And I see you have been unable to give me a page number re that blood splatter on the shoe,so it would seem to me either you or no's is making that up.cyber as well,come to think of it. So somebody is lying,and it ain't me.
Edited by supersleuth at 3:28 pm, Fri 12 Nov
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:22 pm, Fri 12 Nov #29535
You must have me mixed up with someone else,te,I have only been posting on Trade Me this year.And what blood splatter are you talking about?I don't recall mentioning any other blood splatter apart from that blood splatter that wasn't on the shoe. And as I have already told you,I don't bother to look at no's site anymore,I mean he still thinks that David Bain wasn't wearing his mother's glasses,dear oh dear.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:33 pm, Fri 12 Nov #29538
This would be the high impact blood splatter that Karam talked about in the Karam/Laws debate. Now I would ask this question.In that photo I have linked to the right shoe is tucked under and the front upper is facing the floor. So how on earth could it have got high impact blood splatter on it?. But if Robin Bain was sitting on the beanbag,he could have got high impact blood splatter on his right shoe.
Edited by supersleuth at 11:16 am, Thu 11 Nov
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 11:12 am, Thu 11 Nov #29458
The blood on his shoes could have been there for years before he was murdered.You tell me where it says in the transcripts it was high impact blood splatter,cyber.Another myth.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 8:51 pm, Thu 11 Nov #29483
You havn't answered my question,cyber,where does it say in the transcript that it was high impact blood splatter?
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 8:59 pm, Thu 11 Nov #29489
But,hey,seeing as you are still replying to me,something you swore blind some months back that you would never do,obviously you are not a man who keeps his word,have you been able to locate in the transcript where any prosecution witness said those scratches to Robin Bain's hands were less than 12 hours old ,as Karam stated in that debate with Laws?.
Edited by supersleuth at 11:45 am, Sat 6 Nov
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 11:38 am, Sat 6 Nov #29314
That'll do for the day. It's sickening reading page after page of lies from this 'man.' But it remains he is a liar, a stalker and a pedo-apologist. The heart is torn from his fabrications and he has only the illogical 'the defence asked the wrong witnesses' nonsense and Mrs Clark. With all due regard to other idiots I have known, they do fixate on things and lull themselves with mantra turning lies to truth. Mrs Clark's evidence was either totally rejected by the Jury or found not to be material to the proof of suicide, something which the Crown couldn't overcome and which idiot Stockdale can't overcome - these are the reasons he denied for so long the blood on the shoe, on the trousers and inside the rifle barrel.
Showing posts with label Mike Stockdale liar much?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Stockdale liar much?. Show all posts
Friday, January 14, 2011
Mike Stockdale threatening defamation?
Another defamatory remark. See you in court.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 11:09 am, Fri 14 Jan #15415
Here's a remark for you Mike, you are a deliberate and proven liar and stalker. Repeat a deliberate and proven liar and stalker. Let's see if you have any courage to come out of the shadow of your persecutory assault on David Bain in what you now admit was an opinion your reached without knowing the evidence, and still don't know the evidence.
I'm going to help you out and put up more examples of your lying Stockdale, there are tens if not hundreds of them.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 11:09 am, Fri 14 Jan #15415
Here's a remark for you Mike, you are a deliberate and proven liar and stalker. Repeat a deliberate and proven liar and stalker. Let's see if you have any courage to come out of the shadow of your persecutory assault on David Bain in what you now admit was an opinion your reached without knowing the evidence, and still don't know the evidence.
I'm going to help you out and put up more examples of your lying Stockdale, there are tens if not hundreds of them.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Stockdale's lies with a cameo appearance from fiddler Ralph bro.
I thought a cameo appearance from itchy pants Taylor about the right hand of Robin he claims was uninjured. I'm recording the number of lies they tell in order to persecute David Bain, and I count repeats additionally.
No demonstration showed him with his right foot on a chair for the simple reason that it would have been impossible for him to have committed suicide with his foot in that position.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:24 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 1:16 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15174
They are also well aware that he could not have shot himself with his right foot on a chair. But they seem to have forgotten one important point.The killer did not wear shoes,hence those luminol sockprints.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:22 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 1:21 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15175
But Karam went on to say that Robin Bain would have had his right shoe on a chair.But there was no demonstration showing Robin Bain with his right shoe on a chair,it was his right knee that was on the chair.And because there was no such demonstration,one can only presume that was because Robin Bain could not have committed suicide with his right shoe on a chair,as opposed to his right knee. And apparently standing upright does not work,either,because blood spatter from Robin Bain's head wound could not have travelled that far. Karam went on to say that Robin Bain would have had to have had the left side of his head pointing down to the right,and,if that was the case David Bain would have virtually have had to be lying on the floor taking the angle of the shot into account. But I have always thought that Robin Bain could have been sitting when he was shot.Barbara Neasmith,the only person alive to have seen Robin Bain praying said she saw him sitting on his bean bag. So I wonder if Robin Bain was sitting with his head tilted to the left,could David Bain have shot him from a crouching position. I don't know if the angle of the bullet wound would fit this theory,but if it did,then that would explain how that blood spatter came to be on Robin Bain's right shoe.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 9:46 am, Fri 24 Dec #14975
And those bloodspots could not got onto his right shoe from him committing suicide with his right shoe on a chair.He could not have held the rifle against his head with his right shoe on a chair,the distance between rifle butt on the floor and that head wound would have been too great.The silencer would have had to be twice as long. I wonder what they will come up with next?.
Edited by supersleuth at 3:48 pm, Mon 27 Dec
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:45 pm, Mon 27 Dec #14994
And he couldn't have got them from having his right shoe on a chair,as Karam suggested in that debate,because that would have taken his head too far away from the silencer for it to have been a close contact shot leaving his blood in the barrel.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 12:48 pm, Sun 2 Jan #15031
Another question that puzzles me.Why did Robin have no bruises and other abrasions on his right hand.Ah yes and only a minute fleck of blood on was it his small index finger?
Edited by jeeves-50 at 5:00 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
jeeves-50 (3 ) 4:59 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15176
I take your point about his right hand be free of marks.Robin Bain was right-handed,so that is the hand one would expect to have marks on it,had he been in a fight.But those marks on his left hand probably came from him repairing the spouting.David Bain's supporters say they happened within 12 hours of him dying,but a close reading of the transcript proves this not to be the case.Those marks could have been 24 hours old,or even older.
Edited by supersleuth at 6:54 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 6:50 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15177
But he also says that Robin Bain had his right foot on a chair,but Robin Bain could not have shot himself from close range with his right foot on a chair. I am saying David Bain shot his father,but I don't know why Robin Bain would have his head inclined to the right. Would David Bain have done something to have caused his father to look to the right?.Did he feel he needed to have his father looking to the right so as to get a better angle for the shot?.He needed to make it look like suicide,after all.Maybe he tossed that bullet that was found in the lounge on to that table that was to Robin Bain's right. Or maybe it was just that Kaycee came into the room just as David was about to shoot his father. I would welcome any other suggestions as to why Robin Bain would have had his head inclined to the right.
Edited by supersleuth at 9:11 am, Mon 10 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 9:07 am, Mon 10 Jan #15183
I don't expect this is a world record for bullshi...... by Stockdale I've produced above, but it shows how much he'll lie about a situation he claimed couldn't happen (Robin's suicide.) His only consistency is lying, guess work and telling people what happened on a 'believe me, I'm right basis,) he does this as an attack on our Justice System, he claims a miscarriage of Justice and trys to convince us with lies. The man is sick, twisted, liar with no regard for the sanctity of language or truth.
No demonstration showed him with his right foot on a chair for the simple reason that it would have been impossible for him to have committed suicide with his foot in that position.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:24 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 1:16 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15174
They are also well aware that he could not have shot himself with his right foot on a chair. But they seem to have forgotten one important point.The killer did not wear shoes,hence those luminol sockprints.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:22 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 1:21 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15175
But Karam went on to say that Robin Bain would have had his right shoe on a chair.But there was no demonstration showing Robin Bain with his right shoe on a chair,it was his right knee that was on the chair.And because there was no such demonstration,one can only presume that was because Robin Bain could not have committed suicide with his right shoe on a chair,as opposed to his right knee. And apparently standing upright does not work,either,because blood spatter from Robin Bain's head wound could not have travelled that far. Karam went on to say that Robin Bain would have had to have had the left side of his head pointing down to the right,and,if that was the case David Bain would have virtually have had to be lying on the floor taking the angle of the shot into account. But I have always thought that Robin Bain could have been sitting when he was shot.Barbara Neasmith,the only person alive to have seen Robin Bain praying said she saw him sitting on his bean bag. So I wonder if Robin Bain was sitting with his head tilted to the left,could David Bain have shot him from a crouching position. I don't know if the angle of the bullet wound would fit this theory,but if it did,then that would explain how that blood spatter came to be on Robin Bain's right shoe.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 9:46 am, Fri 24 Dec #14975
And those bloodspots could not got onto his right shoe from him committing suicide with his right shoe on a chair.He could not have held the rifle against his head with his right shoe on a chair,the distance between rifle butt on the floor and that head wound would have been too great.The silencer would have had to be twice as long. I wonder what they will come up with next?.
Edited by supersleuth at 3:48 pm, Mon 27 Dec
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 3:45 pm, Mon 27 Dec #14994
And he couldn't have got them from having his right shoe on a chair,as Karam suggested in that debate,because that would have taken his head too far away from the silencer for it to have been a close contact shot leaving his blood in the barrel.
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 12:48 pm, Sun 2 Jan #15031
Another question that puzzles me.Why did Robin have no bruises and other abrasions on his right hand.Ah yes and only a minute fleck of blood on was it his small index finger?
Edited by jeeves-50 at 5:00 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
jeeves-50 (3 ) 4:59 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15176
I take your point about his right hand be free of marks.Robin Bain was right-handed,so that is the hand one would expect to have marks on it,had he been in a fight.But those marks on his left hand probably came from him repairing the spouting.David Bain's supporters say they happened within 12 hours of him dying,but a close reading of the transcript proves this not to be the case.Those marks could have been 24 hours old,or even older.
Edited by supersleuth at 6:54 pm, Sun 9 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 6:50 pm, Sun 9 Jan #15177
But he also says that Robin Bain had his right foot on a chair,but Robin Bain could not have shot himself from close range with his right foot on a chair. I am saying David Bain shot his father,but I don't know why Robin Bain would have his head inclined to the right. Would David Bain have done something to have caused his father to look to the right?.Did he feel he needed to have his father looking to the right so as to get a better angle for the shot?.He needed to make it look like suicide,after all.Maybe he tossed that bullet that was found in the lounge on to that table that was to Robin Bain's right. Or maybe it was just that Kaycee came into the room just as David was about to shoot his father. I would welcome any other suggestions as to why Robin Bain would have had his head inclined to the right.
Edited by supersleuth at 9:11 am, Mon 10 Jan
Quote
supersleuth (0 ) 9:07 am, Mon 10 Jan #15183
I don't expect this is a world record for bullshi...... by Stockdale I've produced above, but it shows how much he'll lie about a situation he claimed couldn't happen (Robin's suicide.) His only consistency is lying, guess work and telling people what happened on a 'believe me, I'm right basis,) he does this as an attack on our Justice System, he claims a miscarriage of Justice and trys to convince us with lies. The man is sick, twisted, liar with no regard for the sanctity of language or truth.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Stockdale starts the new year off the way he finished the old one...
lying....
Here's a photo from a paper which he said didn't exist, there are probably others. Here is the pose that Stockdale says can't have happened, the right hand reaching the silencer which Stockdale said couldn't happen. In fact there were a number of poses demonstrated all of which Dr Dempster said were feasible to the presumption that Robin had suicided.
A small note to Jeeves and other idiots, that describe the suicide couldn't have taken place unaided by an assistant. Note, Joe Karam, properly standing away - showing the absurdity once again promoted by the hate-sites that the Judge would have allowed any assistance demonstrating the actual suicide. The only assistance Karam gave at any point was with a microphone, assisting with placing the rifle barrel on the skull cap rod which was in fact a Crown exhibit, and to overcome the encumbrance of movement the skull cap and trajectory rod created for the model - Robin had no such encumbrance he was able to shoot himself straight into his left temple, unworried of course by the need to show trajectory, or the blood smears already on his palms and the high speed spatter already on his shoe and probably totally unaware or concerned that his own blood and brain matter would be vacuumed back into the barrel.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
One of the difficulties in dealing with the hate-siters is they turn phrases into mantras. Mike Stockdale: lying again?
One of the first I recall was...'there was no blood on Robin,' another was that 'Robin had no injuries' of course the other and probably most idiotic and one of my favourites was that David Bain needed to be seen on the paper round to prove his 'alibi.' For 15 years some sections of NZ society believed that one, started by the Police and keenly swallowed by the vindictive gullible. Obviously, the papers being delivered was proof of their delivery and didn't rely on David having to be 'sighted.' Even Stockdale eventually got the point, but in true Stockdale myopic fashion of protecting dead daddy at all costs, Stockdale claimed that because David was an actor he needed to enhance the alibi with some theatrics. I think Stockdale even had David diving in and out of bushes at some stage and going along the pathway in the wrong direction, sleuths these days are not up to scratch.
On the issue of brainless Mike, he's taken a real hammering over the blood in the barrel, air borne spatter, the non existing scratches, the strip search, the drops of blood on Robin's right shoe et al. But in true moron fashion he's setting himself up (again) with a claim of the age of the injuries to Robin's hands. On the subject of the injuries to Robin's hands, that was a contributing factor on me being banned from Counterspin when I'd popped over for a chat and a cup of tea with the old dears wearing their blue wigs. As was another issue they didn't like - me saying that David was stripped searched, asking the question and why, and additionally why or why not, were intimate samples not taken from dead daddy? Some very expensive sets of false teeth flew through the air that day and we all had a jolly good time, and I should also mention that a couple of the goobers who had arrived without teeth left with some - so there is some benefit joining a hate-site if your broke and toothless because they regularly get spat out over there and people such as cowpat kal and nationalbroadcastingyoursecretsannie.curran will grab those teeth if they can get away it. They'll even read magazines in the supermarket and get upset at closing time and ask if they take it home and bring it back in the morning.
But back to Mike. Now Mike has got the trial transcript, or claims he has it, and also claims to have a hot line with Millie Weir and Henschel which leads him to contend that the injuries to Robin's hands were over 24 hours old. Originally, I'd gone from a report on stuff that the injuries may have been minutes to hours old. So I was banned. Nothing like winning argument, or proving a point, by banning your opponent particularly if you think (he's thinking) that you're a pedo supporter bsing about the age of the injuries to daddy's mitts. Now of course Mike has claimed that Joe Karam lied about a number of things on the Laws show, however he's been yet able to prove one, whilst many (claims by Stockdale as seen above) have been disproved.
So once again Stockdale, I'm telling you, that you are a liar. It's not Joe Karam lying, it's you and you repeatedly lie and you get caught out again and again.
Injury debate. The injury referred to on the Laws programme was on the back of Robin's right hand, interestingly just a wee bit between the knuckles and the wrist where Dr. Adams believed he could see evidence of tooth marks. It, the injury in question, is shown in a number of photos variously referred to as PMR38, 601/4 and 601/59 at the retrial. Retrial evidence in reference to this photo is as below.
Dr. Dempster
Evidence in Chief page 1603 line 12-15
"an abrasion 20 mm in diameter with a surrounding bruise 20mm in diameter"
Line 20
"I formed the opinion that it was a relatively recent bruise"
XXM page 1699, line 21-25
Q. But thats a fair way of putting it isnt it, even with hystology we probably cant tell whether its within a few minutes or up to 12 hours, we just dont know?
A. Thats correct
Crown witness patholgist Dr Thompson
XXM page 1796
Line 22.
Q. Have you seen photo 59 before?
A. No I havent
then referrred to the same injury he says at line 31- 33
Q. it seems to be quite recent doesnt it?
A. Yes its - its moist and hasnt got a scab on it
Q. Right, indicating?
A. A recent injury the last 6 to 12 hours.
So the oldest the injuries could be dated (by Thompson) was 6 to 12 hours. And the least (by Dempster) a few minutes. I will just remind readers again that both Dempster and Thompson were Crown witnesses called in the absence of Mike Stockdale who was attending an international Bullcrap Artist of the Year award as a guess speaker and previous multiple winner.
You bullshi...r Mike Stockdale, you pale Walter Mitty's reputation to transparency.
On the issue of brainless Mike, he's taken a real hammering over the blood in the barrel, air borne spatter, the non existing scratches, the strip search, the drops of blood on Robin's right shoe et al. But in true moron fashion he's setting himself up (again) with a claim of the age of the injuries to Robin's hands. On the subject of the injuries to Robin's hands, that was a contributing factor on me being banned from Counterspin when I'd popped over for a chat and a cup of tea with the old dears wearing their blue wigs. As was another issue they didn't like - me saying that David was stripped searched, asking the question and why, and additionally why or why not, were intimate samples not taken from dead daddy? Some very expensive sets of false teeth flew through the air that day and we all had a jolly good time, and I should also mention that a couple of the goobers who had arrived without teeth left with some - so there is some benefit joining a hate-site if your broke and toothless because they regularly get spat out over there and people such as cowpat kal and nationalbroadcastingyoursecretsannie.curran will grab those teeth if they can get away it. They'll even read magazines in the supermarket and get upset at closing time and ask if they take it home and bring it back in the morning.
But back to Mike. Now Mike has got the trial transcript, or claims he has it, and also claims to have a hot line with Millie Weir and Henschel which leads him to contend that the injuries to Robin's hands were over 24 hours old. Originally, I'd gone from a report on stuff that the injuries may have been minutes to hours old. So I was banned. Nothing like winning argument, or proving a point, by banning your opponent particularly if you think (he's thinking) that you're a pedo supporter bsing about the age of the injuries to daddy's mitts. Now of course Mike has claimed that Joe Karam lied about a number of things on the Laws show, however he's been yet able to prove one, whilst many (claims by Stockdale as seen above) have been disproved.
So once again Stockdale, I'm telling you, that you are a liar. It's not Joe Karam lying, it's you and you repeatedly lie and you get caught out again and again.
Injury debate. The injury referred to on the Laws programme was on the back of Robin's right hand, interestingly just a wee bit between the knuckles and the wrist where Dr. Adams believed he could see evidence of tooth marks. It, the injury in question, is shown in a number of photos variously referred to as PMR38, 601/4 and 601/59 at the retrial. Retrial evidence in reference to this photo is as below.
Dr. Dempster
Evidence in Chief page 1603 line 12-15
"an abrasion 20 mm in diameter with a surrounding bruise 20mm in diameter"
Line 20
"I formed the opinion that it was a relatively recent bruise"
XXM page 1699, line 21-25
Q. But thats a fair way of putting it isnt it, even with hystology we probably cant tell whether its within a few minutes or up to 12 hours, we just dont know?
A. Thats correct
Crown witness patholgist Dr Thompson
XXM page 1796
Line 22.
Q. Have you seen photo 59 before?
A. No I havent
then referrred to the same injury he says at line 31- 33
Q. it seems to be quite recent doesnt it?
A. Yes its - its moist and hasnt got a scab on it
Q. Right, indicating?
A. A recent injury the last 6 to 12 hours.
So the oldest the injuries could be dated (by Thompson) was 6 to 12 hours. And the least (by Dempster) a few minutes. I will just remind readers again that both Dempster and Thompson were Crown witnesses called in the absence of Mike Stockdale who was attending an international Bullcrap Artist of the Year award as a guess speaker and previous multiple winner.
You bullshi...r Mike Stockdale, you pale Walter Mitty's reputation to transparency.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Is Pedo Mike Stockdale a lying bludger - you be the Judge.
jeeves,re that blood in the barrel.pro has given me a page reference,but as I said earlier my page numbers do not line up with his.But I could not find anything that suggests Ross looked in the barrel of that rifle.All I could find is this from Ross.
"So the immediate effect is to suck back ,and you do see,in not all cases,but in quite a lot,blood that has been sucked back into the barrel."
pro quoted pages 3653/4.Others will be able to check those pages.
Now if this is the only reference that Ross makes to "blood in the barrel",then there is no doubt in my mind that to say there was blood in the barrel of David Bain's rifle is a myth perpetrated by myth perpetrators.
I was interested to come across this from Professor Ferris when searching for that blood in the barrel reference.
He suggested that that the hole in Laniet's head was enlarged by a back blast.[which may have well caused blood to go into the barrel].
However,there is no need to debate that,as it does appear to me that there was no blood found in the barrel of Bain's rifle.
Edited by supersleuth at 10:49 am, Fri 5 Nov
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 10:47 am, Fri 5 Nov #29258
If you had read all my posts you would have known that I have tracked down that reference to blood in the barrel.It was nothing to do with blood in the barrel of Bain's rifle.Go take a look.Another myth.
And yes,binned does mean canned ,and stalled means held up,that's is why I said take your pick.It is either stalled/not going anywhere at the moment,or it has been binned/canned,comprende?.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:27 pm, Fri 5 Nov
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 1:27 pm, Fri 5 Nov #29274
ash204 wrote:
BINNED OR STALLED, ACCORDING TO WHOM?
IS THIS A FACT OR JUST ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR DELUSIONS THAT WITHIN 24 HRS BECOMES A REALITY TO YOU?
YOU ARE SO VERY HUMOROUS TO WATCH
I have a very good scource,but I certainly am not telling you who she/he is.
There was no blood in the barrel ,read the transcript.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:36 pm, Fri 5 Nov
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 1:33 pm, Fri 5 Nov #29279
project_hr wrote:
You have to love Nos persistence.
Despite already proving Supersleuth incorrect twice this week, he's offering yet another chance for him to prove he actually knows what he's talking about and isn't a liar. Personally I think that was proven way back, but I guess nos has more paitence than me.
I guess in the same mouse like manner, Supersleuth will run from this wager as well. This time I believe its about the blood on the socks or shoes or something like that. Time to prove your words again Sleuth, but you won't, because you can't, but it's such fun watching from the sidelines.
Off to watch the fireworks. I guess they'll be going off in here as well.
Gee,pro what a bulls*** artist you are.I have not looked at no's ravings for sometime,nor do I intend to again.He is a complete nutter.If you think that I would ever make a wager with him,then you're sillier than I thought you were.He would never accept that he was wrong,just like you.I have already pointed out to no's the errors he has made,but he still argues the toss.He doesn't even accept that David Bain was wearing his mother's glasses.So it is useless trying to get through to him.
There was no blood in the barrel,I don't know what you mean by the socks and shoes.And nobody ever said those marks on Robin Bain's hands were only 12 hours old.All myths,perpetrated by myth perpetrators.
I am watching the fireworks too,from my study window.
Edited by supersleuth at 9:01 pm, Fri 5 Nov
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 8:49 pm, Fri 5 Nov #29298 ---------------
All those denials from this lying scumbag, then to this....
----------------
And as I have already explained ,cyber,another of my messages you must have missed,the fact there was blood in the barrel proves absolutely nothing more than that the last shot was a close contact shot.And we dont know how close close contact is.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 6:30 pm, Thu 11 Nov #29473
Well Stockdale, that is why you have no credibility. You are a blatant lying arsew.pe off the same roll as lucklesstrevor. You lie for years then you suddenly change your position and quote your most recent position as if to prove you hadn't lied earlier. In your arrogance you seem unable to comprehend that your posts are recorded here and elsewhere and simply because you come along and 'change' your story doesn't effect the record. And the record Stockdale is that you are lying, persecuting, pedo-apologist who thinks it's fine for a father to describe to a young daughter, or any daughter, or child, how to put her fingers inside herself. You are a truly sick pedophile Stockdale, and if you don't like the statement try suing me. There's a challenge for you dogdayafternoon, sue me.
"So the immediate effect is to suck back ,and you do see,in not all cases,but in quite a lot,blood that has been sucked back into the barrel."
pro quoted pages 3653/4.Others will be able to check those pages.
Now if this is the only reference that Ross makes to "blood in the barrel",then there is no doubt in my mind that to say there was blood in the barrel of David Bain's rifle is a myth perpetrated by myth perpetrators.
I was interested to come across this from Professor Ferris when searching for that blood in the barrel reference.
He suggested that that the hole in Laniet's head was enlarged by a back blast.[which may have well caused blood to go into the barrel].
However,there is no need to debate that,as it does appear to me that there was no blood found in the barrel of Bain's rifle.
Edited by supersleuth at 10:49 am, Fri 5 Nov
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 10:47 am, Fri 5 Nov #29258
If you had read all my posts you would have known that I have tracked down that reference to blood in the barrel.It was nothing to do with blood in the barrel of Bain's rifle.Go take a look.Another myth.
And yes,binned does mean canned ,and stalled means held up,that's is why I said take your pick.It is either stalled/not going anywhere at the moment,or it has been binned/canned,comprende?.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:27 pm, Fri 5 Nov
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 1:27 pm, Fri 5 Nov #29274
ash204 wrote:
BINNED OR STALLED, ACCORDING TO WHOM?
IS THIS A FACT OR JUST ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR DELUSIONS THAT WITHIN 24 HRS BECOMES A REALITY TO YOU?
YOU ARE SO VERY HUMOROUS TO WATCH
I have a very good scource,but I certainly am not telling you who she/he is.
There was no blood in the barrel ,read the transcript.
Edited by supersleuth at 1:36 pm, Fri 5 Nov
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 1:33 pm, Fri 5 Nov #29279
project_hr wrote:
You have to love Nos persistence.
Despite already proving Supersleuth incorrect twice this week, he's offering yet another chance for him to prove he actually knows what he's talking about and isn't a liar. Personally I think that was proven way back, but I guess nos has more paitence than me.
I guess in the same mouse like manner, Supersleuth will run from this wager as well. This time I believe its about the blood on the socks or shoes or something like that. Time to prove your words again Sleuth, but you won't, because you can't, but it's such fun watching from the sidelines.
Off to watch the fireworks. I guess they'll be going off in here as well.
Gee,pro what a bulls*** artist you are.I have not looked at no's ravings for sometime,nor do I intend to again.He is a complete nutter.If you think that I would ever make a wager with him,then you're sillier than I thought you were.He would never accept that he was wrong,just like you.I have already pointed out to no's the errors he has made,but he still argues the toss.He doesn't even accept that David Bain was wearing his mother's glasses.So it is useless trying to get through to him.
There was no blood in the barrel,I don't know what you mean by the socks and shoes.And nobody ever said those marks on Robin Bain's hands were only 12 hours old.All myths,perpetrated by myth perpetrators.
I am watching the fireworks too,from my study window.
Edited by supersleuth at 9:01 pm, Fri 5 Nov
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 8:49 pm, Fri 5 Nov #29298 ---------------
All those denials from this lying scumbag, then to this....
----------------
And as I have already explained ,cyber,another of my messages you must have missed,the fact there was blood in the barrel proves absolutely nothing more than that the last shot was a close contact shot.And we dont know how close close contact is.
Quotesupersleuth (0 ) 6:30 pm, Thu 11 Nov #29473
Well Stockdale, that is why you have no credibility. You are a blatant lying arsew.pe off the same roll as lucklesstrevor. You lie for years then you suddenly change your position and quote your most recent position as if to prove you hadn't lied earlier. In your arrogance you seem unable to comprehend that your posts are recorded here and elsewhere and simply because you come along and 'change' your story doesn't effect the record. And the record Stockdale is that you are lying, persecuting, pedo-apologist who thinks it's fine for a father to describe to a young daughter, or any daughter, or child, how to put her fingers inside herself. You are a truly sick pedophile Stockdale, and if you don't like the statement try suing me. There's a challenge for you dogdayafternoon, sue me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)