[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13716127 ]Full BBC Story Here[/url]
Does anyone else think it very odd that the article fails to mention a very important piece of evidence, the fact that the first medical staff on the scene stated on TV that there was not enough blood at the scene to support the theory that the Dr. had cut his wrists there.
I don’t normally DO conspiracy theories, but why the lack of blood? Were the medical staff mistaken? Was the ground particularly porous and the blood soaked in? Did the Doctor suffer a heart attack before bleeding out (and so stopping the blood flow)?
vampires, maaan !
🙄
No-one think it odd that they mention lots of inconsistencies, but miss the biggest one of them all?
(just bumping for the erudite crew)
**** with the big boys and ur going to get hurt, thats basicly what he did :0