why dident they go in.

[scipio_usmc]

Well now, Mr Prosecutor. what can I possibly say to that ? Oh yes! Thus far you've made a pretty good fist of embellishing everything you say to make it look as if you know what you're talking about. It didn't dawn on me until I'd walked around the village where he lived, took a long look at his cottage, and followed part of  the route to the sea wall, that you hadn't got a clue what you were talking about, but BOY can you give a good impression that you know it all.  As it has already been told you by others, the ONE thing you have going for you is that you shout loudly and cover yourself in glory but as yet it's only ever been your opinion. Is there a single point you've made which can be proved or ARE you doing a clever job of concealing BS in your lengthy posts.

My posts are lengthy because I post explanations and evidence.

That is something totally lacking from you and all Jeremy supporters.

At the end of the day I make rational arguments that are backed up with evidence.

No one here hads dented any of my arguments,  it is the same only nonsense of my posts are too long to try to both or just outright dismissal as if that acocmplishes anything.

I can go into court and say the other's sides case is nonses an djust do a blanke t dismissal like that.  That will not carry the day I have to prove them wrong.

Establishing that you have no rational bais or evidence for your beliefs is suffient for me to be victorious here.

[lookout]

 What EVIDENCE is it that YOU'VE got ?

[nugnug]

i cant belive they would listen to the word of jeremy over what they saw with there own ears i mean its not as if faceing mad women with guns is a new experience for an armed unit.

[nugnug]

What EVIDENCE is it that YOU'VE got ?

i think its based on the farcical tale that the police told later.

[lookout]

i think its based on the farcical tale that the police told later.

It must be.

[Jane]

My posts are lengthy because I post explanations and evidence.

That is something totally lacking from you and all Jeremy supporters.

At the end of the day I make rational arguments that are backed up with evidence.

No one here hads dented any of my arguments,  it is the same only nonsense of my posts are too long to try to both or just outright dismissal as if that acocmplishes anything.

I can go into court and say the other's sides case is nonses an djust do a blanke t dismissal like that.  That will not carry the day I have to prove them wrong.

Establishing that you have no rational bais or evidence for your beliefs is suffient for me to be victorious here.

Well all I can say to that is that you must be bloody DESPERATE for victory -and it will be a very hollow one- if you need to gain it at the expense of diverse personalities on a public forum who DON'T regularly ply their profession in a court of law. I find it VERY revealing that you seem/need? to get pleasure out of arguing with those you seem to regard as your intellectual inferiors.

[scipio_usmc]

Well all I can say to that is that you must be bloody DESPERATE for victory -and it will be a very hollow one- if you need to gain it at the expense of diverse personalities on a public forum who DON'T regularly ply their profession in a court of law. I find it VERY revealing that you seem/need? to get pleasure out of arguing with those you seem to regard as your intellectual inferiors.

I would prefer if you put up a better fight but the evidence is not on your side so in some respects that is very limiting. I tried for a time elsewhere to play devil's advocate for Jeremy but could not get too far since I am not willing to misrepresent. You can only spin so far without becoming a liar.

I don't know if you could do better in a case where the facts were on your side like the Amanda Knox case.  If you lose that debate with me being devil's advocate then you truly have intellectual problems.
Your biggest problems seem to be bias leading to blind faith and willingness of some to misrepresent.

[nugnug]

theirs no such thing as victory on a forum.

most people dont see posting as a fight anyway.

[Jan]

theirs no such thing as victory on a forum.

most people dont see posting as a fight anyway.

very good point NugNug

As we have pointed out to Adam ( scipios son?) as well,  we all know what we post is all opinion / assumptions and belief gained from reading documents ( in some cases books) and other peoples posts - so you are correct here is no victory .

[Jane]

I would prefer if you put up a better fight but the evidence is not on your side so in some respects that is very limiting. I tried for a time elsewhere to play devil's advocate for Jeremy but could not get too far since I am not willing to misrepresent. You can only spin so far without becoming a liar.

I don't know if you could do better in a case where the facts were on your side like the Amanda Knox case.  If you lose that debate with me being devil's advocate then you truly have intellectual problems.
Your biggest problems seem to be bias leading to blind faith and willingness of some to misrepresent.

I have a feeling that you come very close to being the most arrogant, self opinionated, egotistic, porcine like individual it has ever been my misfortune to converse with. I imagine that wherever it was that you played devil's advocate "elsewhere", they must have been more than relieved to see the back of you. Their gain would appear to be our loss.

[scipio_usmc]

I have a feeling that you come very close to being the most arrogant, self opinionated, egotistic, porcine like individual it has ever been my misfortune to converse with. I imagine that wherever it was that you played devil's advocate "elsewhere", they must have been more than relieved to see the back of you. Their gain would appear to be our loss.

The fact remains that I can actually explain my position in full and back up my positions because I already looked at all facets and decided to follow the evidence while you decided you will assert Jeremy ins innocent no matter what so have no evidentiary basis for your beliefs and thus can't rationally back up any of your claims.

The fact I point such out is why you can't stand me.

[Jane]

The fact remains that I can actually explain my position in full and back up my positions because I already looked at all facets and decided to follow the evidence while you decided you will assert Jeremy ins innocent no matter what so have no evidentiary basis for your beliefs and thus can't rationally back up any of your claims.

The fact I point such out is why you can't stand me.

I would say that the only reason you can out talk us is that you are privy to "tricks of the trade" which we are not -rather like a politician, you seem to have the art of evasion down to a tee- as for not standing you, as I don't know you, how can that be? Because of how you present yourself I experience you as being loud, conceited, self important, sanctimonious, condescending, determined to win at ANY cost and abominably rude, however, it isn't quite out of the question that, beneath what you present, there MAY be something likeable.

[Jan]

Question 1

If Jeremy mentioned in his call to the police that he thought gins were involved why were all the police that attended armed in the first place

question 2

Where is the OWS that attributes Jeremy saying SC had used all the guns in the house etc?it is not in the pocket book original notes of the PC who was actually speaking to him .So how do we know if that is true.

Question 3

I thought at one stage the officer in charge said they did not need the raid tem - and then they changed their minds? I believe that is in the actual original logs - so what happened to make them change their minds? Just a "trick of the light?

 observation

If Jeremy was telling the truth about guns being  in the house ( which they were apparently, not locked away, under beds , etc) then the police were in a dangerous position and they could have gone in and been shot by Sheila if she was still alive - so if he was innocent he did completely the right thing by telling them the things that he did - However I do think if they heard or saw nothing then they should have reacted quicker ( which Jeremy was asking them to do) . For all they knew the twins could have been alive. They had no idea of how many shots had been made or  if people were bleeding to death in that house.

[nugnug]

well if he thought they could be shot it would common decency to tell them.

[Jan]

I did not know the bit highlighted in red - posted on this forum by admin
PC Myall in his statement of 8th Aug 85 states that on arrival a short conversation occurred with Jeremy Bamber who stated what his father had said in a phone call to him, also what guns were in the house and that his sister had a history of psychological illness. He then states that himself, Sgt Bews and Jeremy Bamber went to investigate the house. Oddly PC Myalls makes no mention of the incident in this statement of his seeing someone in the master bedroom walking in front of the window. It was the only incident of note that occurred during the investigation of the house. PC Myall, Sgt Bews and Jeremy Bamber all ducked down behind a hedge. It is odd that this is not included in his statement nor that the light was on in the master bedroom yet PC Myall in the Major Incident Project document asks for that unidentified male to be looked for using finger print elimination. It could be that prior to this 8th August 1985 witness statement was given to the defence that this sighting of someone in the window was edited out. No prosecution could go ahead against Jeremy Bamber if the police in their very own statements were admitting someone was alive in the house when they arrived. Interestingly the pocket books of PC Myall, Sgt Bews and PC Saxby have never been made available to the defence for inspection of their entries on 8th Aug 85. It may be the case that no mention was made of the sighting of someone in the bedroom window, however when Sgt Bews was cross examined about this incident at trial he agreed that they all ducked down behind the hedge but claims that the movement was only a shadow or trick of light but it was significant enough for him to recall that it had happened. If this sighting had been included in the witness statements then the case against Jeremy Bamber would have collapsed.