My Challenge To The Supporters

[Jane]

Tedious; I did ask directly in writing, response in writing was obtained by a person visiting JB and forwarded to me.

It's been discussed, here, on numerous occasions, why it is JB might lie when responding to questions by letter.

[lookout]

I have little respect for many but I wouldn't show it.

I do have the greatest respect for nursing staff and paramedics who all do a wonderful job and are so hard working.

[David1819]

I have no reason to doubt what YOU say, but it appears that there may be room to question what JB has said. Not for the first time has it occurred to me that his story changes according to whom he's telling it. Various posters here have shown such to be the case.

I, too have said, that JB's counsel weren't convinced of his innocence -OR were more convinced that the evidence against him outweighed what could be offered in his favour. I'm aware it shouldn't make a difference and that the Defence should do their best to defend, but maybe JB didn't make it easy for them to do so?

What was your view on JB's counsel prior to your sudden change of stance in chorus with Caroline and Paul Harrison?

[guest29835]

It would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between supporters and geography.

Absolutely!  I bet you any amount of sausages that they're all from Wakefield, or thereabouts, and visit Jeremy every day with print-outs from the Forum!

Worse luck for them that you're here now.  Imagine Jeremy's face when he sees your incisive posts, cutting their arguments to ribbons.  He's probably resigned himself to another 30 years now after you demolished my Reasonable Doubt argument.  My goodness!

No wonder Roch has gone silent.  He is suitably chastised!

[Adam]

What was your view on JB's counsel prior to your sudden change of stance in chorus with Caroline and Paul Harrison?

What was your view prior to your stance change?

Doubtful it has changed. You have already given your two reasons for your change.

[killingeve]

Absolutely!  I bet you any amount of sausages that they're all from Wakefield, or thereabouts, and visit Jeremy every day with print-outs from the Forum!

Worse luck for them that you're here now.  Imagine Jeremy's face when he sees your incisive posts, cutting their arguments to ribbons.  He's probably resigned himself to another 30 years now after you demolished my Reasonable Doubt argument.  My goodness!

No wonder Roch has gone silent.  He is suitably chastised!

Straightforward when the case is a slam dunk! 

[lookout]

What was your view prior to your stance change?

Doubtful it has changed. You have already given your two reasons for your change.

I can remember David putting up some good posts on Red when he first began because I was hoping that he'd get poached over here and I even mentioned, not in as many words, that he was wasted on that forum. Next thing he appeared and although his views at the time were opposite to mine he did give a good discussion and didn't object to those of us whose views differed.
Seems so long ago 

[lookout]

Absolutely!  I bet you any amount of sausages that they're all from Wakefield, or thereabouts, and visit Jeremy every day with print-outs from the Forum!

Worse luck for them that you're here now.  Imagine Jeremy's face when he sees your incisive posts, cutting their arguments to ribbons.  He's probably resigned himself to another 30 years now after you demolished my Reasonable Doubt argument.  My goodness!

No wonder Roch has gone silent.  He is suitably chastised!

 

[guest29835]

 

Wakefield is rhubarb country.  This probably has a funny effect on all his supporters, making them spout nonsense.  What a blessing that Cambridgecutie is now here to put them right and instil some discipline!

[Adam]

I can remember David putting up some good posts on Red when he first began because I was hoping that he'd get poached over here and I even mentioned, not in as many words, that he was wasted on that forum. Next thing he appeared and although his views at the time were opposite to mine he did give a good discussion and didn't object to those of us whose views differed.
Seems so long ago 

David is still bringing up Jane's 'open' stance change. Which was about 5 years ago. He would be doing the same to Caroline if she was posting.

This is disappointing as he attempted a 'quiet' stance change himself. Saying 'all the forensics point to Jeremy' before eventually giving two reasons for his stance change.

[David1819]

What was your view prior to your stance change?

Doubtful it has changed. You have already given your two reasons for your change.

My view of the defence team is no different.

[David1819]

Straightforward when the case is a slam dunk!

If its a slamdunk, go ahead and make your case for why JB is guilty.

[Adam]

If its a slamdunk, go ahead and make your case for why JB is guilty.

That is what he/she has been doing since joining.

[lookout]

Wakefield is rhubarb country.  This probably has a funny effect on all his supporters, making them spout nonsense.  What a blessing that Cambridgecutie is now here to put them right and instil some discipline!

Depends on the compost too. 

[guest29835]

Depends on the compost too. 

I knew it!  Mind you, I don't blame you, Lookout.  It's these youngsters, Rob and Roch, who are the real transgressors.  Come on Cambridgecutie, time for some good old-fashioned straightening-them-out!  Six of the best!