I am sick of your snide comments, which started a couple of years ago when you told me I didn't know one end of a silencer from another. This was included in a thread which later mysteriously disappeared, I presume because you were losing the argument. You then tried banning me but I was reinstated for some reason. Every other post you have been making is an attempt to discredit Julie Smerchanski's evidence, a woman who made a mistake in life like many 20somethings yet who is not now allowed to live out the remainder of her life in a family setting as millions of others aspire to without you dredging every minutiae of the case up, with no regard to how this may be affecting herself, her family, or Colin.
For the guilters Jeremy Bamber is a calculating, cold-blooded murderer of five, who gambled and lost. He blew the brains out of two six-year-old boys and spattered them on the bedhead behind. He killed his parents in the most vicious way, along with a mentally-ill young woman on whom he laid the blame for the whole diablerie.
He belongs where he is: incarcerated for the rest of his natural life.
I have frequently been irritated not by your arguments but by the personally offensive way you sometimes express them, particularly it would seem when I am involved on the other side of the argument. You object to my consistent argument that whether JM has told the truth or has lied she comes out of the case extremely badly.
I do not know about a thread which "mysteriously disappeared". Threads are sometimes pruned where offensive personal attacks are made, but never because an argument is being lost or won on either side. It for others to decide if I have ever lost an argument with you. I do not believe I have, although I accept that is a subjective view.
I did not "try" banning you. I imposed a 24 hour ban on you one evening for repeatedly making personal attacks. I imposed a similar ban on another member. I reviewed the bans the following morning. In your case I lifted the ban early and in the other case I extended it.
I accept that I have vigorously challenged JM's evidence and have provided detailed reasoning for that and for the proposition that this is a very significant factor in relation to the safety of the convictions at trial.
The rest of your post is your opinion and of course you are entitled to express it, as others are equally entitled to agree or disagree with it.
