Evidence of Jeremy Bamber's Guilt

[tyler]

Likewise Hartley.I too am anti-murderer.And like you,but on the other end of the scale,if someone could show me a piece of hard evidence that proves his guilt,then I would gladly agree that he should rot in prison for the rest of his life.
I have no amniosity for people that believe in his guilt.I can respect other peoples beliefs and opinions even if I disagree with them.That is why I started this thread,to perhaps learn something.
Unfortunately, Im still waiting.............

[Enigma]

Sorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!

I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.
My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.

Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?

Please feel free to get stuck in...............

Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.

But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

How do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!

 

[nugnug]

what does a recognized crime writer mean exactly.

[tyler]

Poor Bambi.Its that the best that you can do? Bob Woffindens article?True,he is a recognized crime writer,but I thought  that he wrote non fiction?

Unfortunately,I dont know how to put up links,but on this forum there is a statement from the phone repair man in which he states that when he went to whf to collect the cordless phone in order to repair,that he saw the ivory ring dial telephone,in situ,in the kitchen.Prior to the murders.So that scuppers BW's fantasy of Jeremy switching phones around on the night of the murder.

There is also documentation on the forum that the police took away Jeremy's wetsuit for forensic tests and found NOTHING. Another of BW's theories scuppered.Same with the bicycle,forensically tested......and NOTHING found.
Or does BW know better than the forensic team   

[Jackiepreece]

Hartley has just started posting regularly and Dave and Poorbambi has come here at the same time looks like they come as a team


Good thread Tyler and I asked the same question at 2.30 this morning.
There is NO evidence thats why these people keep falling back on Jeremy must be guilty because a jury found him guilty

Not even worth debating with people like THAT

[Hartley]

Hartley has just started posting regularly and Dave and Poorbambi has come here at the same time looks like they come as a team


Good thread Tyler and I asked the same question at 2.30 this morning.
There is NO evidence thats why these people keep falling back on Jeremy must be guilty because a jury found him guilty

Not even worth debating with people like THAT

Oh Jackie that's rubbish, I come and go as I please, my opinions are my own, I don't come as a team with anybody.

[Jackiepreece]

Hartley how long since you were posting regularily apart from the statements I am talking about on a daily basis

[Hartley]

Hartley how long since you were posting regularily apart from the statements I am talking about on a daily basis

Since before I went on holiday for two weeks with my wife and kids, is that okay with you?

[Jackiepreece]

Its been more than 2 weeks I reckon you had a hissy fit when John was banned

I have a question for you if it is proved the scratch marks were made after the murders and the silencer was planted by the family how long do you think someone like Anne Eaton should be jailed for and take into consideration what Mike said Full Sutton was like

[Hartley]

Its been more than 2 weeks I reckon you had a hissy fit when John was banned

I have a question for you if it is proved the scratch marks were made after the murders and the silencer was planted by the family how long do you think someone like Anne Eaton should be jailed for and take into consideration what Mike said Full Sutton was like

Jackie you have obviously forgotten our discussion regarding the 7/7 bombings at the beginning of July.

You are as pleasant as ever as usual, goodnight.

[Jackiepreece]

Thats the way you roll Hartley but I will show you tonight some pacifics me versus you and John

Night Hartley

[modus tollens]

Sorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!

I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.
My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.

Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?

Please feel free to get stuck in...............

Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.

But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

How do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!

It seems to me that your posts have been lacking in any real argumentative substance. You let us know what your feelings are, what your attitude is and that’s about it. I admit that, like Rochford, I noticed a great similarity to that Felicity Jane blogger.
I wonder if you could give us an intellectual response to the following quotation from the Wikipedia entry.

“In 2005, the defence obtained reports from two medical experts, a Professor Marco Meloni and a Professor Cavalli, who expressed the view, based on the photographs, that Sheila had died no more than two hours before the time of the photographs or PC Woodcock's description of the leaking blood; this would place her death during the period Bamber was standing outside the house with the police.”

[grahameb]

Sorry to disappoint you.............but I have none!

I have noticed that some posters are asking to see proof of Jeremy's innocence.
My answer to that,is that it is all around the forum if you care to look and are intelligent enough to understand.

Likewise,I would like to ask,Where is the proof that points to Jeremys guilt?

Please feel free to get stuck in...............

Bamber was innocent until proven guilty. He was PROVED guilty at trial and is one of a select few with a wholelife tarrif. The proof is in the offical transcripts of the trial and in his sentence.

But if that isn't good enough for you I refer you to Bob Woffinden's excellent article on the MailOnLine website: I am sure you know that he is a recognised crime writer who previously had written articles supporting Bamber. Here is the link:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html

How do I know you will just dismiss this out of hand? Just the same as all Bamber's supporters on here who refer every difficult question to answers 'all around the forum' as you did above!

Unfortunately Woffendin's article was old news and is based entirely upon theories that have been long forgotten. His article wasn't excellent it was rubbish. If you want excellent articles then I refer you to Scott Lomax's book. A thoroughly well researched and fair book. I know people who know Woffendin and even they are puzzled as to why he's changed his opinion. Which is just that, an opinion. An opinion by the way that completely contradicts everything he has written over the years. Well I think that says more about him than about Bamber. Why are people so gullible as to drink down everything they are offered, just because that particular writer agrees with them? Why on earth don't people do their own research regarding these these things?

[grahameb]

Its been more than 2 weeks I reckon you had a hissy fit when John was banned

Actually he didn't Jackie. He quite understood the reason. I don't think he agreed with me banning him as also several others, some pro Bamber didn't either. But it's a bit harsh to criticise someone because of the amount of times they post don't you think?

[tyler]

Still waiting for the hard evidence...........................