Re: Who changed sides ?

[Adam]

Tell that to David!

David said this is 2015 -

'Its most probable he is guilty but has suppressed all memory of it and convinced himself he is innocent and all the outside support over 30 years has contributed to this and still exacerbates the problem to this day'.

----------------

I agree he blanks out the massacre. Also he believes he was justified in his actions so believes he should be free. Support spurs him on.

[David1819]

What exactly are you trying to prove here, David?

That neither of you two are here for an honest debate. Anyone under the impression they are explaining to you in good faith the facts of the case are wasting their time. Because you already know them.

I'm neither ashamed nor embarrassed to admit that I CHANGED MY MIND

But you are ashamed and embarrassed to admit the obvious reason why you changed your mind. 

it's an irony that much of what was true when I believed him to be innocent STILL holds true- but trying to ridicule others appears to be a need buried deep within you. It says much about you. OR is it that you're simply trying to divert attention from the fact that you once believed Jeremy was innocent but your insecurities are such that you'd prefer the finger wasn't pointed at you?

The difference is I change my mind based on a better understaning of the evidence and ignoring those who try to muddy the water. As time goes on I am always studying more bodies of case documents, case photos and modern forensic publications. Thus any change of consensus on my part I can fully justify to anyone who cares who ask.

You and Caroline on the otherhand cannot do such a thing because you both changed your minds for personal reasons. Your current position cannot be justified because it was a decision made in the absence of any evidence or facts of the case.

[Adam]

David also posted this in 2015 -

'He devised a plan to kill everyone and frame Shelia, The second he placed the gun on Shelia's chest was the beginning of his denial of involvement that was more or less his first protest of innocence. He was prepared to live a lie for the rest of his life. He would deny everything if he was caught or not. 

The closest you could get to a confession would be a death bed confession even that is unlikely'.

----------------

Again I agree with David this is possible. I created a thread 'the point of no return'. Saying when he pleaded 'not guilty' at trial that was when he would never change his plea. However his lifetime innocence stance may have been set in stone the minute he laid the bible & rifle onto Sheila.

Criminals have pleaded 'not guilty' at trial, then pleaded guilty while in prison. However Bamber doing this will show he was not smart enough to carry out the frame. At present Sheila is a suspect and can't answer back. And a technicality may one day arrive that may assist him.

[Jane]

David also posted this in 2015 -

'He devised a plan to kill everyone and frame Shelia, The second he placed the gun on Shelia's chest was the beginning of his denial of involvement that was more or less his first protest of innocence. He was prepared to live a lie for the rest of his life. He would deny everything if he was caught or not.

The closest you could get to a confession would be a death bed confession even that is unlikely'.

----------------

Again I agree with David this is possible. I created a thread 'the point of no return'. Saying when he pleaded 'not guilty' at trial that was when he would never change his plea. However his lifetime innocence stance may have been set in stone the minute he laid the bible & rifle onto Sheila.

Criminals have pleaded 'not guilty' at trial, then pleaded guilty while in prison. However Bamber doing this will show he was not smart enough to carry out the frame. At present Sheila is a suspect and can't answer back. And a technicality may one day arrive that may assist him.

It would appear that David may still have been well into Jeremy's guilt long after several of us had given up on Jeremy's innocence.

[David1819]

David also posted this in 2015 -

'He devised a plan to kill everyone and frame Shelia, The second he placed the gun on Shelia's chest was the beginning of his denial of involvement that was more or less his first protest of innocence. He was prepared to live a lie for the rest of his life. He would deny everything if he was caught or not.

The closest you could get to a confession would be a death bed confession even that is unlikely'.

----------------

Again I agree with David this is possible. I created a thread 'the point of no return'. Saying when he pleaded 'not guilty' at trial that was when he would never change his plea. However his lifetime innocence stance may have been set in stone the minute he laid the bible & rifle onto Sheila.

Criminals have pleaded 'not guilty' at trial, then pleaded guilty while in prison. However Bamber doing this will show he was not smart enough to carry out the frame. At present Sheila is a suspect and can't answer back. And a technicality may one day arrive that may assist him.

I wonder why Adam did not use the actual quotes that link to my original post? Well obviously its because people will find out Adam is taking my words out my context. Here is that post in full. Look what Adam took out. 

If Jeremy is guilty his protests of innocence are all part of the original plan.

He devised a plan to kill everyone and frame Shelia, The second he placed the gun on Shelia's chest was the beginning of his denial of involvement that was more or less his first protest of innocence. He was prepared to live a lie for the rest of his life. He would deny everything if he was caught or not.

The closest you could get to a confession would be a death bed confession even that is unlikely

[Adam]

I don't mind guilters changing to supporters.

David, once exposed, said he changed stance because he realised it was possible to fabricate the silencer. But refuses to say whether the police approached the relatives or vice versa.

Similar to lots of his other posts he left everyone dangling yesterday. Saying there are 5 people who simultaneously had access to Sheila's blood and wanted Bamber disinherited. Then wouldn't name the 5 people.

[Adam]

I wonder why Adam did not use the actual quotes that link to my original post? Well obviously its because people will find out Adam is taking my words out my context. Here is that post in full. Look what Adam took out. 

Why should I ?

I quoted the bit I agree with you about.

[Adam]

David said this is 2015 -

'Its most probable he is guilty but has suppressed all memory of it and convinced himself he is innocent and all the outside support over 30 years has contributed to this and still exacerbates the problem to this day'.

----------------

I agree he blanks out the massacre. Also he believes he was justified in his actions so believes he should be free. Support spurs him on.

I did the same thing earlier today. Quoted the bit I agree with you on.

[mike tesko]

Now, Now, please don't start falling out....

We are here to try and get to the truth the incontrovertible truth!

[Adam]

David said this is 2015 -

'Its most probable he is guilty but has suppressed all memory of it and convinced himself he is innocent and all the outside support over 30 years has contributed to this and still exacerbates the problem to this day'.

----------------

I agree he blanks out the massacre. Also he believes he was justified in his actions so believes he should be free. Support spurs him on.

And this. Posted today.

And can you please name the 5 people who simultaneously had access to Sheila's blood & wanted to disinherit Bamber. If you can't and made the claim out of desparation after people were asking you for a silencer fabrication scenario, just say.

[Caroline]

I wonder why Adam did not use the actual quotes that link to my original post? Well obviously its because people will find out Adam is taking my words out my context. Here is that post in full. Look what Adam took out. 

So what difference does that part make to the quote? 

If I was you, I'd be glad he left it out because if denying his involvement was part of the original plan, he must have calculated that he's get caught. Give that the motive was to inherit, it would be a pretty stupid man to go ahead with that plan! 

[Adam]

Me and David are going to become forum buddies. This is the third quote today of his from 2015 I agree with. Regarding proving Bamber's innocence -


The Following is pivotal

1) Find smoking gun evidence of a police conspiracy
    1a) Ensure the police and co conspirators in the police force confess to the conspiracy 
    1b) Gather enough police testimony that the conspiracy theory is a conspiracy fact 

2) Find smoking gun evidence of gross misconduct and incompetence of the expert witnesses 
    2a) For example collaborating with the police conspiracy 
    2b) Being to incompetent to notice the police conspiracy 

3) Find smoking gun evidence of extended family conspiracy to set him up 
    3a) Such as audio recordings or data interpreted from telephone calls (Spying/Hacking not advised)
    3b) Evidence of police incompetence to not notice the conspiracy of a set up.

[Adam]

Me and David are going to become forum buddies. This is the third quote today of his from 2015 I agree with. Regarding proving Bamber's innocence -


The Following is pivotal

1) Find smoking gun evidence of a police conspiracy
    1a) Ensure the police and co conspirators in the police force confess to the conspiracy
    1b) Gather enough police testimony that the conspiracy theory is a conspiracy fact

2) Find smoking gun evidence of gross misconduct and incompetence of the expert witnesses
    2a) For example collaborating with the police conspiracy
    2b) Being to incompetent to notice the police conspiracy

3) Find smoking gun evidence of extended family conspiracy to set him up
    3a) Such as audio recordings or data interpreted from telephone calls (Spying/Hacking not advised)
    3b) Evidence of police incompetence to not notice the conspiracy of a set up.

In 2015 it seems David was saying there is a mountain of evidence against Bamber. And Bamber's only chance is to prove a mass frame from the police, experts and relatives.

So surprising he said he changed his mind for a non evidence reason. Saying he realised it was possible for the silencer to be fabricated. Although there is no proof it was.

[Adam]

David from the same 2015 thread -

'Yes it is up to the supporters, Because the defence team can only go by the evidence/documents they have. 

You will find no official documents or legal notes because the police, experts or family would not be foolish enough to document their conspiracy down into the legal framework. You will find no such legal documents signed and dated where the police discuss manufacturing evidence. 

If a conspiracy has taken place it could only be unearthed by finding old letters and correspondence that where discussed secretly outside the official investigation. Or by spying on those involved and see if they implicated themselves in conversation with co conspirators and such conversation must be recorded. Hacking computers and intercepting e-mails of those involved (not advised)

Jeremy supporters must use the above methods to prove innocence, However be advised Telephone and Computer hacking is illegal, So is trespassing to obtain this information so do so at your own risk'.

-----------------

Mmm. So there is a mass of evidence against Bamber & no proof of forgery or perjury.

However it was possible to fabricate one piece of evidence but no proof this happened. Time to change stance.

[Adam]

Again I am agreeing with David -

No because you will have to actually find hidden evidence out in the field. To many supporters think they can prove his innocence by browsing the web it wont happen. 

This is what must happen 

Step 1. Supporters go looking for evidence of conspiracy against Jeremy 

Step 2. Supporters upload new perceived evidence of conspiracy to the Archive and Library 

Step 3. Possible evidence uploaded will be put under investigation and scrutiny by forum members

Step 4. Enough new evidence of conspiracy must get the Scipio seal of approval 

Step 5. Scipio approved Evidence of conspiracy gets sent to Jeremy's legal team. 

Step 6a. New evidence gets submitted by Jeremy's lawyers to be sent to the CCRC 
       6b. Evidence is so earth shattering it goes straight to the Crown Appeal Court.