Industrial Frame Department

[Roch]

I have done no such thing, you lying scumbag.

I was expecting fireworks when I first saw Steve's post.

[guest29835]

I was expecting fireworks when I first saw Steve's post.

He is a liar, a troublemaker and a scumbag.

If the moderator would care to ban me for calling it as it is, I will treat that as a badge of honour.

[guest7363]

I've never changed stance but I have considered guilt in varying degrees. I don't think I have ever stated that I was 100% certain JB had no involvement. I once described my position as 90/10 and this was mocked by some hardcore reds. Even 80/20 isn't a bad call and I can definitely remember being 70/30. RJ is referring to a brief period where I was close to 50/50 or maybe even tipping over to the dark side 🤮. I probably did contact Bill after that. I wanted to know whether his views had changed at all since he first started posting (but had subsequently stopped posting, about a year previously). He confirmed his views had altered slightly on detail but not in the main. I think RJ is right on that score. I have never 100% agreed with Bill on everything. He can confirm that I have expressed my own opinions behind the scenes. I have my own mind on the case. I think I have a good grasp of the case in some respects but not others. I have described my position in more detail on many occasions and happy to do it again. There are many ways to approach this case. I see it as a globe or sphere, with other members approaching it from all different angles and different locations around the sphere.

Thanks Roch for your honest post.  I think with me, I started just looking on here for a long while reading everything Mike said, it all made sense to me at the time. When I eventually joined, it still was a while before access to statements and court testimonies and Appeals was available, when I started reading them I think that was the turning point.  As you know Hartley and Vidic were formidable and made a lot of sense.

[Roch]

Thanks Roch for your honest post.  I think with me, I started just looking on here for a long while reading everything Mike said, it all made sense to me at the time. When I eventually joined, it still was a while before access to statements and court testimonies and Appeals was available, when I started reading them I think that was the turning point.  As you know Hartley and Vidic were formidable and made a lot of sense.

I too was enthralled by Mike's posts. I have to say, if Mike had forced himself to avoid adopting similar tactics to the prosecution, I think he would have went from strength to strength. Some of his posts were superb. However, Mike tried to show us that he too could bend the truth, just like the prosecution had, but for the opposite purposes. The problem with that is that two wrongs don't make a right. I believe it backfired on Mike. Nevertheless, nobody can take away from him, the good stuff he has done and the sublime posts he has posted, despite the other stuff. 

Hartley was formidable as a guilter. He could play dirty also - but Mike left himself vulnerable by trying to bend the truth or exaggarate - and this allowed Hartley to start picking him off.

Vic was a nice person and was case knowledgeable from his own research but was very biased. Vic struggled to understand how Mike could post five different views on the same topic - but I could see that Mike was more open to solving something by reconsidering different explanations for it.

[guest7363]

I too was enthralled by Mike's posts. I have to say, if Mike had forced himself to avoid adopting similar tactics to the prosecution, I think he would have went from strength to strength. Some of his posts were superb. However, Mike tried to show us that he too could bend the truth, just like the prosecution had, but for the opposite purposes. The problem with that is that two wrongs don't make a right. I believe it backfired on Mike. Nevertheless, nobody can take away from him, the good stuff he has done and the sublime posts he has posted, despite the other stuff. 

Hartley was formidable as a guilter. He could play dirty also - but Mike left himself vulnerable by trying to bend the truth or exaggarate - and this allowed Hartley to start picking him off.

Vic was a nice person and was case knowledgeable from his own research but was very biased. Vic struggled to understand how Mike could post five different views on the same topic - but I could see that Mike was more open to solving something by reconsidering different explanations for it.

I agree with most of your post Roch and it’s very well presented, I disagree about Hartley, I don’t think it was Dirty, I think he liked to tease that’s all a bit like you and me, maybe he’s rubbed off on us, your a tease anyway Roch 😂👍

[Roch]

this forum.


Thank-you Roch, but when I feel the need to speak with a counsellor, it will be a professional, NOT this forum.

As for the reasons for my change of stance -and thank-you for your approval- but having explained, ad nauseum, there really is no point in my 'exploring' it any further when there are morons and axxxxxxxs who refuse to accept it. Frankly, I don't actually care that the "switch does create some puzzling areas with regards to your original stance" because it's no one else's business. At least I didn't come onto this site pretending, like some, to hold one stance whilst believing the other.

David's questions to me, whatever they are, won't be fair -and you're VERY naive to believe them to be so- they will be calculated to goad, which is why I have him on ignore.

I'm not so certain that 'Judge Jane' should get off the hook so lightly. I think you should do the opposite of what you have done and consider his questions. However, I agree, David can at times appear goading 

[Jane]

I'm not so certain that 'Judge Jane' should get off the hook so lightly. I think you should do the opposite of what you have done and consider his questions. However, I agree, David can at times appear goading 

Roch, nothing which is said here is new. It's all regurgitated stuff. We are presently going over 'stuff' that we were discussing when I first joined. I've already given my reasons for changing stance but it seems that David has chosen to dismiss that. In truth, I don't believe him to be interested, but goading me -and others-  seems to give him sport and may go some way to drawing the flack away from him, his REAL stance when he joined, his own alleged change of stance, and his scientific breakthrough.

I've said quite enough about why I changed. Perhaps you'd like to give us chapter and verse on your own reasons for so doing. I'm told you've had several such? At least I've only changed once.

[guest7363]

Roch, nothing which is said here is new. It's all regurgitated stuff. We are presently going over 'stuff' that we were discussing when I first joined. I've already given my reasons for changing stance but it seems that David has chosen to dismiss that. In truth, I don't believe him to be interested, but goading me -and others-  seems to give him sport and may go some way to drawing the flack away from him, his REAL stance when he joined, his own alleged change of stance, and his scientific breakthrough.

I've said quite enough about why I changed. Perhaps you'd like to give us chapter and verse on your own reasons for so doing. I'm told you've had several such? At least I've only changed once.

I think Roch has been honest Jane and he gives me credit, I knew all along he had his head turned by Bill.

[Jane]

I too was enthralled by Mike's posts. I have to say, if Mike had forced himself to avoid adopting similar tactics to the prosecution, I think he would have went from strength to strength. Some of his posts were superb. However, Mike tried to show us that he too could bend the truth, just like the prosecution had, but for the opposite purposes. The problem with that is that two wrongs don't make a right. I believe it backfired on Mike. Nevertheless, nobody can take away from him, the good stuff he has done and the sublime posts he has posted, despite the other stuff. 

Hartley was formidable as a guilter. He could play dirty also - but Mike left himself vulnerable by trying to bend the truth or exaggarate - and this allowed Hartley to start picking him off.

Vic was a nice person and was case knowledgeable from his own research but was very biased. Vic struggled to understand how Mike could post five different views on the same topic - but I could see that Mike was more open to solving something by reconsidering different explanations for it.

As was I. However, when I extricated what was true, from what he wanted us to believe to be true, there was huge discrepancy. It was then reasonable to wonder why it was so necessary for a supporter to stray so far from the path of truth, and from there just a very small step to seeds, creeping in, about whether or not JB was innocent.

[Roch]

I think Roch has been honest Jane and he gives me credit, I knew all along he had his head turned by Bill.

I didn't so much have my 'head turned' by Bill. The chances of me ever really becoming a guilter were very slim. I posted on and off for a few years as pro innocence before Bill's first post. Bill took a break from the forum for about a year. During a time of relative disinterest with the forum, I contacted Bill and struck up a dialogue with him. It was learning of Sheila's non gunshot wounds that reignited my interest in the case and got me posting again. My only foray in to suspecting guilt was in relation to Jeremy having been an assistant, accomplice or having foreknowledge of Sheila's intentions to some extent. I still retain a small space in my stance for that. For example, did Jeremy leave the rifle out deliberately for Sheila to enable her to end her own life?

[Jane]

I think Roch has been honest Jane and he gives me credit, I knew all along he had his head turned by Bill.

I didn't need a 'Bill', RJ. I had a friend who was there. I disagreed with him for many years. Sadly, he died before I could tell him that I'd come to the conclusion he was right.

[killingeve]

I didn't so much have my 'head turned' by Bill. The chances of me ever really becoming a guilter were very slim. I posted on and off for a few years as pro innocence before Bill's first post. Bill took a break from the forum for about a year. During a time of relative disinterest with the forum, I contacted Bill and struck up a dialogue with him. It was learning of Sheila's non gunshot wounds that reignited my interest in the case and got me posting again. My only foray in to suspecting guilt was in relation to Jeremy having been an assistant, accomplice or having foreknowledge of Sheila's intentions to some extent. I still retain a small space in my stance for that. For example, did Jeremy leave the rifle out deliberately for Sheila to enable her to end her own life?

What non gunshot wounds?  The only other wound observed by the HO pathologist was some sort of scratch on her abdomen covered by a dressing. The idea that a heavyweight like Prof Knight for the defence overlooked anything is completely out of the question. 

Even if Bamber left the rifle out there's no way of knowing whether or not Mr Bamber (or any of the other occupants) moved it to the den/gun cupboard especially with two young children running about.   

Like most 'supporters' you can't see the wood for the trees.

[Roch]

I didn't need a 'Bill', RJ. I had a friend who was there. I disagreed with him for many years. Sadly, he died before I could tell him that I'd come to the conclusion he was right.

Maybe it will turn out you were originally right. I didn't need a Bill to confirm Bamber was probably innocent - as I have said, there was a very slim chance of me ever turning to the dark side. I just found that the wounds issue reignited my interest in the case and in the forum.

[killingeve]

Maybe it will turn out you were originally right. I didn't need a Bill to confirm Bamber was probably innocent - as I have said, there was a very slim chance of me ever turning to the dark side. I just found that the wounds issue reignited my interest in the case and in the forum.

What wounds issue?

[guest7363]

Maybe it will turn out you were originally right. I didn't need a Bill to confirm Bamber was probably innocent - as I have said, there was a very slim chance of me ever turning to the dark side. I just found that the wounds issue reignited my interest in the case and in the forum.

I object to this comment Roch, we’re getting all sorts of accusations thrown our way, I’m being described as a toilet cleaner and someone who kisses Bottoms and sucks dangly things, now this.  Surely their has to be some sort of respect.  Enough is enough, I’ve never asked for anyone to be banned but I’m beginning to loose my patience.