The main prosecution forensic case

[lookout]

Socks, June moving to Neville's side of the bed & back again, moved chairs, smashed lights.

It is good that there is discussion about aspects of the case that in no way highlight guilt or innocence for either person. For people to still post and argue that Jeremy is innocent would be wrong.

Why am I wrong in supporting Jeremy's innocence ? I've thought this from day one and being on this forum reading MOSTLY guilty views has strengthened my own views even more as I've also tried to study in-depth,the minds of all concerned. So if I'm the " odd one out " on the forum,does it matter to you ? Because it certainly matters not to me.
I don't have to shout from the rooftops,nor have I persuaded/forced anyone to re-think because I wouldn't dream of manipulating anyones ideas to fit my own.

[Adam]

Why am I wrong in supporting Jeremy's innocence ? I've thought this from day one and being on this forum reading MOSTLY guilty views has strengthened my own views even more as I've also tried to study in-depth,the minds of all concerned. So if I'm the " odd one out " on the forum,does it matter to you ? Because it certainly matters not to me.
I don't have to shout from the rooftops,nor have I persuaded/forced anyone to re-think because I wouldn't dream of manipulating anyones ideas to fit my own.

Studying the minds 'in depth' is nice. But you can't say how Sheila could have committed the crime. Although you have all the crime scene evidence. Although you criticised David's attempt.

[Mr. Gee]

AE was told something by someone else - we don't even know who and yet Woodcock himself is saying the sugar was on the floor when he entered WHF. Why should AE's claims be taken over and officer who states saw it for himself? This is the same as Sheila's body being reported as being found 'on the left side of bed'. AE was told  this by 'someone' - I think AE, just got it wrong.

Personally I think that at the very least the sugar tail is in doubt and that we must rule the sugar out of the equation when considering adding it to any scenario we may like to invent.

[Mr. Gee]

Like I said, it may have been broken deliberately and not as a result of a fight.

Don't know about you, but that silencer looks to be far too long to me? What's with the join in the middle? As if someone had deliberately added an extra bit?

[Mr. Gee]

LOL............

I don't know how it got broke.  The rifle being the most logical, but what about the butt end flying off and hitting the shade? Maybe someone threw a bowl? I doubt it could have been a case shell. 

I think that to the annoyance of some we must put it down as a don't know? Sorry scenario makers.

[lookout]

Studying the minds 'in depth' is nice. But you can't say how Sheila could have committed the crime. Although you have all the crime scene evidence.




Although you criticised David's attempt.

Only because he'd done the same to me.

As for not explaining how Sheila committed the crimes.Isn't it evident ? Rifle ?

[Adam]

Only because he'd done the same to me.

As for not explaining how Sheila committed the crimes.Isn't it evident ? Rifle ?

You missed my deadline. So have to change stance. Explaining by just saying Sheila used a rifle just highlights this.

Feel free to PM me if struggling.

[susan]

Hahaha lookout now that is an invitation for you go girl

[lookout]

You missed my deadline. So have to change stance. Explaining by just saying Sheila used a rifle just highlights this.

Feel free to PM me if struggling.

Excuse me ? I have to do what ? Are you not well ? Or are you taking the pee like you have done from the start ?

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6510.0.html

[lookout]

Hahaha lookout now that is an invitation for you go girl

He's definitely having a laugh,Susan. Either that,or he doesn't know what he's saying.Even my late husband never told me what to do. He thought better of it.

[Caroline]

You missed my deadline. So have to change stance. Explaining by just saying Sheila used a rifle just highlights this.

Feel free to PM me if struggling.

I'm not sure what you are hoping to achieve with these silly posts but there isn't a single person on the forum (on either side) that would seek advice from you. It's not that people 'missed' you deadline (whatever that's all about), they ignored it because they have no interest in it. Harsh but true!!

[lookout]

I'm not sure what you are hoping to achieve with these silly posts but there isn't a single person on the forum (on either side) that would seek advice from you. It's not that people 'missed' you deadline (whatever that's all about), they ignored it because they have no interest in it. Harsh but true!!

Thank goodness for that.

[susan]

lookout you two are awfully hard on poor Adam good thing he has my shoulder to cry on

[Adam]

I'm not sure what you are hoping to achieve with these silly posts but there isn't a single person on the forum (on either side) that would seek advice from you. It's not that people 'missed' you deadline (whatever that's all about), they ignored it because they have no interest in it. Harsh but true!!

If posters cannot give a plausible explanation of how Sheila did the massacre, they must stop supporting Jeremy. All the crime scene evidence is available. 

I am doing them a favour by stopping them continuing to support a murderer.

It is not advice from me I am offering. But pre stance change moral support. I could not give you any as I was not expecting you're change. So could not offer you support.

Lookout wobbled a few months ago after my 'Sheila on the night' thread. I gave her the option of sending me a pre stance change PM.  But she decided to still support Jeremy. Without explanation.

It's no good supporters refusing to say how Sheila did it. Saying 'we weren't there'. Then discuss the socks, lights, chairs and June's movements. Or say why Jeremy couldn't do it.

I have to currently agree with Leo Mckinstry and say any current support on here is 'creepy'.