Lest We Forget...................

[Jane]

It will be hard to change stance. It means someone changing their mind on a long term view. Publically admitting they were wrong.

David attempted a quiet stance change. So he could quote 5 year old posts of Caroline & Jane.  He eventually gave two reasons, one he refuses to discuss. As well as claiming he made a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' but refusing to say what it was.

Jane changed stance without a reason & Caroline has given one reason.

Okay, Adam. If the reasons I think I gave -one of them definitely being Nevill's alleged call and what he did about it- weren't clear enough to define why I went from innocent to guilty, I'll give you the ONLY reasons why I thought he was innocent.

 The second, and rather insignificant reason, was local interest. It was on the doorstep. The first, and far and away, the most important to me, was that he was adopted, and that was before I realized how similar had run our lives. Both reasons are nothing more than an emotional response. Had anyone asked my why I believed he was innocent, I could only have said it was because he was adopted. When the chips are down, such an emotional response doesn't hold water.

[Adam]

Okay, Adam. If the reasons I think I gave -one of them definitely being Nevill's alleged call and what he did about it- weren't clear enough to define why I went from innocent to guilty, I'll give you the ONLY reasons why I thought he was innocent.

 The second, and rather insignificant reason, was local interest. It was on the doorstep. The first, and far and away, the most important to me, was that he was adopted, and that was before I realized how similar had run our lives. Both reasons are nothing more than an emotional response. Had anyone asked my why I believed he was innocent, I could only have said it was because he was adopted. When the chips are down, such an emotional response doesn't hold water.

You were a supporter because he was adopted? Similar to Lookout supporting him because of a gut feeling in 1985.

Other posters such as Susan watched the 'Crimes that shook Britain' documentary. Then came straight onto this forum when it was 90% pro Bamber. So became a hardcore supporter.

Every murder case, a conviction/aquital will be just about the evidence. Meaning Bamber is guilty. Remaining supporters such as Lookout & JackieD focus on gut feelings & distaste at Julie identifying the bodies.

[Jane]

You were a supporter because he was adopted? Similar to Lookout supporting him because of a gut feeling in 1985.

Other posters such as Susan watched the 'Crimes that shook Britain' documentary. Then came straight onto this forum when it was 90% pro Bamber. So became a hardcore supporter.

Every murder case, a conviction/aquital will be just about the evidence. Meaning Bamber is guilty. Remaining supporters such as Lookout & JackieD focus on gut feelings & distaste at Julie identifying the bodies.

Adam, you sound incredulous? Deciding he was innocent JUST because of that would make no sense, would it? You could say it was "gut feeling".  Perhaps you're unaware that I'm adopted?

[guest29835]

You were a supporter because he was adopted? Similar to Lookout supporting him because of a gut feeling in 1985.

Other posters such as Susan watched the 'Crimes that shook Britain' documentary. Then came straight onto this forum when it was 90% pro Bamber. So became a hardcore supporter.

Every murder case, a conviction/aquital will be just about the evidence. Meaning Bamber is guilty. Remaining supporters such as Lookout & JackieD focus on gut feelings & distaste at Julie identifying the bodies.

Thanks Adam.  I think Jeremy has a nice voice and wears his sports shirts quite well, plus he was nice to me in a letter, so that's why I plump for innocent.  I did have second thoughts after that 3 a.m. phone call, which got me up in the middle of the night, but he turned on the charm and the rest is history.

What about you, Adam?  Why have you changed your mind and now think Jeremy is innocent?  Don't tell me it's because he likes Eastenders!  After everything Peggy, Frank and Pat have done!

[David1819]

It will be hard to change stance. It means someone changing their mind on a long term view. Publically admitting they were wrong.

David attempted a quiet stance change. So he could quote 5 year old posts of Caroline & Jane.  He eventually gave two reasons, one he refuses to discuss. As well as claiming he made a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' but refusing to say what it was.

Jane changed stance without a reason & Caroline has given one reason.

My reasons are fully explained here.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855

[David1819]

    He didn't know how much was in the wallet. He also didn't know that Anne Eaton had taken it and that she withheld this information from him when he complained to the police about the wallet being missing. Jeremy said there was 4/500 hundred pounds in the wallet as I remember.
   Anne Eaton definitely knew how much it contained because it was she who had removed her deceased uncle's wallet.
   The letters won't be posted because there are a standing joke and easily dissected

I have some saved for prosperity. 

"22/4/13         JEREMY BAMBER
                         A5352AC
                         HM FULL SUTTON
                         YORK
                         YO411PS

DEAR CAROLINE
I THOUGHT THAT ID ANSWERED
YOUR LAST LETTER, BUT MAY
BE NOT - I GET A BIT
MUDDLED SOMETIMES AS
I GET LOADS OF MAIL WHEN
THAT SKY TV PROGS ON AND
I DON'T KNOW QUITE WHAT
I'M DOING. I KNOW YOU
ASKED ME A PARTICULAR
QUESTION - I CANT RECALL
WHAT IT WAS NOW - I KNOW
THE ANSWER WAS NO OR
ITS NOT TRUE."

[Adam]

My reasons are fully explained here.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9026.msg427855.html#msg427855

I know. I have recently posted this.

Two reasons. Eventually.

[guest29835]

Thanks Adam.  I think Jeremy has a nice voice and wears his sports shirts quite well, plus he was nice to me in a letter, so that's why I plump for innocent.  I did have second thoughts after that 3 a.m. phone call, which got me up in the middle of the night, but he turned on the charm and the rest is history.

What about you, Adam?  Why have you changed your mind and now think Jeremy is innocent?  Don't tell me it's because he likes Eastenders!  After everything Peggy, Frank and Pat have done!

Oh, I forgot another reason - I think he looks quite swish in those nice pink plimsolls.  He has to be innocent on that basis alone.

[guest29835]

Oh, I forgot another reason - I think he looks quite swish in those nice pink plimsolls.  He has to be innocent on that basis alone.

I've thought of another one!  What am I like?!  I like his stylish glasses, they make him look professorial.  I really think somebody with his edge in couture can't be a killer.

[lookout]

Christie wore John Lennon glasses but they didn't alter his ways did they ?

[Roch]

Yes, Bambergate - have you seen him video on Youtube? 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcaWYr3O3eE

Personally, I think it's embarrassing!

I have a lot of respect for Mark. He wrote some great posts as Ron Crook and Bambergate.  He tried something different. A kind of private investigation directly with several protagonists in the case.

You would chose Mick Ainsley and the evidence corralled under his stewardship as being a more reliable source.  All I see is a ruthless, crooked cop.

I'd rather throw my lot in with Mark if I had a choice.

[guest29835]

Christie wore John Lennon glasses but they didn't alter his ways did they ?

That is a fair point.  Perhaps I need to go back to the drawing board, but remember, the pink plimsolls might be enough.