Jeremy Bamber proven innocent?

[Caroline]

how long has this sexual tension been going on between you two? Anyhow, I still await logical, sensible answers to the questions I've posted Caroline. Cheerio

Wow! You're like just soooooo witty (well it rhymes with witty anyway). I'll be laughing at that one all night  . I'm still waiting for you to ask a logical and sensible question boozy woozy! TTFN 

[Caroline]

I am not going to bite, unless offered a sensible answer. You've got 24 hours

And then you self destruct?

[ILB]

And then you self destruct?

you can't answer my questions about mugford, you can't give me an answer about the silencer which is logical you can keep taking the piss and acting clever but it will not change your fact of failing to answer. You are trying to hard to be edgy and controversial petal

[guest2181]

Yes, good cast. I know that Carol Ann Lee has had some input and her book gives a pretty good account. Don't think the CT will be looking forward to it!

I'm quite looking forward to it, should be interesting.

[guest2181]

you can't answer my questions about mugford, you can't give me an answer about the silencer which is logical you can keep taking the piss and acting clever but it will not change your fact of failing to answer. You are trying to hard to be edgy and controversial petal

What are your questions? List them out in bullet points without emotive prose.

[Caroline]

you can't answer my questions about mugford, you can't give me an answer about the silencer which is logical you can keep taking the piss and acting clever but it will not change your fact of failing to answer. You are trying to hard to be edgy and controversial petal

Well, you;re making yourself look stupid because not only have I answered you, both Jane and David have answered you too. It's not for me to find an answer that suits you and I wouldn't waste my time trying. You're the one who stared taking the piss with your condescending attitude and phrases like 'are you for fucking real'. I don't need to try and be controversial, I've been a member here a long time, you're the newby who thinks he can try it on and flout the rules.

[Caroline]

What are your questions? List them out in bullet points without emotive prose.

I can guarantee - you won't manage to give an answer that suits him.

[guest2181]

I can guarantee - you won't manage to give an answer that suits him.

Oh I'm not one to simply please. 

He registered in 2015 according to his/her profile. 

[Caroline]

Oh I'm not one to simply please. 

He registered in 2015 according to his/her profile. 

Oh, OK cheers, I wasn't interested enough to read it. 

[Jane]

well i don't think it's to accept a 24 year old farmers starting account point. without " having a gander " darling

But Jeremy was only relaying what his father, a well respected magistrate, regular church goer, piller of the community, member of the Conservative party and local employer, had allegedly told him.

[ILB]

But Jeremy was only relaying what his father, a well respected magistrate, regular church goer, piller of the community, member of the Conservative party and local employer, had allegedly told him.

yes but It was just a starting point scenario. A silencer stained with blood even by the standards of 1985 style of policing should have been discovered and then turned the whole investigation 360 degrees. It should have not been discovered by the relatives.

[Steve_uk]

yes but It was just a starting point scenario. A silencer stained with blood even by the standards of 1985 style of policing should have been discovered and then turned the whole investigation 360 degrees. It should have not been discovered by the relatives.

The benefit of hindsight: I'm sure you never made a mistake in your life.

[Jane]

yes but It was just a starting point scenario. A silencer stained with blood even by the standards of 1985 style of policing should have been discovered and then turned the whole investigation 360 degrees. It should have not been discovered by the relatives.

But why would they look for something they had no reason to believe existed? It could justifiably be reasoned that a silencer hadn't been part of the murders as the 'suicide' who appeared to have been responsible was hardly likely to have used it on the victims, then gone to great lengths to hide it before committing suicide. Having the luxury of hindsight makes everything so much more clear, don't you think?

[ILB]

But why would they look for something they had no reason to believe existed? It could justifiably be reasoned that a silencer hadn't been part of the murders as the 'suicide' who appeared to have been responsible was hardly likely to have used it on the victims, then gone to great lengths to hide it before committing suicide. Having the luxury of hindsight makes everything so much more clear, don't you think?

Jane it's not a case of hindsight. Regardless of what Jeremy Bamber had told them. This was a major crime scene. Regardless of what was initially relayed or believed. There should have been in my opinion ( and who knows maybe there was) a search of which within that silencer was discovered.

[ILB]

The benefit of hindsight: I'm sure you never made a mistake in your life.

Steve it's simple common sense logic. I've never disputed the police weren't looking for that silencer. But it should have been discovered. It was in a cupboard mate, not concealed by any stretch of the imagination