"I've already said why I think he may be guilty."
No, you have not! I am being accused of “harassing” you because I take great exception to somebody pushing the pro guilt message without giving any substantial reasons to support it. And you keep doing that.
I don’t believe that Mat is stupid. I think that, if you really had given your reasons for thinking that Bamber is guilty, he would at least have noticed it. Remember that you reject the evidence used to convict him, so logically, you require something to take it's place.
As far as I’m concerned you are a propagandist. Your basic modus operandi is to just keep repeating an unsupported assertion.
“I think he's guilty, but that he was framed.”
That naturally begs the question WHY do you think he is guilty? All you’ve managed to come up with so far is Jeremy knowing how much was in his father’s wallet.
The Last Trailer
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5565.msg243191.html#msg243191
Your scenario The Last Trailer does not contain any reference to evidence of Bamber’s guilt. It is just a made up story which has Jeremy make the a call from Whitehouse Farm to his answering machine. Very clever! I suppose it allows you to add another slogan to your list
“Even if there was a call, that does not prove he is innocent.”
So, even if it can be proven that the silencer evidence was faked and that the phone call did take place, you and your friend Nick still have a fall back position in place, which allows you to continue poisoning the well.
Did the relatives put pressure on the police?
Speaking for myself I don’t believe that your change of position has anything to do with the evidence, but that it is one made for some other reason. The way that you now steadfastly defend the relatives against the accusation that they “badgered” the police into pursuing Jeremy is to me a strong indication of where you might really be coming from. Until quite recently, you supported that view and have even used that word yourself.
What I don’t like is seeing you getting away with fooling good people. Some of them think that there is something mysterious behind your new guilty stance, as if you were aware of some piece of evidence which they are unaware of. Or, that you have, recently, thought of something which for some reason you must withhold for the time being. I just don't buy it.
They don’t like me for not respecting your right to keep your reasons to yourself. They think that I should just leave you alone. But you are not a child. You are a psychologist and, if I may say so, a very skilful one.
I maintain that it is legitimate to press you for reasons as long as you continue to make unsupported assertions which, as such, amount to nothing more than anti Bamber propaganda. This is not the girl guides. Try telling that to your friends.
I care not for your exceptions! But did you not read the thread about the Freudian slip? Well, you must have done because you commented on it blithering on about conspiracies. You might not like the fact that this point (and also the phone call which is suspect) made me suspicious - but what can I tell you? I think that after killing the family he went looking for ready cash, something he'd be able to get his hands on with immediate affect and the wallet was his first and obvious port of call. He was furious when he found it was missing a few days later and he let slip (Fraudulently) how much was in it. When I asked him about it he wasn't just evasive, he 'avoided answering'. People who lie do that, they either answer a question with another question or answer it in a way that never actually gives an answer - politicians and it seems Jeremy, use the second method. Remember the phrase "You must tell the truth where possible'? When I asked him about the wallet his response was "I know you asked me a 'specific' question but I can't remember what it was but I think the answer was no or I didn't. So, he remembered it was a 'specific' question and he remembered the answer but not the question? Also, why didn't he simply refer to the letter? I think he
lied Martin. But that's NOT the only reason, I don't believe the phone call happened, it's convenient that the phone was off the hook, it looks staged, the messing with the gun, it looks staged and too may independent witnesses testified that he mentioned hating his family. Once doubt enters your mind, you start to look at things differently.
Please indicate to me WHERE I have defended the relatives? You're talking absolute garbage!! I have never defended the relatives. I have said more times than I care to remember that I DON'T BELIEVE THE SILENCER EVIDENCE!! I do think they badgered the police what I don't believe is that that ALONE would have the effect of changing the whole investigation and that IF THEY HAD PROOF that Sheila was responsible they would have shoved it up the relatives noses.
I must just pull you up on your suggestion that I am a 'psychologist'? Eh? I have a psychology degree but until fairly recently, I worked off-shore as a navigator on a seismic survey vessel so don't know where you got the idea I was a psychologist?
? Also, I was never in the Girl Guides, I'm from Peterlee not St. Mary Meade
Fooling good people? You've just lectured me about being an adult? You're patronising other members in order to have a dig at me and you call me a manipulator. For your information Martin, we are ALL adults here and people can make their own minds up. What you don't like is that what I said struck a chord - I wrote what I thought and the reason behind it people are free to accept or reject other people's opinions. This is ONLY my opinion Martin and I honestly don't know why it matters to you so much? Instead of trying to undermine my opinion, why don't you try defending Jeremy and your OWN opinion? All you ever do is try to 'out' people simply because they feel Jeremy might be guilty. I find you quite odd, I don't care what you buy, or don't buy and the reason why I don't push my opinion is because I can't be arsed to defend myself to people like you, who take other people's opinions as a personal slant - like I said, I think you're odd!
