Scipio to be totally honest with you I have never thought Mr. Gee was on the fence I have heard him say many times that he did not like Jeremy Bamber but thought he had a very unfair trial and I think Mr Gee is more interested in Justice. I am not saying he has never said he was on the fence but I have never seen that.
He has posted at various times that he is not a supporter and on the fence. To be sure he stated things like you say such as:
"Just to clarify my position on the Bamber case. I am not a Bamber supporter I am a free thinker on this and a believer in justice. The accusation by some people whose thinking has been polarized to that they cannot see except in one direction alone reminds me of a story that was born out of the troubles in Northern Ireland. A man was held up at gunpoint and asked, "Are you a Catholic or a Protestant". The man relied, " I'm an Atheist". To which came the confused reply, "Yes, but are you Catholic Atheist, or a Protestant Atheist?"
These people remind me of those gunmen. The believe I must be one or the other? In other words if I do not hold to certain views of theirs then it is obvious that I must be a Bamber supporter even though I say I am not. Then they are further confused when I ask questions and have doubts about Bamber and so they come to the conclusion that I am lying and must still be a Bamber supporter.
I am posting this not only to try and clarify where I am in relation to Bamber's guilt or innocence, but also to highlight the inability for these people to look at this case with an open mind and having an open mind, to look at the evidence from all sides instead of having a closed mind on the subject. This I believe is the only way to look at this case fairly and without prejudice. Sadly it is the position of so few on this forum? All I am doing is trying to keep a balanced mind in all this."
The problem is that time and again he demonstrates he is not approaching it with balance as he claims he is doing. Nor is he raising valid arguments about getting an unfair trial. He constantly raises claims of Jeremy being innocent and Julie the police etc all lying without having evidence to support such claims thus demonstrating he is operating on bias.
Earlier tonight he said Julie was a liar and when challenged for proof of this all he could come up with was to say she because she was jilted it means she lied. All this amounts to objectively is a motivation for her to possibly lie it doesn't establish she did lie let alone lied out of such motivation. I went through all the main evidence in support of her claims and discussed how if she were going to make up a claim Jeremy confessed that she would have made up the claim he confessed to doing it himself not made up a hitman claim and identify someone who would be able to prove her claims false. Grahame ignored all these considerations and simply has decided Julie lied without undertaking the rational assessment and approach he professes to use.
Grahame among other Jeremy supports have a very dim view of police and that bias seems to paly a large role in what they choose to believe. Their dim view of police not personal love of Jeremy results in supporting him. It is still bias though as opposed to following the evidence where it leads.
Since there is no solid evidence to rebut any of the evidence that convicted Jeremy there is some blind faith engaged in by his supporters. That blind faith often relies on distrust of the police and family more than anything else. Thinking that police might have framed Jeremy though there is no evidence of it is by definition speculation not established fact. Some go beyond speculating it is possible and insist it did happen. Speculating is one thing it is a leap of faith if you believe it definitely happened.
Grahame professes to be objective hoping that somehow will give him more credibility. It actually gives you less when you unsuccessfully try to conceal that you have an agenda. He should be concentrating on looking for evidence to back up his claims not professing his objectivity.
