Surely The Timings Are Incorrect?

[nugnug]

Yeah maybe, but you joined on 04/04/2011, first posted on 08/04/2011 and claimed that by the 21/04/2011 that you were no longer sure of his guilt.

So I'm ignoring your first 17 days.  :D

no longer sure of guilt and thinking somones innocent are 2 diffrent things.

[No-Bits]

no longer sure of guilt and thinking somones innocent are 2 diffrent things.

Oh lighten up, I'm just kidding around. 

[Caroline]

Caroline can you explain what you mean by thousands?
Where did you get this figure from exactly?
You are a moderator on a forum and you are trying to mislead people who view this forum
You are exactly the same as Skippy and Adam with misleading information

Yes, Jackie, if you start counting from one up to 999, the next number is 1000, you can then multiply that number by say 2, or 5 or even 10 and then you end up with thousands. 

I'm not misleading anyone  , but perhaps you might like to think about your tactics while you're pointing fingers at other people. It seems your sole purpose for being here is to launch some stupid attack on me wherever possible. It doesn't bother me, in fact I find it amusing. But I stand by what I said 'thousands' of people will believe Jeremy to be guilty. I see no massive public outcry referring to a MOJ or we would be inundate with members.

[nugnug]

well there wont be theirs no massive outcry untill someones actually cleared.

[JackiePreece]

Yes, Jackie, if you start counting from one up to 999, the next number is 1000, you can then multiply that number by say 2, or 5 or even 10 and then you end up with thousands. 

I'm not misleading anyone  , but perhaps you might like to think about your tactics while you're pointing fingers at other people. It seems your sole purpose for being here is to launch some stupid attack on me wherever possible. It doesn't bother me, in fact I find it amusing. But I stand by what I said 'thousands' of people will believe Jeremy to be guilty. I see no massive public outcry referring to a MOJ or we would be inundate with members.

Try quoting facts and stopping being rude because this must be the only power you have

[JackiePreece]

Sorry.   

Have you posted on the Peter Eaton thread yet?

[Caroline]

well there wont be theirs no massive outcry untill someones actually cleared.

So, until it is shown that there has been a MOJ, the person is assumed guilty the majority - which would amount to 'thousand' - I can believe I'm even arguing the toss on this. Thousands of people will believe he is guilty and thousands may not. Jackie is simply picking at things I say so goad. 

[No-Bits]

Have you posted on the Peter Eaton thread yet?

I'm not sure. Why don't you have a look? 

[No-Bits]

So, until it is shown that there has been a MOJ, the person is assumed guilty by the majority - which would amount to 'thousand' - I can't believe I'm even arguing the toss on this. Thousands of people will believe he is guilty and thousands may not. Jackie is simply picking at things I say so goad. 

I can't!!! 

[susan]

Hello Caroline

I have noticed that Jackie's main purpose on this forum is to attack you and harters but mostly you think she feels intimated by your stance on the forum because you are changing the stance of some of us with your excellent posts.  Keep it up.

[Caroline]

I can't!!! 

Bloody keyboard!! 

[No-Bits]

Hello Caroline

I have noticed that Jackie's main purpose on this forum is to attack you and harters but mostly you think she feels intimated by your stance on the forum because you are changing the stance of some of us with your excellent posts.  Keep it up.

What an excellent post Susan, very concise. 

[Caroline]

Hello Caroline

I have noticed that Jackie's main purpose on this forum is to attack you and harters but mostly you think she feels intimated by your stance on the forum because you are changing the stance of some of us with your excellent posts.  Keep it up.

Thanks Susan  . It's not my intention to change anyone's mind but just to explain things as I see them. People don't have to agree but it would be nice if they were able to debate with a bit of dignity instead of resorting to snide remarks and personal insults. People go one about Scipio but Jackie is just as personal.

[guest154]

I see Jackie as the same kind that writes to Ian Huntley, the yorkshire ripper, Charles Manson, Charles Bronson.... middle aged (at best) single women who seem to see their contact with the someone inside as a badge of pride.

The only difference is that Jackie can hide behind the fact that Bamber claims innocence in order for her contact not to seem as strange as it acutally is. I'm unsure if they truly believes in innocence, or simply doesn't care because I've never seen her post any form of understanding on any aspect of the case.

It seems she uses it as a sort of social status.

[No-Bits]

I see Jackie as the same kind that writes to Ian Huntley, the yorkshire ripper, Charles Manson, Charles Bronson.... middle aged (at best) single women who seem to see their contact with the someone inside as a badge of pride.

The only difference is that Jackie can hide behind the fact that Bamber claims innocence in order for her contact not to seem as strange as it acutally is. I'm unsure if they truly believes in innocence, or simply doesn't care because I've never seen her post any form of understanding on any aspect of the case.

It seems she uses it as a sort of social status.

Another very good post, it seems clarity is in the air today.