Author Topic: Ballistics manipulation  (Read 10736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #90 on: July 28, 2023, 08:56:PM »
It's not a Mexican standoff because we don't accept police shot Sheila. All the permutations the Defence has come up with over 38 years have failed, because rational people know they are falsifications.

I'm sure we're all sorry for the personal attacks. We've been on this site for years and take them with a pinch of salt.
Ok I trust if I return the favour you will not respond and take it with a pinch of salt. The police did not shoot Sheila she committed suicide. They desecrated her corpse. Lets agree my position without distortion by language use. Thanks

Offline Zoso

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2440
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #91 on: July 28, 2023, 08:59:PM »
Ok I trust if I return the favour you will not respond and take it with a pinch of salt. The police did not shoot Sheila she committed suicide. They desecrated her corpse. Lets agree my position without distortion by language use. Thanks

Unless you're 'above it', you can't really complain.

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #92 on: July 28, 2023, 09:00:PM »
I've had loads of crap on here, when I thought Bamber innocent, it came from the guilty side. That changed when I changed my mind. Obviously, the people who don't agree with you are more likely to be the ones to goad
Look where it starts is what I asked not a history lesson. I have never criticized your change in stance to my knowledge even though I think it is misplaced.

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #93 on: July 28, 2023, 09:04:PM »
Its not a fact. And I don't believe it either.
I am happy to take the view of a forensic expert with 39 years experience.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #94 on: July 28, 2023, 09:12:PM »
Ok I trust if I return the favour you will not respond and take it with a pinch of salt. The police did not shoot Sheila she committed suicide. They desecrated her corpse. Lets agree my position without distortion by language use. Thanks
But you said police shot her in the neck after she committed suicide. Why would they do that and can you name any of the protagonists in the case who agree that Sheila was suicidal?

Your post:

I believe the original scenario which they planned involved a restaging and included the shooting of Sheila by June in some manner. For this it required Sheila to be shot with two different weapons. They shot her in the neck after she had committed suicide calling it the first shot.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2023, 09:14:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #95 on: July 28, 2023, 09:20:PM »
But you said police shot her in the neck after she committed suicide. Why would they do that and can you name any of the protagonists in the case who agree that Sheila was suicidal?

Your post:

I believe the original scenario which they planned involved a restaging and included the shooting of Sheila by June in some manner. For this it required Sheila to be shot with two different weapons. They shot her in the neck after she had committed suicide calling it the first shot.
I am happy with that quote because it reflects my thinking. An improvement would be that they were going to say June had shot and wounded SC before she committed suicide.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33775
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #96 on: July 28, 2023, 09:34:PM »
It matters not to me but if I react to the crap that is thrown I am castigated and told to be civil. It seems civility is a one way street where only guilters are allowed to chide and goad but when an innocence supporter returns the favour we get our knuckles rapped. From what I observe it is always the guilters that instigate. Read the posts on this thread. Seems to me you view things from a guilter perspective. Wake up and see where the initial 'shit' is started.


Surely you have to see that if you call all JB's detractors comments as "crap", you're entitled to find yourself "castigated"? The above post is neither tongue in cheek or mildly sarcastic. It's downright hostile. May I suggest you stop playing victim.

Offline David1819

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13781
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #97 on: July 28, 2023, 09:40:PM »
Was Paul Harrison a member then Dave?

Yes.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #98 on: July 28, 2023, 09:49:PM »
I am happy with that quote because it reflects my thinking. An improvement would be that they were going to say June had shot and wounded SC before she committed suicide.
I can't work out whether the Jeremy supporters genuinely believe in his innocence or spend hours working out a scenario which puts him in the clear.

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13151
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #99 on: July 28, 2023, 09:58:PM »
I can't work out whether the Jeremy supporters genuinely believe in his innocence or spend hours working out a scenario which puts him in the clear.

The law in this country is well established.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.

The only 'evidence' against him was his ex girlfriend, a silencer which had a blood grouping, and circumstanial evidence of his own apparent mishaps behaviour

I don't think the realms of the 1986 trial was fair.

The judge summed up in a biased manner. Reference the silencer.

The trial should have been held outside Essex.

Just one of a number of reasons
« Last Edit: July 28, 2023, 10:00:PM by ILB »
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #100 on: July 28, 2023, 10:06:PM »
The law in this country is well established.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.

The only 'evidence' against him was his ex girlfriend, a silencer which had a blood grouping, and circumstanial evidence of his own apparent mishaps behaviour

I don't think the realms of the 1986 trial was fair.

The judge summed up in a biased manner. Reference the silencer.

The trial should have been held outside Essex.

Just one of a number of reasons
You're forgetting the purported telephone call from Nevill, to a man whom Nevill suspected was out to kill him. As for the legal process, I'm sure the British taxpayers are well aware how much Mr. Jeremy Bamber has already cost them.

Offline ILB

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 13151
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #101 on: July 28, 2023, 10:16:PM »
You're forgetting the purported telephone call from Nevill, to a man whom Nevill suspected was out to kill him. As for the legal process, I'm sure the British taxpayers are well aware how much Mr. Jeremy Bamber has already cost them.

The phonecall could never be proved or disproved due to it being 1985. 

Reference the taxpayer. I don't think they are bothered directly. Jeremy Bamber is low profile in comparison to a Ian Huntley type of figure

Many people haven't even heard of him !
« Last Edit: July 28, 2023, 10:17:PM by ILB »
If yesterday you hated me. Then today you can not stop the love that binds from me to you. And you to me

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #102 on: July 28, 2023, 10:30:PM »

Surely you have to see that if you call all JB's detractors comments as "crap", you're entitled to find yourself "castigated"? The above post is neither tongue in cheek or mildly sarcastic. It's downright hostile. May I suggest you stop playing victim.
It matters not to me but if I react to the crap that is thrown I am castigated and told to be civil. It seems civility is a one way street where only guilters are allowed to chide and goad but when an innocence supporter returns the favour we get our knuckles rapped. From what I observe it is always the guilters that instigate. Read the posts on this thread. Seems to me you view things from a guilter perspective. Wake up and see where the initial 'shit' is started.

[/quote]
To Zoso
On this thread Steve made the age comment David accused me of taking drugs and Jane made a contribution that did not address the issue but was more like a health and safety talk on Aga's .Adam has been told off for calling me mad. Jane thinks agreeing with one thing MT says undermines my argument. Just check their posts. It is all par for the course if you support innocence. It is all totally pointless jibeing. You mistakenly accused me of using science for my whole theory when I was only referring  to the bullet swap. You all dash in without thought.
I reply in a similar vain.

[/quote]
The problem for those who believe JB guilty is that for years the only real evidence against him has been the SM and the testimony of a jilted lover who is a proven liar and a fraud. The SM has been undone by many including myself, there was always 2 and it was the main plank of the prosecution case.
Overtime the remaining circumstantial evidence like bike rides on sea walls and windows has been chipped away. They are seen for what they are just stories made up to cast JB as ruthless money seeking killer.

They are now reduced to 'over the garden fence' tittle tattle and gossip with no evidential purpose.
He said this which means this. He did that which means this. It is all about how they know what people were thinking. Many of them act as if they are mind readers. On and on it goes, reheating the same old tropes and bad mouthing JB.

As soon as anyone dares to suggest innocence and puts forward a contradictory point they are verbally savaged. Look what has happened to Bill Robertson for example. They do not try to dismantle or challenge the idea/theory they hunt in a pack to beat down sensible suggestions that have some value without thought or reason. They behave as if innocence belief is the work of the devil and requires the protagonists be put in the stocks or burned at the stake. They need to be put in a straight jacket and locked in a padded room.

Their lack of intellectual rigor is astounding. Just watch over the next few days as they snipe and sneer without any real evidence to support what they say.

They are lost in a dark cynical world where they are totally right in their beliefs and everyone else is a heretic.

[/quote]
To Zoso

Look where it starts is what I asked not a history lesson. I have never criticized your change in stance to my knowledge even though I think it is misplaced.

Offline Bubo bubo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3357
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #103 on: July 28, 2023, 10:37:PM »
But you said police shot her in the neck after she committed suicide. Why would they do that and can you name any of the protagonists in the case who agree that Sheila was suicidal?

Your post:

I believe the original scenario which they planned involved a restaging and included the shooting of Sheila by June in some manner. For this it required Sheila to be shot with two different weapons. They shot her in the neck after she had committed suicide calling it the first shot.

I can't work out whether the Jeremy supporters genuinely believe in his innocence or spend hours working out a scenario which puts him in the clear.

I do not mind who agrees with me or not as the case may be. Every one was mocking my NB burns were made by the Aga. Seems I might have been right all along. I wonder how many more of my ideas/theories might gain traction?

Offline Zoso

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2440
Re: Ballistics manipulation
« Reply #104 on: July 28, 2023, 10:42:PM »
Look where it starts is what I asked not a history lesson. I have never criticized your change in stance to my knowledge even though I think it is misplaced.

See right there? PRICKLEY! And RUDE! You basically reap what you sow. You weren't here when I changed from innocent to guilty, it was way back in 2014 - I don't care if you criticise or what you think about it. Free country.