Sheila's blood underneath the bible. Certain guilt ?

[guest2181]

Such -the misdoings of all other police forces from then until present day- seems to be the only reason you can put forward for Jeremy's innocence.

Yeah, it doesn't really work does it. The police must have been corrupt in this case because there are other cases where other police officers have been?   

Why not say that JB must be the murderer because other people have committed murder before. 

I'm all up for the possibility of such misdoings, but I'd need to see evidence of that being the case and there simply isn't any, or at least none which has come to light.

I think if people want to be taken seriously then they should be a little more responsible with their accusations.

[David1819]

The bible was also June's, which supports a frame.

Bamber knew the bible was there. He said he may have used it to swipe Crispy with.  So he simply used an available bible, which was not Sheila's, to assist his staging attempt.

Now if Sheila's own religious book, which she had brought with her to WHF, was found next to her, that would be more plausible. Bamber could claim he didn't know this book existed.

There is no guarantee Sheila knew where the bible was, or that she would remember in her psychotic rage. Or bother using it.

This and my other three posts on the bible, above,  have again shown without doubt that Bamber is guilty.

What would stop Shelia, Jeremy or Neville using one of June's Bibles? Did she keep them all hidden away for herself and ban anyone else reading them?

For your statement to be true that must be the case. makes no sense

[David1819]

By the same token, there is no reason why Sheila should know about the bible. Or certainly where it was on the night

If June was a religious maniac she could have been moving it around on a daily basis. Sheila in her state is unlikely to follow it's movements.

She had not lived there for years and had only just gone there for a holiday. It could be anywhere in a big house.

Bamber would exactly where it was. Probably checking at supper.

I could explain why this is a silly argument. but why bother 

[Adam]

What would stop Shelia, Jeremy or Neville using one of June's Bibles? Did she keep them all hidden away for herself and ban anyone else reading them?

For your statement to be true that must be the case. makes no sense

Well Sheila couldn't use it most of the time. She didn't live there.

If Sheila was so fanatically religious that she killed everyone, you would think she would have her own readings. She was going to stay at WHF for several days.

[David1819]

By the same token, there is no reason why Sheila should know about the bible. Or certainly where it was on the night

If June was a religious maniac she could have been moving it around on a daily basis. Sheila in her state is unlikely to follow it's movements.

She had not lived there for years and had only just gone there for a holiday. It could be anywhere in a big house.

Bamber would exactly where it was. Probably checking at supper.

Bamber is guilty because Sheila would not have found the bible in a big house.



Thanks Adam you have made my day

[Jane]

Yeah, it doesn't really work does it. The police must have been corrupt in this case because there are other cases where other police officers have been?   

Why not say that JB must be the murderer because other people have committed murder before. 

I'm all up for the possibility of such misdoings, but I'd need to see evidence of that being the case and there simply isn't any, or at least none which has come to light.

I think if people want to be taken seriously then they should be a little more responsible with their accusations.

As am I. I once thought he was innocent because I really DIDN'T want him to be guilty!!! Yeah, yeah, I know. REALLY objective, wasn't it? But in all honesty, as it stands, the only way I could believe him innocent now is by ignoring all the things which point to his guilt.......................Oh, and following Lookout's "I told myself from the start that he was innocent" reasoning, which to give it some bite necessitates the inclusion of unsubstantiated stories like how Sheila and June were at each other's throats from the moment she walked through the door and what the supper table conversation consisted of prior to Sheila going on a rampage.

[lookout]

I'd agree that a cat wouldn't have found its kittens in the downstairs area of the kitchen-cum-dining area,but as one author put it that 5 Bibles had been strategically placed within the farmhouse,I reckon that anyone who was blindfolded would have found one,even Sheila who'd been brought up to that fact.

[Jane]

Bamber is guilty because Sheila would not have found the bible in a big house.



Thanks Adam you have made my day

It's possible that Adam is Lookout's alter ego. They're both inclined to make sweeping and unproven claims to get their points across Adam clinging to his view that if the opposite if what he say can't be proved, it might be true

[Adam]

Bamber is guilty because Sheila would not have found the bible in a big house.



Thanks Adam you have made my day

You always post a man laughing when struggling.

Well my six posts on the previous page have highlighted certain guilt using just the bible.

There is no way Sheila's blood will be on the bible. She would have read and opened it prior to her first shot.

Bamber and the CT have a cheek claiming the note was a suicide note. My post shows it clearly was not.

And can you please post you're 'detailed' account of how Sheila committed the massacre. Which you said you would in 2016. Unless you still can't work it out.

[Adam]

It's possible that Adam is Lookout's alter ego. They're both inclined to make sweeping and unproven claims to get their points across Adam clinging to his view that if the opposite if what he say can't be proved, it might be true

Well you supported Bamber for 29 years. The reason ? You didn't like Julie's court outfit.

So when someone comes onto a forum and changes it from 90% innocent to 90% guilty, it is best to not dismiss their excellent threads and posts.

[Caroline]

Well you supported Bamber for 29 years. The reason ? You didn't like Julie's court outfit.

So when someone comes onto a forum and changes it from 90% innocent to 90% guilty, it is best to not dismiss their excellent threads and posts.

Put your claws away Adam, you haven't changed anyone's mind. This is where you wind people up, just stop doing it because it's silly and you know yourself you haven't had any where near that kind of impact.

[Adam]

Put your claws away Adam, you haven't changed anyone's mind. This is where you wind people up, just stop doing it because it's silly and you know yourself you haven't had any where near that kind of impact.

Well everyone was agreeing with Mike's posts. That couldn't change as everyone was agreeing with each other.

Anyway, do you agree that the bible once again shows certain guilt ? My  relevant posts  are on the previous page.

[Jane]

Put your claws away Adam, you haven't changed anyone's mind. This is where you wind people up, just stop doing it because it's silly and you know yourself you haven't had any where near that kind of impact.

Thanks Caroline. I've got him on ignore but I notice he's posted LOADS today -he obviously likes the sound of his own voice and seems to be under the illusion that his is the quintisential knowledge on the case. Odd, when he gets so many facts wrong- but only David seems to respond to them and pick him up on them.

[Jan]

Well Sheila couldn't use it most of the time. She didn't live there.

If Sheila was so fanatically religious that she killed everyone, you would think she would have her own readings. She was going to stay at WHF for several days.

It was not an "it" there were said to have been 4 bibles around the house . And of course Sheila would know that.

[Adam]

It was not an "it" there were said to have been 4 bibles around the house . And of course Sheila would know that.

Four bibles, apparently ? Was one for Crispy ? Or Bamber ?

Jan my posts on page 9 highlight certain forensic and circumstantial guilt.