Bamber at WHF on the night:

[Mr. Gee]

I suppose all this swamping the forum with threads can be likened to someone shouting his opinions whilst sticking his fingers in his ears. For he never learns anything. I seem to remember the words, "Ever learning but never coming to the truth"

[Alias]

Yet there is just a little spark that is made much of.

It is the term Adam uses when Jan contradicts his claims, haven´t you seen it?

[Mr. Gee]

It is the term Adam uses when Jan contradicts his claims, haven´t you seen it?

Yes that's what I'm saying Alias. What he calls a firefight is just a little spark in reality. In other words he values his posts much more than those who answer them.

[Alias]

Yes that's what I'm saying Alias. What he calls a firefight is just a little spark in reality. In other words he values his posts much more than those who answer them.

Well, yes! 

[Adam]

Yes that's what I'm saying Alias. What he calls a firefight is just a little spark in reality. In other words he values his posts much more than those who answer them.

Good morning Grahame. How lovely to hear from you.

Well I am sure you will be the first to agree that the remaining three regular supporters/posters on here -  you, Lookout and Jan spend 99% of you're time defending and making excuses for Bamber. Which is often described as fire fighting.

There is a mountain of incriminating evidence and no new worthy supporting evidence.  Which is why the CCRC rejected the case in 2012.

The latest attacks by supporters have been regarding the mysterious meeting in the judges chambers and the mysterious photographs that somehow ended up in Bamber's lawyers hands. Both being weak attacks. 

[Mr. Gee]

Good morning Grahame. How lovely to hear from you.

Well I am sure you will be the first to agree that the remaining three regular supporters/posters on here -  you, Lookout and Jan spend 99% of you're time defending and making excuses for Bamber. Which is often described as fire fighting.

There is a mountain of incriminating evidence and no new worthy supporting evidence.  Which is why the CCRC rejected the case in 2012.

The latest attacks by supporters have been regarding the mysterious meeting in the judges chambers and the mysterious photographs that somehow ended up in Bamber's lawyers hands. Both being weak attacks.

And you  spend 100% of your time believing your wn twaddle and refusing to accept any logical arguments that we put forward even when we have proved certain things. So really there is no point of me arguing with you. You are the one who is firefighting, nobody else.