The bedroom phone, phone calls & Neville.

[Adam]

My reply to 2788. Further posts were written. Read the thread.

[Adam]

It sounds as if you're saying that it really is of no consequence if the evidence is flawed and whatever the jury decide, despite being given the wrong information, should be adhered to and if the poor sod in the dock is innocent, tough luck if he's found guilty, it's just the way the cookie crumbles.

What flawed information ?

As said several times. There is a mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence. Too many curious coincidences, a motive & opportunity. The jury convicted & appeals have failed.

[susan]

Adam excuse me but I may be many things but certainly not a liar you only answer selective posts and do I care no you still have not given me 5 items which constituted forensic evidence not hearsay or circumstantial.  Lets have them.  Many posters on the forum know you do not answer all posts just the ones that suit you and do not ever again accuse me of telling lies I find that very insulting to say the least

[maggie]

I answer all questions. Do not tell lies.

This is a pro Jeremy site. So people get very upset with me as my arguments supporting his conviction are so strong. It is hard to answer every point as there are often 3 or 4 people bombarding me at the same time.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but your arguments are far from strong we get upset for quite the opposite reason, your arguments are rubbish I'm afraid.

[Adam]

Adam excuse me but I may be many things but certainly not a liar you only answer selective posts and do I care no you still have not given me 5 items which constituted forensic evidence not hearsay or circumstantial.  Lets have them.  Many posters on the forum know you do not answer all posts just the ones that suit you and do not ever again accuse me of telling lies I find that very insulting to say the least

Show me the post from two weeks ago I did not answer.

I was not online two weeks ago anyway so how could I answer.

[Adam]

What flawed information ?

As said several times. There is a mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence. Too many curious coincidences, a motive & opportunity. The jury convicted & appeals have failed.

[Adam]

That is my answer to 2838 Janus.

[Caroline]

I answer all questions. Do not tell lies.

This is a pro Jeremy site. So people get very upset with me as my arguments supporting his conviction are so strong. It is hard to answer every point as there are often 3 or 4 people bombarding me at the same time.

Bwah, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!  That's not the reason Adam, I can assure you of that. The reason is because keep regurgitating the same stuff and repeating myths!!

[Adam]

Bwah, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!  That's not the reason Adam, I can assure you of that. The reason is because keep regurgitating the same stuff and repeating myths!!

Which keeps getting responded to.

[Jan]

"As said several times. There is a mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence. Too many curious coincidences, a motive & opportunity


right lets break this down shall we

1) circumstantial evidence- does not prove murder
2) curious co-incidences - do not prove murder
3) motive - it has been pointed out many times before he was due another inheritance - so these murders were a huge unnecessary risk and you are using your constant character assasination to back this one up
4) opportunity - Lots of people have opportunity - you have to link all three tings together - and every method of returning to his house - destroying the evidence etc have been discounted.

5) forensic evidence that JB did it ( not that SC did not) please elaborate on this one point please ?


If you are back to the silencer then my original question still stands.

[Jane]

I answer all questions. Do not tell lies.

This is a pro Jeremy site. So people get very upset with me as my arguments supporting his conviction are so strong. It is hard to answer every point as there are often 3 or 4 people bombarding me at the same time.

NO Adam, you're very wrong. Your arguments are FAR from strong. They're frequently childish and regularly not properly thought through. As for your not telling lies, I suppose it depends on how one defines lying.

[Adam]

"As said several times. There is a mountain of forensic & circumstantial evidence. Too many curious coincidences, a motive & opportunity


right lets break this down shall we

1) circumstantial evidence- does not prove murder
2) curious co-incidences - do not prove murder
3) motive - it has been pointed out many times before he was due another inheritance - so these murders were a huge unnecessary risk and you are using your constant character assasination to back this one up
4) opportunity - Lots of people have opportunity - you have to link all three tings together - and every method of returning to his house - destroying the evidence etc have been discounted.

5) forensic evidence that JB did it ( not that SC did not) please elaborate on this one point please ?


If you are back to the silencer then my original question still stands.

Everything added together proves murder.

Do you want me to post the 14 forensic  points again ? The 2002 appeal also suggested Sheilas legs had been pulled after the second shot. Again already posted.

[susan]

Adam I have posted at least 6 posts today that did warrant an answer the other 6 maybe not. The 2 weeks was a sweeping statement whenever it was you ignored my posts and I have better things to do than trawl through them looking to see if you have responded.

[Jan]

Which keeps getting responded to.

Actually I find it very therapeutic because every time I respond to your posts I am more and more convinced that JB is innocent . So thank you from the bottom of my heart.

[Adam]

Adam I have posted at least 6 posts today that did warrant an answer the other 6 maybe not. The 2 weeks was a sweeping statement whenever it was you ignored my posts and I have better things to do than trawl through them looking to see if you have responded.

So there is no post from two weeks ago.