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

[ILB]

I'm all for free speech but Adams threads are often just done to goad. 90 percent are dictates  a Jeremy Bamber is gulity spiel.

A person who is convinced of Jeremy Bambers innocence can't even given a sensible reply to the threads

[Bubo bubo]

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

Of course he is. I have called many times for him to be banned. I have admired your patience in replying to his 'dung' posts. It now seems that even your patience is wearing thin.

[Zoso]

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.

I'm only answering you. Fight fire with fire.

[Adam]

In conclusion the approaches made on here would not have worked for the defence in 1986. They are either -

Too weak - Rob, ILB.

Would not be allowed in court - Sherlock, BuboBubo, Roch, Mike.

Were used at trial but unsuccessful
- JackieD.

Supposed new evidence which failed at appeals/propaganda - Guest29835, David.

----------

No harm in putting views across on a forum but the claim that his defence team were not good enough is not valid.

[Roch]

In conclusion the approaches made on here would not have worked for the defence in 1986. They are either -

Too weak - Rob, ILB.

Would not be allowed in court - Sherlock, BuboBubo, Roch, Mike.

Were used at trial but unsuccessful
- JackieD.

Supposed new evidence which failed at appeals/propaganda - Guest29835, David.

----------

No harm in putting views across on a forum but the claim that his defence team were not good enough is not valid.

How so Adam?

[ILB]

In conclusion the approaches made on here would not have worked for the defence in 1986. They are either -

Too weak - Rob, ILB.

Would not be allowed in court - Sherlock, BuboBubo, Roch, Mike.

Were used at trial but unsuccessful
- JackieD.

Supposed new evidence which failed at appeals/propaganda - Guest29835, David.

----------

No harm in putting views across on a forum but the claim that his defence team were not good enough is not valid.

You're talking shite as per usual

[Adam]

How so Adam?

Regarding your approach, the defence can not claim for no reason that justice organisations are corrupt. The judge would not allow it.

The trial will be based on evidence and WS's that both sides have.

[Adam]

The CCRC and COA were nothing to do with the trial. So claiming they are corrupt without evidence is wasting court time and would be unsuccessful.

The judge would not allow it.

[Roch]

Regarding your approach, the defence can not claim for no reason that justice organisations are corrupt. The judge would not allow it.

The trial will be based on evidence and WS's that both sides have.

With my approach, the case wouldn't have gone to trial. Prosecution proceedings would have collapsed. 

[Zoso]

With my approach, the case wouldn't have gone to trial. Prosecution proceedings would have collapsed.

With your approach, no one would end up in court.

[Roch]

With your approach, no one would end up in court.

How so?

[Zoso]

How so?

You seem to want everyone in the case to be on trial.