Questions for Steve

[Adam]

Julie Mugford AND the silencer are the most important pieces of evidence against Bamber, yes.  But all trials involve such pieces of evidence.  There's also a mountain of other less important evidence against Bamber which when taken as a whole is quite insurmountable in my opinion.

The other forensic evidence is just as important.

But appreciate supporters will focus on one piece. Trying to fire fight them all will be impossible.

[lookout]

Same woman hadn't been " blinded by love " because she never loved him to start with, only the financial situation he was in. It was clearly a spiteful entry she'd made in her statements and she knew that she'd shot herself in the foot given her own past drug-dealings that she wouldn't have been allowed to work with children in this country, that her only option was to go abroad. EP must have realised that---hence the NoTW to the rescue.

" If I can't have you, nobody else can  ! "

[Adam]

Having a straight forward Bamber scenario matching the crime scene evidence is also very damaging to Bamber.

Not just mine, but CAL did one.

Rob's main criticism on seeing my scenario for the first time was that it was dark outside!

[killingeve]

Same woman hadn't been " blinded by love " because she never loved him to start with, only the financial situation he was in. It was clearly a spiteful entry she'd made in her statements and she knew that she'd shot herself in the foot given her own past drug-dealings that she wouldn't have been allowed to work with children in this country, that her only option was to go abroad. EP must have realised that---hence the NoTW to the rescue.

" If I can't have you, nobody else can  ! "

You and JackieD are two peas in a pod!  Both utterly clueless about the forensic aspects of the case so just attack the main prosecution witness. 

[Steve_uk]

I suggest the threads Question for Adam and Steve, Question for Steve and Question for Adam be merged.

[lookout]

You and JackieD are two peas in a pod!  Both utterly clueless about the forensic aspects of the case so just attack the main prosecution witness.

What forensic aspect would that be ?

[Adam]

You and JackieD are two peas in a pod!  Both utterly clueless about the forensic aspects of the case so just attack the main prosecution witness.

Maybe JackieD will respond to my 'Question for JackieD' thread.

Since joining the forum, she has only posted about Julie.

[killingeve]

Maybe JackieD will respond to my 'Question for JackieD' thread.

Since joining the forum, she has only posted about Julie.

I think they fail to understand the strength of all the forensic evidence against Bamber. 

[lookout]

I keep asking for forensic evidence but it never comes forthwith.

[killingeve]

What forensic aspect would that be ?

It is the sort of question I would expect from you after nearly a decade here and tens of thousands of posts.

The silencer and lack of any injuries and debris of any type on Sheila.  How's that for starters.

[killingeve]

I keep asking for forensic evidence but it never comes forthwith.

Try reading the appeal court document 2002. 

[lookout]

It is the sort of question I would expect from you after nearly a decade here and tens of thousands of posts.

The silencer and lack of any injuries and debris of any type on Sheila.  How's that for starters.

I'm talking about JB !

[Adam]

Try reading the appeal court document 2002.

Lookout is well aware of all the forensic evidence.

She is playing ignorant again for attention.

[killingeve]

I'm talking about JB !

So am I!

[lookout]

Lookout is well aware of all the forensic evidence.

She is playing ignorant again for attention.

It's not me who's ignorant. I keep asking the same question but never get a straight answer.