Nope, I never insulted you whatsoever. You were being a bollox, own it and we'll move on.
I've made it clear who I am, we've had many interactions
Not in the way @tibruit thinks mind you 😆
you started the personal insults. and you called me a bollox .i couldn't care less what someone on the internet thinks of me but i did not say that to you. you only have 31 posts. i never had any contact with you till tonight. whoever said we had a thing is wrong.
you won't get very far investigating a murder if you are that sensitive.
and i answered it. you may say the priest and doctor are not the killer but you do not know that either. you assume as you assume bailey didn' do it. it could be someone completely unknown to us
Right??
You could be a total pro Bailey person playing devil's advocate!
Imagine 😂
@tibruit are you and @cailin rua not one & the same? Why are you querying @GlossBox about reinventing themself?
Previous poster on this thread, regained interest with latest "news" from Nick Foster.
I always maintained there wasn't sufficient evidence to send Ian Bailey to prison for murder IMO, but I'm also not 100% certain he didn't do it.
However, some of Fosters "theories" in recent months have seemed to be stuff of fantasy. A while back he claimed to know what was said by Sophie when her murderer came to the door, I can't see how he could possibly know that. Is he claiming someone overheard her murder?
This new tidbit about a stolen watch also seems to be farfetched. Is a murderer really stupid enough to steal a watch from the body and give it to a loved one and tell that person he took the watch off of a woman he just murdered? Some of his revelations have seemed to crossed the line to crime fiction.
Probably no coincidence that Christmas is coming up, logic would say he's probably looking to peek peoples interest in order to sell a few copies of his book. I imagine he's disappointed that practically no mainstream media or newspapers have been reporting on his "revelations".
I hope I'm wrong because it's pretty disgusting if that's what he's at.
You`re right too. Never know who you might be talking to.
Sorry to disappoint you 😆
I don't dalliance with people on boards anymore.
Well that little dalliance came to an abrupt end.
I would rather get root canal, cheers.
Well ye`ve paid for the room now so ye might as well get on with it.
This is a big part of the problem with discussions like this where people want to make a virtue of poor rationale on the basis that they can suggest tritely that 'hey I keep an open mind'. I only asked a simple question which is easily answered.
What is surprising is your personal insults for no reason.
I don't mind taking it in good humour but you are showing yourself to be a bit of a bollox in all honesty.
I corrected the their already....is it not obvious that Glossy is Scooby? I dunno...I knew a few days ago.
that is not surprising
2 profiles tibs. Hardly.
I said why up thread
nonsense i never had any contact with glossy. and its there in that context not their
the simple answr is i am not certaIN of anything. anyone who is is not objective. if you cannot see that i am not wasting my time with you
Why do you keep reinventing yourself?
OMG Thankyou!!
I never thought of that! 😂😝
Now you're flailing about and just avoiding the issue. I'd prefer a simple answer
I am not certain of anything. Anyone who is is not impartial
Do you accept this was a curious investigation with a lot of illegal procedure that might land Guards in trouble?
yes a lot of questions re the investigations. that does not make me certain bailey, lyons, the doctor or priest didn't do it
Souly does add a certain spice to the thread doesn't he or she? 🤔😆
You do have a fervent imagination tibs, it's entertaining 😉
i was busy. i have a life. try it
Are you certain that Alfie Lyons or Shirley Foster didn't do it? That's just two people it could be argued have much more motive and wherewithal to carry out the murder. So what would be the point of endless argument about them even though everything like adjacency to the murder is not in their favour. I am certain Bailey didn't do it as much as I am certain the Doctor or the Priest didn't do it, who if you want to look at it objectively have more reason for suspicion than Bailey. This is the whole point. There is no reason for Bailey and less hard evidence than just four people I've mentioned. So the problem is the Guards and by extension the State. And this is where being impartial comes in. Do you accept this was a curious investigation with a lot of illegal procedure that might land Guards in trouble? I CERTAINLY do.
Ah no...a love thing
You mean arguing? 🤔😅
You and Soulwriter had a bit of a thing going on there at one point.
Which two? 🤔
nonsense you are not impartial. you said you are CERTAIN it was not Bailey. That is not an impartial position. you are pro Bailey. Nothing wrong with that but it is not an impartial objective position as you claim. I am impartial.i do not know who it was. i find it hard to see bailey doing it but I am not CERTAIN he didn't
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/37b29390e71419ead582d06229ae30a3.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1891d95e9e926c005ad3f5c153aacc5.svg)
