Bamber's reaction to Nevill's 11 words.

[guest29835]

Where there has been a crime resulting in death, the importance of having temperatures  taken is imperative in also convicting the assailant.

The responsibility for this was with the police surgeon.  You would think that as it was a suspected murder-suicide, checking the body temperature at scene would be a fundamental step.  Body temperature cannot necessarily be relied on, as there are other factors, but at least it gives a precise benchmark.

Something similar happened in the Gilfoyle case.  The police surgeon in attendance did not check the body temperature, instead he relied on visible deduction and effectively he and the pathologist made an educated guess about the rough time of death.

[Jane]

What do you mean by this?

What trouble had Jeremy given Sheila and the twins prior to the killings?

Where does it indicate that I'm implying such?

Okay. Just had a re-read. I said "the person" -in this case, being her mother- assuming it would be recognized to whom I referred.

[guest29835]

Might be cheeky but it's true.  Granted he's not in the relegation zone like Lookout and JackieD.

I spent some 18 months reading the case material before I started posting here. Most just join and spout.

JackieD and Lookout may stay up on goal difference.  I expect you'll be competing in the Champions' League soon.  I think Adam should be promoted to the Premiership.  He's languished for too long in the lower divisions.

[guest29835]

Where does it indicate that I'm implying such?

In the very sentence I quoted, and you weren't implying it, you were stating it explicitly.

[Adam]

It is implied by guilters that Bamber used the alleged 'fostering conversation' as a vehicle to explain Sheila's actions ie killings. My point is, how would Bamber have any understanding in advance, that such a conversation (for which no details were given) would be the catalyst for the killings? He doesn't even claim she was angry. Instead, he depicts her as vacant.

The raid team have already cleared Bamber re the placing of the rifle on top of Sheila. It's just that nobody within EP decided that the defence should be given such information. And therefore, nobody in the jury heard such information.

Would not need any understanding that a mother being threatened to have her children fostered would have a negative effect.

[Adam]

JackieD and Lookout may stay up on goal difference.  I expect you'll be competing in the Champions' League soon.  I think Adam should be promoted to the Premiership.  He's languished for too long in the lower divisions.

You got put out of business. By the legal system & then NGB.

[guest29835]

You got put out of business. By the legal system & then NGB.

I wasn't put out of business by the legal system or NGB1066.  No idea what you are talking about.

You are a troll, spammer and a liar.  That is fact.

[Roch]

I spent some 18 months reading the case material before I started posting here.

Not strictly true though, tbf.

[guest29835]

Not strictly true though, tbf.

This is what she said on joining:

Hi.  I joined earlier in the year having watched the ITV series.  Recently watched the Sky doc and thought I would throw in my two-penneth from time-to-time!

Open to interpretation.

[Adam]

I wasn't put out of business by the legal system or NGB1066.  No idea what you are talking about.

You are a troll, spammer and a liar.  That is fact.

I post on one forum.

You are the one continually trolling me . Talking about & calling me names.

Grow up unless you really are 12 years old.

[Roch]

This is what she said on joining:

Open to interpretation.

I can translate, though I have no desire to persecute CC on here. I suppose I will just have to try and adjust my responses to her and be less abrasive.

[lookout]

You got put out of business. By the legal system & then NGB.

You are such a snide Adam !

[Adam]

You are such a snide Adam !

Just responding to QC posting about me in reply 32.

Keep up.

[lookout]

Just responding to QC posting about me in reply 32.

Keep up.

There's NO need to be personal in your remarks. Look to yourself.

[guest29835]

I post on one forum.

You are the one continually trolling me . Talking about & calling me names.

Grow up unless you really are 12 years old.

I'm dishing out to you what you have been dishing out here for years, with apparently impunity.  You cruelly mocked Mike for years with your snide and nasty 'Thanks Mike' jibe, but now I give you the same treatment, you don't like it and you loudly object and bring the moderator into it.

You have also been repeatedly snide towards me, so I now respond in kind and again, you don't like it.

Jane and others mention nothing about all this history and act as if you are a bone fide poster, when you are clearly not.  On your own admission, you lied about your reasons for joining and your stance.

Come on, you don't fool me, even if you have fooled others here who should know better.