Would current approaches by forum supporters been successful at the 1986 trial?

[Zoso]

The defence should have got colour lab prints of all the adult victims, including from pathology negatives.  Knight should been instructed to rigourously examine all images using whatever technology was available at the time, even if it was a high quality eye glass.  He should have been instructed to find fault, wherever possible, with Vanezis' disclosed post mortems.

G-A-M-E  O-V-E-R

How do you know they didn't? However, you do realise that Bamber was on trial and not Vanezis right?

[Roch]

How do you know they didn't? However, you do realise that Bamber was on trial and not Vanezis right?

Where have I suggested Vanezis was on trial?

[Roch]

...Bamber was on trial and not Vanezis...

As a wider issue, every pathologist in every case should be 'on trial' with regards to the defence.

There is an old saying. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That is what we had with Jo Cox, where the jury were shown computer images only.

[Zoso]

As a wider issue, every pathologist in every case should be 'on trial' with regards to the defence.

There is an old saying. Power corrupts. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That is what we had with Jo Cox, where the jury were shown computer images only.

Have a trial for everyone concerned - even the Judge and don't forget that bloody Usher - shifty git!

[Roch]

Have a trial for everyone concerned - even the Judge and don't forget that bloody Usher - shifty git!

TBF, the judge wasn't great. He'd already been involved in two previous trials, which would eventually result in convictions being overturned in both cases. Once as a judge and once as a prosecution barrister. In both cases there were accusations of police misconduct. 

[Zoso]

TBF, the judge wasn't great. He'd already been involved in two previous trials, which would eventually result in convictions being overturned in both cases. Once as a judge and once as a prosecution barrister. In both cases there were accusations of police misconduct.

Get him in the dock and don't let that cleaner escape!!

[Roch]

Get him in the dock and don't let that cleaner escape!!

He's on the other side now. He presided over some famous libel cases. Gillian Taylforth springs to mind but there were other high profile cases.

[Bubo bubo]

Get him in the dock and don't let that cleaner escape!!

You need to take more care with your responses. Some might conclude that your resort to sarcasm is because you are losing the argument.

When the debate is lost, the loser resorts to sarcasm. (Socrates) with apologies for changing slander to sarcasm.

He also said this;

If you want to be wrong follow the masses.

[Steve_uk]

You need to take more care with your responses. Some might conclude that your resort to sarcasm is because you are losing the argument.

When the debate is lost, the loser resorts to sarcasm. (Socrates) with apologies for changing slander to sarcasm.

He also said this;

If you want to be wrong follow the masses.

..and you might take this on board:

The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing.

[Bubo bubo]

..and you might take this on board:

The only true wisdom is knowing you know nothing.

I believe in that too which is why I only offer my views. I examine the evidence in detail and listen to other views. I then come to a conclusion.  Perhaps you have noticed I do not follow the masses. I do not proselytise. People can chose what they believe.

To find your self think for your self.

It is better to change an opinion than persist in a wrong one

I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think,

[Zoso]

You need to take more care with your responses. Some might conclude that your resort to sarcasm is because you are losing the argument.

When the debate is lost, the loser resorts to sarcasm. (Socrates) with apologies for changing slander to sarcasm.

He also said this;

If you want to be wrong follow the masses.

Some don't give a rats arse what you think and the only one bothered about losing an argument is you. Although why you worry about it at this late stage is beyond me. Lighten up and have a hoot! 

[Zoso]

I believe in that too which is why I only offer my views. I examine the evidence in detail and listen to other views. I then come to a conclusion.  Perhaps you have noticed I do not follow the masses. I do not proselytise. People can chose what they believe.

To find your self think for your self.

It is better to change an opinion than persist in a wrong one

I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think,

I haven't noticed you don't follow the masses, why do you imagine that people would give it that much thought? Get over yourself!

You definitely make me think - shall I share? 

[Zoso]

He's on the other side now. He presided over some famous libel cases. Gillian Taylforth springs to mind but there were other high profile cases.

Lets not let a little thing like that get in the way! Ouija Board anyone?

[Bubo bubo]

Some don't give a rats arse what you think and the only one bothered about losing an argument is you. Although why you worry about it at this late stage is beyond me. Lighten up and have a hoot! 

Now you are indulging in childish playground banter. Are there no depths to which you will sink

You better watch out or I will get my big sister to sort you out. If that's the level of argument in which you wish to engage.

[ILB]

Sherlock's approach would not be used by the defence.

He makes suggestions with no supporting evidence. Last month it was that RB hired a hit man and Brett was a hit man.

As with BB's approach, the courts would not allow this.

Suggesting Jeremy hired Brett also incriminates the defences own client!

I've replied to Adam often but I am beginning to believe Roch that he is simply a paid troll with an agenda