Wow I am shocked my post hasn't been removed. Beetroot or no beetroot! I think my original post is quite well constructed actually and I notice that no replies refute anything I said.
It is because we've seen the same old unintelligent dirge before again and again repeated by PB (poor bastards) who have never done one iota of original thinking in their lives. But are content to steal other people's writings instead. Obviously we would respect your views if you had any real intelligence to read all the evidence that indicated Bamber's innocence. Instead of only believing in the light that enters through the cracks in your own roof. Please do us a favour. Do a bit more reading with an open mind before coming here with your own half baked theories. I find your posts offensive and inflammatory. Take care how you post in the future. And whilst I'm about it how about going to the foyer and introduding yourself before you charge into the living room with your muddy boots. Be nice to others and you may be surprised they may even be nice to you? But as it is I have no respect for your rudeness. 
Isn't that the 'unintelligent dirge' that got Bamber a life conviction and has lead to all his appeals failing? But you do make a good point; I did come in with a hostile attitude as I expected my post to be removed and not a word to be heard that Bamber is in fact guilty. I was wrong you.
I can assure you that my thoughts are not stolen from anyone else. They are the case as I understand it. I will endeavour to be more open minded though if someone would refute any of the original facts of the case as I stated them.
I will fight for Bamber's innocense if someone can show me that black is in fact white, night is in fact day and Jeremy Bamber is not a murdering swine.
Unfortunately PB you either haven't the intelligence to take note of my promptings to go to introduce yourself in the foyer. Or you are just plain rude to care? But one thing is obvious and it is that you assume everyone who disagrees with you on the forum are, "blinded idiots". Instead of taking the time to read all the evidence that was witheld from the jury at the trial.
In view of your attitude and continual refusal to heed my other warnings I therefore issue you a final warning to be polite to other folk on the forum. Just because people hold opposite views to you does not make them either blind, or idiots. Now are you going to play by this "honest forum's" rules or do I have to take more severe action?
But I envisage that are are much more intelligent than your first posts indicate and who knows? you may become an asset to the forum like Jackie Preece or Hartley? 
ps: you say, "I will fight for Bamber's innocense if someone can show me that black is in fact white, night is in fact day and Jeremy Bamber is not a murdering swine." There is so much evidence on the forum already without someone continually reiterating what has been pointed out numerous times. Just take your time and work your way through it and perhaps you may see that at least we are not all blinded idiots?
I have now introduced myself as requested. I will andeavour to be less confrontational and more polite on the forum.
I should be satisfied really; I mean Jeremy is exactly where he belongs as far as I am concerned. You are obviously as convinced of Bamber's innocense as I am of his guilt; can I ask you what is the major point of what you consider evidence that makes you believe that everyone conspired to have Bamber convicted?
I hope you will be specific and not just refer me to the miriads of posts on the forum.
There's no gain without pain, PB. If you want to grasp what Grahame has spent countless hours attempting to understand, then you need to put in the research.
I don't have a strong grasp of conspiracy theories, so instead have focussed on the shroud of secrecy that was thrown across this case via a PII gagging order and the network of unaccountable influence that has been brought to bear on the case.
Why has the defence team of a man who has been imprisoned for almost 26 years, all the while insisting on his innocence, been consistently denied a huge body of evidence against him: because this evidence would in fact prove his innocence? The sheer volume of withheld evidence in this case is highly suspicious. There's something rotten behind it, of that I have no doubt.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear? It seems that the powers that be have far too much to hide in this case.
What sort of justice system sends a man to prison for quarter of a century while refusing him access to the evidence against him? Not a democratic and just one. The rough justice meted out to Jeremy Bamber's is more consistent with that commonly found in authoritarian regime such as Communist China than the justice system of the mother of democracy. It makes me deeply ashamed that this is the case.
I have many other reasons for demanding that Jeremy Bamber receive a fair trial/ Appeal, but the use of this insidious veil of PII secrecy to deny him the basic human right of a fair trial is my main reason for believing JB is innocent. Jeremy Bamber has certainly never been proved guilty because the standard of justice meted out to him at his trial was, and continues to be, riddled with injustice.
