For your information I don't adhere to everything Mike says. Neither have I ever given that impression. Your comments are both untrue and calculated to belittle my intelligence. My intelligence , which by the way I admit is not that good is not in question here, but rather your integrity and decency towards others. Your comments towards almost every Bamber supporter is disgusting and almost unforgivable and quite frankly I cannot understand why the admin allow you to get away with it all the time? That is the part that puts me in doubt of this forum sometimes.
When you yourself are calling me stupid or saying f-you or the like what exactly do you expect admin to do for you? How coudl they sanction me and not do anything to you so maybe you shoudl think twice before the tirades you launch.
In the meantime there is a valid point to be made about people not taking evidence head on and living with pie in the sky attitudes with respect to Jeremy.
Just insisting you don't trust the moderator because the family found it means nothing. People admit that the family would not have had a source of Sheila's blood to plant, would not have known her blood type to have been able to find a source of the same exact blood including same enzymes, would not have known the fatal shot defintely would result in drawback and would not have known how let alone bothered to plant the blood in a way to mimick back spatter they would have just used a dropper ofr the like to deposit it which would nto have resulted in the pattern found.
So that takes away the ability to argue the blood was planted by the family and thus that the family finding it taints it and makes it unrelaible.
Yet that is the common claim used to try to dismiss it so that Team Jeremy is not forced to seriously look into the issue because there is in relaity no way to refute the evidence and this alone is sufficient to prove Sheial could not have killed herself and that someone else did and that had to be Jeremy because of the evidence he gave that Sheila was bogus.
Never is there a well supported position put forth to refute this evidence just claims that peopel choose to discount it for reaosns that amount to littl emore than bias.
The same can be said for every major piece of evidence including the lack of any wounds or evidence on Sheila. It is chalked up as her washing and changing her clothes even though she had no reason to do so and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest she did so. No mater peopel say Jerey is innocent so as a result that means: Sheila either committed the crime nude without getting any injuries and then washed, changed her clothes and nobody ever found those clothes though there was no way for Sheila to get rid of them or police found those clothes but destroyed them even though for about a month the premise they operated under was that Sheila did it and such clothing strongly would have supported their theory.
When you decide to ignore evidence because of an agenda that demosntrates bias. When peopel have an agenda but refuse to admit it they are being dishonest, it is that simple.
If I were hired to defend Jeremy I would have an agenda but that agenda would be crystal clear and doesn't mean I would personally believe in his innocence just because I was being paid for him. What I personally believed would be unrelated ot my job. Nor would I simply try to convince others to believe he is innocent based on blind faith. I would try to look at ALL the evidence that establishes his guilt and try to find a way to refute it, not to ignore it or dismiss it for some irrational reason but to try to refute it.
Refuting it entails at minimum undermining it by presenting an alternative explanation for the evidence that is reasonably likely to have occurred though ideally to prove the evidence to be completely wrong or impossible.
