. And I don't belabor the point to indulge your bad faith. I belabor the point because I wouldn't want anyone else skimming through this thread to think I would ever take such a STUPID position.
Call me stupid by all means but the accusation of bad faith is misplaced and not greatly appreciated. You said:
As I have pointed out, Bamber's actions would extend the delay and deepen the grounds for suspicion. He could never recover those 10 minutes no matter what he did.
Er ... what grounds for suspicion were you referring to? I thought we were supposed to think there were none and that his reaction to the phone call was, if not perfectly normal, well within the ambit of strange but innocent reactions to the unexpected. And what delay? You said if guilty he would just go home and not call anyone rather than form a plan which would inevitably attract suspicion. As there is no dispute on either side that it took him 10-15 minutes to call the police, surely your argument is exactly what you say it is not. The delay is suspcious but can be explained and, further, a guilty person would not do anything that attracted suspicion. . If that is not your argument then you lost me somewhere.
Yes, obviously I lost you. It seems I can't entertain WIFOM without seeming to endorse the method as sound, which I do not. So that's a tunnel blasted shut.
If you want to avoid the impression of bad faith, don't snip context.
Statistics: Posted by charlie_wilkes — Sun Sep 25, 2016 10:17 am