The caravan break in. A taste for money, a taste to massacre ?

[grahameb]

I certainly have not influenced Grahame.

This week he blamed the judge and said the prosecution had to prove Jeremy cycled to WHF. Bit hard to do that, as he did it at 2am along a remote seawall.  There is no reason why there should be any evidence on the bike.

I have not influenced you either. You're responses to my threads have been 'NO'.

Maybe Lookout will change her mind.

I don't think you've influenced anybody, except send them to sleep with your repetitive style of writing and your constant demand for exotic sauces?
Your big problem Adam is yourself. I do not care too much about my opinions and I doubt anyone else does either. But unfortunately your ego gets in the way of your posts. Advice: Get over yourself. You are not that influencial.

[Adam]

This statement means that you are blind as well as daft. Fine one post where I have said that I am a Bamber supporter, let alone a hardcore supporter. I am interested in justice alone as I have said from the beginning. Wait a minute why am I defending myself against someone who has the reasoning power of a two year old?

It is obvious you are a hardcore Jeremy supporter.

You defend him every time something is written which highlights his guilt. Every source, expert, judge,  reporter, judge, appeal, relative, policeman is wrong. Unless they say something nice of course.

Justice ? Jeremy hired the best lawyers available. They had months to get their case together. The trial lasted 19 days. There have been appeals, Jeremy assisted by lawyers. Now that is justice.

[grahameb]

It is obvious you are a hardcore Jeremy supporter.

You defend him every time something is written which highlights his guilt. Every source, expert, judge,  reporter, judge, appeal, relative, policeman is wrong. Unless they say something nice of course.

Justice ? Jeremy hired the best lawyers available. They had months to get their case together. The trial lasted 19 days. There have been appeals, Jeremy assisted by lawyers. Now that is justice.

No Adam I am not. This statement proves that you do not read other people's posts, let alone mine. What I do is challenge certain statements to see if they stand up to scrutiny.
If anyone has had an influence on my thinking lately it is scipio and Hartley, who I consider to be logical reasoners. And I must admit that they both have made certain arguments which I have not been able to answer.
But you I consider to be only the parrot on their shoulders. Nothing that you have said has convinced me one iota. You know why? Because you have no ability to listen to anyone else who posts if they are conceived by you to be some kind of Bamber supporter. If you had the ability to listen to others you would know by now that I am not a Bamber supporter, in spite of the fact that you still think I am a liar.

[Adam]

Yes you do challenge things which have already gone through the courts multiple times.

You have never submitted one negative post on Jeremy. Or ever agreed or accepted a fact which highlights Jeremy's guilt.

This week you have blamed the judge. Said it was a coincidence Jeremy brought the bike over 3 days before the massacre and said the prosecution has to prove Jeremy cycled to WHF. Something you know is impossible. Unless Jeremy admits to it.

[grahameb]

Yes you do challenge things which have already gone through the courts multiple times.

You have never submitted one negative post on Jeremy. Or ever agreed or accepted a fact which highlights Jeremy's guilt.

This week you have blamed the judge. Said it was a coincidence Jeremy brought the bike over 3 days before the massacre and said the prosecution has to prove Jeremy cycled to WHF. Something you know is impossible. Unless Jeremy admits to it.

Yes I have because I scrutinize everything and I still do criticise the judge. That is because I believe in justice and not a Bamber supporter. Why are you accusing me of lying? Is it because you think I don't know my own mind? Or are you judging me by what you are? Why should I deny being a Bamber supporter if I am? Yoir suggestion doesn't make any sense?

[Adam]

Yes I have because I scrutinize everything and I still do criticise the judge. That is because I believe in justice and not a Bamber supporter. Why are you accusing me of lying? Is it because you think I don't know my own mind? Or are you judging me by what you are? Why should I deny being a Bamber supporter if I am? Yoir suggestion doesn't make any sense?

I have never called you a liar. Although you often do not provide sources I request. 

But I am calling you a Jeremy supporter.

Would a non supporter create multiple threads quoting from a book called 'An innocent man' ?

Being a supporter is nothing to be ashamed of. I am not ashamed to say I believe he is guilty.

[lookout]

I certainly have not influenced Grahame.

This week he blamed the judge and said the prosecution had to prove Jeremy cycled to WHF. Bit hard to do that, as he did it at 2am along a remote seawall.  There is no reason why there should be any evidence on the bike.

I have not influenced you either. You're responses to my threads have been 'NO'.

Maybe Lookout will change her mind.

And maybe Lookout WON'T change her mind.It's firmly fixed on Jeremy being innocent,but two women weren't,though there'd have been mitigating circumstances had they remained alive.

[grahameb]

I have never called you a liar. Although you often do not provide sources I request. 

But I am calling you a Jeremy supporter.

Would a non supporter create multiple threads quoting from a book called 'An innocent man' ?

Being a supporter is nothing to be ashamed of. I am not ashamed to say I believe he is guilty.

Yes they would. When a weight lifter practices he stretches himself to the limit. When manufacturers test tyres they test them to breaking point. The difference between you and me is that you never test any of the stuff you read. You simply believe it if it is against Bamber. On the other hand I take on board what is said by applying logic to it. In fact if you do a search you will find that I do actually post stuff against Bamber. In fact if something doesn't sound right I question anybody. That is one reason why you won't grow and expand your knowledge. Why you even posted against scipio when you criticised you. That actually exhibits prejudice rather than reason.

[Adam]

Yes they would. When a weight lifter practices he stretches himself to the limit. When manufacturers test tyres they test them to breaking point. The difference between you and me is that you never test any of the stuff you read. You simply believe it if it is against Bamber. On the other hand I take on board what is said by applying logic to it. In fact if you do a search you will find that I do actually post stuff against Bamber. In fact if something doesn't sound right I question anybody. That is one reason why you won't grow and expand your knowledge. Why you even posted against scipio when you criticised you. That actually exhibits prejudice rather than reason.

I have not read anything negative posts about Jeremy from you.

But you do stick up for him. And say the experts, CCRC, judge, police, relatives are wrong. Or lying. Or both.

What is you're view of Jeremy's caravan break in ?

[grahameb]

I have not read anything negative posts about Jeremy from you.

But you do stick up for him. And say the experts, CCRC, judge, police, relatives are wrong. Or lying. Or both.

What is you're view of Jeremy's caravan break in ?

Which goes to prove that you never really read anyone's posts. You have an answer in your head as you read the first line, but just assume what I am going to say is wrong. You don't really explore what I post or even consider that what I say may be right.

[Adam]

I have not read any negatives posts from you about Jeremy. Fact.

You did not answer my question. What do you think of Jeremy's caravan site break in ?

[grahameb]

I have not read any negatives posts from you about Jeremy. Fact.

You did not answer my question. What do you think of Jeremy's caravan site break in ?

Then you are blind. FACT.

[Adam]

I have perfect vision.

If you want to justify Jeremy's caravan break in. Or deny it happened, or blame Ann Eaton, just do it.

If you want to not make any comment. Then don't.

You are a Jeremy supporter. So that will be normal procedure.

[lookout]

It wouldn't matter to me if it was Jeremy or any other man. He's been wronged by the justice system and it badly needs rectifying. I'd support Joe Bloggs if he was in the same situation.

I supported Eddie Gilfoyle because I knew him in a professional capacity,,and those of us who supported him were proved right.He too was given a raw deal by the justice system.

[Roch]

I've always thought that the caravan burglary played a major part in sealing JB's fate re his relatives turning against him.  I was puzzled when I saw Babs Wilson on telly expressing that Nevill knew of the crime and that they were going to keep it 'in house'.   The voice she put on sounded as if this was a benevolent / fatherly act on the part of Nevill towards JB.  It made me wonder whether any relatives had prior knowledge of this act of benevolence prior to the massacre and Julie Mugford's subsequent testimony?  Was it used as leverage to put pressure on Mugford?  Or did the relatives only find out, due to Mugford spilling the beans her self?  They certainly reversed the fatherly good will shown by Nevill.