"All People Are Bad And Should Be Killed"

[Daniel_day]

Daniel should I dare suggest that you take the time to study the characters of long standing members more before making rash statements like this about them? Perhaps you may be doing exactly the same thing yourself and make these rash statements about others because you have not looked at the alternatives as they most certainly have over the time that they have been members. Perhaps you should withold your judgments upon them until you have become an established member yourself?

With respect I hope I haven't wondered into some kind of 'Big Boys Club' where you have to be some kind of established member to even question them. I find your reasoning somewhat alarming. I made valid and equally plausible points. I have made no 'rash' statements as you put it, but they are merely scenarios that I feel are as equally valid as yours are anyone elses on here. In fact, I have actually read and looked at many theories by members and the ones I have highlighted I can find absolutely no reference to Bambers innocence being questioned.
I feel that this is absolutely VITAL in establishing the truth. What I did find were a succession of statements that were no more than reinforcements of other opinions. If you could kindly point me to anywhere where the people I have questioned have also debated Bambers innocence and arrived at the point where it is no longer in question then I am happy to hear from you.

[Daniel_day]

Daniel, how very tiresome of you. Your post made me go back to find what I'd previously said but there was NOTHING in it that assumed anything. It was, as I thought it would be, suggesting what MAY have happened that night and just to show that I'm not usually given to flights of fantasy, and unless provoked, my posts are thought through, this was, I believe, the first time since joining the forum that I've offered a possible scenario of my own. It is out there for discussion, Daniel, so please feel free to do so. I you offer anything plausible, I'll be more than happy to agree with you.

Ok April. It seems you have totally misinterpreted my last message, so I will, with vigour, attempt to explain. You wrote in reply to a message from steve "And the more I read of your assumptions about this case, the more I am convinced of your own desperation for Jeremy to remain guilty ONLY because you want Julie exonerated from her reputation as a vengeful gold digger, a floozy and a liar. Or might that be an assumption" End quote..
While we are on the subject of assumptions (not something I alluded to in my last message but that is now immaterial) That is one hell of an assumption to make about someone's reasoning April. Secondly, I stated that you have made NO acknowledgement whatsoever of any alternative suggestions apart from the fact that you think he is innocent. Yet you are accusing steve of wanting Julie exonerated???
Don't you want Bamber exonerated from his reputation? You are accusing steve of doing exactly what you are doing yourself. I really don't understand how you fail to grasp this simple logic?

[Daniel_day]

Daniel I think you need to take into account the fact that April and many others on here have spent a long time reading all the nformation and taking note of others arguments before forming an opinion.

With respect you haven't said anything which hasn't been said on many occasions before.

And all what is now being said is new is it? I suspect maggie that if I had suggested a point about Bamber being innocent you would have said nothing.
Some of the theories need challenging maggie. Some are deeply flawed, evidentially, plausibly and logically. I am sorry if this somehow needles you but I thought this was a forum for balanced debate. I have spend a long time reading up on the case as well, just because I have not posted it on the forum does not make it any less valid than anyone else's.

[maggie]

And all what is now being said is new is it? I suspect maggie that if I had suggested a point about Bamber being innocent you would have said nothing.
Some of the theories need challenging maggie. Some are deeply flawed, evidentially, plausibly and logically. I am sorry if this somehow needles you but I thought this was a forum for balanced debate. I have spend a long time reading up on the case as well, just because I have not posted it on the forum does not make it any less valid than anyone else's.

Nothing needles me Daniel, but I do think there are more tactfull ways of introducing yourself to the forum than telling us we view Jeremy Bamber through rose coloured spectacles and we need to wake up, or get real etc.. This is a pro Jeremy Bamber forum and we are often invaded by trolls so surely you can understand why we are a little distrusting. You will find if you treat the pro bambers with respect you will get it back 

[Caroline R]

And all what is now being said is new is it? I suspect maggie that if I had suggested a point about Bamber being innocent you would have said nothing.
Some of the theories need challenging maggie. Some are deeply flawed, evidentially, plausibly and logically. I am sorry if this somehow needles you but I thought this was a forum for balanced debate. I have spend a long time reading up on the case as well, just because I have not posted it on the forum does not make it any less valid than anyone else's.

If people are of the opinion that you are a novice on this case you have your self to blame because in your introduction you stated  "I dont know that much about the case".

[Jane]

Ok April. It seems you have totally misinterpreted my last message, so I will, with vigour, attempt to explain. You wrote in reply to a message from steve "And the more I read of your assumptions about this case, the more I am convinced of your own desperation for Jeremy to remain guilty ONLY because you want Julie exonerated from her reputation as a vengeful gold digger, a floozy and a liar. Or might that be an assumption" End quote..
While we are on the subject of assumptions (not something I alluded to in my last message but that is now immaterial) That is one hell of an assumption to make about someone's reasoning April. Secondly, I stated that you have made NO acknowledgement whatsoever of any alternative suggestions apart from the fact that you think he is innocent. Yet you are accusing steve of wanting Julie exonerated???
Don't you want Bamber exonerated from his reputation? You are accusing steve of doing exactly what you are doing yourself. I really don't understand how you fail to grasp this simple logic?

Daniel, have you read some of the sychophantic drivel Steve writes about Julie? He has been asked on numerous occasions if he knows her. He says not, which means he is in no position to tell us what it was that she felt, what she did or why she did it. He is assuming but prefers to call it a "balance of probabalities." We are in no doubt of what Steve has in mind for Jeremy. He has told us repeatedly. I don't imagine it has escaped his notice, that if Jeremy is found to be innocent, it makes a tissue of lies of everything Julie said.

You ask if I want Jeremy exonerated from his reputation. Daniel, I want the truth. If Jeremy is guilty, he's where he should be. GIVE me a plausible alternative other than just "He's guilty." Give me something more thought through than "He wanted the money" and "He hated his parents" and "He had one night stands."

If I totally misinterpreted your last message, may I suggest you missed the irony in mine.

[Daniel_day]

Daniel, have you read some of the sychophantic drivel Steve writes about Julie? He has been asked on numerous occasions if he knows her. He says not, which means he is in no position to tell us what it was that she felt, what she did or why she did it. He is assuming but prefers to call it a "balance of probabalities." We are in no doubt of what Steve has in mind for Jeremy. He has told us repeatedly. I don't imagine it has escaped his notice, that if Jeremy is found to be innocent, it makes a tissue of lies of everything Julie said.

You ask if I want Jeremy exonerated from his reputation. Daniel, I want the truth. If Jeremy is guilty, he's where he should be. GIVE me a plausible alternative other than just "He's guilty." Give me something more thought through than "He wanted the money" and "He hated his parents" and "He had one night stands."

If I totally misinterpreted your last message, may I suggest you missed the irony in mine.

really? May I suggest - if we are talking sycophancy here, that many are guilty of that too.
April Jeremy version of events is simply NOT believable. I do not for one miniute believe that Sheila fought off a man twice her size without getting so much as a scratch on her - NOT believable.
Sheila could NOT have committed these - show me one  single piece of evidence that proves she did. Bamber contends that she did and he made the phone call - that put him squarely in the frame (otherwise how would he know what occurred that night unless he was involved)  It is highly improbable that Sheila murdered her family. This looks and feels like a well planned execution. This was not the act of a deranged woman but that of a cunning killer. If she did not then Bamber MUST have. April the logic is simple. The silencer was found in the cupboard - I do NOT believe it was 'tampered with' or swapped or never used. It WAS used in the killings. If you believe  that Sheila murdered her family then put the silencer back into the cupboard I would consider that highly improbable. I am looking forward to hearing your side of this story April.

[Daniel_day]

If people are of the opinion that you are a novice on this case you have your self to blame because in your introduction you stated  "I dont know that much about the case".

I dont, but that doesnt mean my theories are any less valid on the part I have read up on and do know about.
Caroline I sense a air of hostility when you reply to my posts. If you find it difficult to handle and it threatens your deeply entrenched beliefs about the case, then no problem,  please desist from replying.
If all you have to offer is vitriol, why bother?

[Daniel_day]

Nothing needles me Daniel, but I do think there are more tactfull ways of introducing yourself to the forum than telling us we view Jeremy Bamber through rose coloured spectacles and we need to wake up, or get real etc.. This is a pro Jeremy Bamber forum and we are often invaded by trolls so surely you can understand why we are a little distrusting. You will find if you treat the pro bambers with respect you will get it back 

Maggie I disagree with your point of view..........please accept that. I am NOT going to agree with you. I believe you to be very wrong in your judgement of this case. If you want to argue with me about that ...great. But please do not tell me what I can and cannot put forward in my argument.
Please show me where I said 'get real' and 'wake up'? Because I cannot remember writing that.

[maggie]

Maggie I disagree with your point of view..........please accept that. I am NOT going to agree with you. I believe you to be very wrong in your judgement of this case. If you want to argue with me about that ...great. But please do not tell me what I can and cannot put forward in my argument.
Please show me where I said 'get real' and 'wake up'? Because I cannot remember writing that.

Well you are welcome to disagree with my point of view, I'm not a controlling person you can believe what you want to.  This is a pointless discussion in my opinion I'm not aware of telling you what you can or can't do.  I wonder if you just came on here to argue with people you disagree with about how they write their posts or if you're really interested in the case. In any case I won't be bothering you anymore so that will be a relief for you.

[Roch]

really? May I suggest - if we are talking sycophancy here, that many are guilty of that too.
April Jeremy version of events is simply NOT believable. I do not for one miniute believe that Sheila fought off a man twice her size without getting so much as a scratch on her - NOT believable.
Sheila could NOT have committed these - show me one  single piece of evidence that proves she did. Bamber contends that she did and he made the phone call - that put him squarely in the frame (otherwise how would he know what occurred that night unless he was involved)  It is highly improbable that Sheila murdered her family. This looks and feels like a well planned execution. This was not the act of a deranged woman but that of a cunning killer. If she did not then Bamber MUST have. April the logic is simple. The silencer was found in the cupboard - I do NOT believe it was 'tampered with' or swapped or never used. It WAS used in the killings. If you believe  that Sheila murdered her family then put the silencer back into the cupboard I would consider that highly improbable. I am looking forward to hearing your side of this story April.

"Oh Danny boy..."

Just what is it that you are bringing to this forum?  Looks like a tried and tested wind up formula. Come on the forum, professing to know very little about the case.  Then quickly revert to 'guilter' sound bites.

We've seen it all before a thousand times.  Try something innovative?

[Jane]

really? May I suggest - if we are talking sycophancy here, that many are guilty of that too.
April Jeremy version of events is simply NOT believable. I do not for one miniute believe that Sheila fought off a man twice her size without getting so much as a scratch on her - NOT believable.
Sheila could NOT have committed these - show me one  single piece of evidence that proves she did. Bamber contends that she did and he made the phone call - that put him squarely in the frame (otherwise how would he know what occurred that night unless he was involved)  It is highly improbable that Sheila murdered her family. This looks and feels like a well planned execution. This was not the act of a deranged woman but that of a cunning killer. If she did not then Bamber MUST have. April the logic is simple. The silencer was found in the cupboard - I do NOT believe it was 'tampered with' or swapped or never used. It WAS used in the killings. If you believe  that Sheila murdered her family then put the silencer back into the cupboard I would consider that highly improbable. I am looking forward to hearing your side of this story April.

Daniel, I have never yet accused a poster of being other than who they present themselves as being so I will say no more than that you SOUND more like Steve than Steve.

There is absolutely no point in addressing anything you have said here because Steve has already done it ad nauseum. It's been done to death.

You ask me to supply one piece of evidence that Sheila did it. I'm asking you to supply one piece of evidence that jeremy did it.

I don't have a "side" to "this story" Daniel, but on this thread I've posted what I believe to be a possible and plausible scenario. You will by now be aware that the role of a silencer in this tragedy has a question mark over it.

[maggie]

"Oh Danny boy..."

Just what is it that you are bringing to this forum?  Looks like a tried and tested wind up formula. Come on the forum, professing to know very little about the case.  Then quickly revert to 'guilter' sound bites.

We've seen it all before a thousand times.  Try something innovative?

Well said Roch, totally agree.

[Caroline R]

I dont, but that doesnt mean my theories are any less valid on the part I have read up on and do know about.
Caroline I sense a air of hostility when you reply to my posts. If you find it difficult to handle and it threatens your deeply entrenched beliefs about the case, then no problem,  please desist from replying.
If all you have to offer is vitriol, why bother?

Make your mind up! Have  you spent a long time reading about the case or have you only read bits and bobs? My post wasn't hostile I just simply challenged something you said - sorry if that bothers you but perhaps you should be a little more consistent. Your opinions are no more or no less valid than anyone else's but you might want to take your own advice in regard to both respecting opinions and hostility!! 

[susan]

Hello Maggie my very two fave songs are Danny Boy and All Things Bright And Beautiful