-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Dear Kate
- Thread starter Rosy
- Start date
Suffice to say Rosy's thread has been seriously derailed by questions of what board it should be on.
T-rob is just a troll Dirty...bordering on being a stalker in fact. He has several usenames on sites around the net and there's nothing he likes better than to stir controversy about myself and PRE on other sites then send me the links. He must lead a very unfulfilled life to be so obsessed about a tinpot website and it's administrator. :
it`s just typical behaviour of scumbag journalists rosy to leave out certain facts and twist things to make their article sound better.
i know you started this thread to criticise the article rosy,but i`m just curious now about a few things.
if the coroner concluded the injuries didn`t happen on the night,then how come the coroner concluded that barnes was the only one who could have inflicted the injuries?
"In 2006, a coroner found Mr Barnes was the only person who could have inflicted the dreadful injuries on Maxwell."
i find barnes`s comments about hitting babies very disturbing also,i`ve known some very violent people in my time,several convicted murderers in fact, but i`ve never heard anyone "joke" about belting a precious little baby around the head.
some things just aren`t funny.
and his comments about turning the music up full blast on his own baby to frighten the *smile* out of it just adds to the suspicions that this bloke has tendencies to hurt children.
what sort of loonie would do such a thing to his own baby.
i don`t think he was joking.
my opinion is he belted the kid on previous ocassions and should have been convicted of manslaughter but for lack of evidence.
not guilty doesn`t mean he didn`t do it.
and for what it`s worth,when i saw you refer to him as "barnesy" i immediately thought you were his mate and were biased towards him.
rosy23 said:
i know you started this thread to criticise the article rosy,but i`m just curious now about a few things.
if the coroner concluded the injuries didn`t happen on the night,then how come the coroner concluded that barnes was the only one who could have inflicted the injuries?
"In 2006, a coroner found Mr Barnes was the only person who could have inflicted the dreadful injuries on Maxwell."
i find barnes`s comments about hitting babies very disturbing also,i`ve known some very violent people in my time,several convicted murderers in fact, but i`ve never heard anyone "joke" about belting a precious little baby around the head.
some things just aren`t funny.
and his comments about turning the music up full blast on his own baby to frighten the *smile* out of it just adds to the suspicions that this bloke has tendencies to hurt children.
what sort of loonie would do such a thing to his own baby.
i don`t think he was joking.
my opinion is he belted the kid on previous ocassions and should have been convicted of manslaughter but for lack of evidence.
not guilty doesn`t mean he didn`t do it.
and for what it`s worth,when i saw you refer to him as "barnesy" i immediately thought you were his mate and were biased towards him.
Interesting post mopsy.
I could ask what the coroner's report said in full, rather than rely on the snippet Kate chose to use in her article
I could question you taking the threats as gospel despite the fact Tracey had admitted previously lying about the case . I tend to agree some things just aren't funny but it's hard to judge when they're used out of context and it's interesting how a mother and grandmother who wanted a conviction failed to convince the jury of the seriousness of those threats, if they were made at all, and in fact had no hesitation in leaving Max in Barnsey's care.
I could question how you can possibly conclude Barnes "belted the baby on previous occasions" when the baby's mother testified she'd never seen him harm Max and didn't take the threats seriously.
I could ask you who was looking after Max while his cousin donged into him on occasions? Same goes with who was minding him when he fell and hit his head on the tiles, bearing in mind it was found the injuries that caused Max's death were unlikely to have been inflicted at the time he was found unconscious.
Lots of things your post makes me wonder but I think it's a bit futile really. Your claim that "for what it`s worth,when i saw you refer to him as "barnesy" i immediately thought you were his mate and were biased towards him." shows how easy it is to form a false conclusion based on how something is worded. You are very wrong in those thoughts. I don't see any bias in my comments at all. I was merely pointing out FACTS that the journo chose to ignore. I didn't offer an opinion on them and I've never met Brendan Barnes.
Yes you're correct in stating because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, but by the same token convicting an innocent man certainly isn't the way to go.
I could ask what the coroner's report said in full, rather than rely on the snippet Kate chose to use in her article
I could question you taking the threats as gospel despite the fact Tracey had admitted previously lying about the case . I tend to agree some things just aren't funny but it's hard to judge when they're used out of context and it's interesting how a mother and grandmother who wanted a conviction failed to convince the jury of the seriousness of those threats, if they were made at all, and in fact had no hesitation in leaving Max in Barnsey's care.
I could question how you can possibly conclude Barnes "belted the baby on previous occasions" when the baby's mother testified she'd never seen him harm Max and didn't take the threats seriously.
I could ask you who was looking after Max while his cousin donged into him on occasions? Same goes with who was minding him when he fell and hit his head on the tiles, bearing in mind it was found the injuries that caused Max's death were unlikely to have been inflicted at the time he was found unconscious.
Lots of things your post makes me wonder but I think it's a bit futile really. Your claim that "for what it`s worth,when i saw you refer to him as "barnesy" i immediately thought you were his mate and were biased towards him." shows how easy it is to form a false conclusion based on how something is worded. You are very wrong in those thoughts. I don't see any bias in my comments at all. I was merely pointing out FACTS that the journo chose to ignore. I didn't offer an opinion on them and I've never met Brendan Barnes.
Yes you're correct in stating because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, but by the same token convicting an innocent man certainly isn't the way to go.
<
Household Debt
|
Yes we can
>
