How would you react ?

[scipio_usmc]

Given that she was resident at WHF her prints were probably on many things.

Indeed if her print was on a shotgun it could be because it was left in her way and she was forced to move it.  But no one has ever provided any proof to establish the claim is true.

[maggie]

You claimed there were people here who claim to know more than Colin. You agreed with Alias' post.


Of course you can be biased. You're quite clearly a supporter - your posts lean in favour of an innocent Jeremy.

You have no idea what I believe, I am interested in the truth and I lean in various directions at different times. Just because I don't tell you every thought I may have doesn't give you the right to judge me.
If I agree with Alias' post that's my perogative but that doesn't make me a supporter anyway as Alias is in the middle also but it's the old adage ..... 'If you're not with us .... you're against us' .

[Jane]

I don't think they were on the shotgun, not sure Lookouts claim is correct. Not sure where that comes from.

I didn't think it was correct -although that doesn't mean that someone hasn't written it :D- but I haven't read anything but Wilkes (recently) and Colin's book in the 1990's and it's not something he would have known.

[Caroline]

Weren't Sheila's prints found on the shotgun which was in the upstairs office ? So she was probably wavering that around before she grabbed the rifle which was easier to handle and was possibly more familiar with.
Do we know how Sheila's prints came to be on the shotgun ? Was that ever queried ?

I've never seen any evidence to back that up.

[Caroline]

You have no idea what I believe, I am interested in the truth and I lean in various directions at different times. Just because I don't tell you every thought I may have doesn't give you the right to judge me.
If I agree with Alias' post that's my perogative but that doesn't make me a supporter anyway as Alias is in the middle also but it's the old adage ..... 'If you're not with us .... you're against us' .

Perhaps it would be better if people made their opinions ON THE CASE clear? It's hard to tell if people just side with friends or actually have an opinion in favour of guilt of innocence.

[Jane]

Indeed if her print was on a shotgun it could be because it was left in her way and she was forced to move it.  But no one has ever provided any proof to establish the claim is true.

It's a very innocent way of making certain someone's prints are on something. Just leave the object somewhere it's directly in their way and they're forced to move it.

[guest154]

You have no idea what I believe, I am interested in the truth and I lean in various directions at different times. Just because I don't tell you every thought I may have doesn't give you the right to judge me.
If I agree with Alias' post that's my perogative but that doesn't make me a supporter anyway as Alias is in the middle also but it's the old adage ..... 'If you're not with us .... you're against us' .

 

I'm only going off the posts you make Maggie, never struck me as ANYTHING other than a VERY staunch Bamber supporter.

[Caroline]

Indeed if her print was on a shotgun it could be because it was left in her way and she was forced to move it.  But no one has ever provided any proof to establish the claim is true.

I don't recall seeing anything official claiming her prints were on the shot gun, I think I have only read it here.

[guest154]

Perhaps it would be better if people made their opinions ON THE CASE clear? It's hard to tell if people just side with friends or actually have an opinion in favour of guilt of innocence.

I remember when she was modded, it was said that herself and Patti had been selected because the board is a pro Jeremy board and having guilters as mod wouldn't sit right.

People have the right to whatever opinion on the case they like, but it is pretty clear who is in the middle -who supports possible innocence - who is staunch innocence - who is possible guilt and who is staunch guilt!

I certianly know where I am. 

[Alias]

Perhaps it would be better if people made their opinions ON THE CASE clear? It's hard to tell if people just side with friends or actually have an opinion in favour of guilt of innocence.

Huh? 

[Jan]

Yes he would know them better than people here, he also believe Jeremy guilty & has said why he doesn't think Sheila is guilty. Wouldn't be a case of you three picking and choosing to give Colin credit one moment and then dismiss him in the other, would it?

But Colin did not suspect Jeremy at all until he was charged. He told him at the time he would support him after losing his family . And although he thinks he is guilty now I find it very strange that his book is more about Sheila and her relationship with her mother - not Jeremy .

[guest154]

But Colin did not suspect Jeremy at all until he was charged. He told him at the time he would support him after losing his family . And although he thinks he is guilty now I find it very strange that his book is more about Sheila and her relationship with her mother - not Jeremy .

He can only write what he knows about though or whatever he felt he wanted to get off his chest.

[Caroline]

But Colin did not suspect Jeremy at all until he was charged. He told him at the time he would support him after losing his family . And although he thinks he is guilty now I find it very strange that his book is more about Sheila and her relationship with her mother - not Jeremy .

Probably because they weren't that close?

[Caroline]

Huh? 

Something I can help you with Alias? Why the confusion? I think I've made it clear where I stand on the case but if it's slipped you mind. I think he's ......

GUILTY
OK now? 

[Jan]

He told Julie he was 'watertight' and it was an 'open and shut case'. He wasn't investigated for a long time afterwards. When the relatives found the silencer and Julie came forward.

He choose a weapon that he could claim he left out earlier in the evening. Saying he fully loaded it after seeing rabbits. However human head shots with the same rifle are also lethal.

So for someone to think they had a "watertight" case in Julies words - then you would have thought he would have planned everything very carefully ? Not as you are saying lie through his teeth so that in fact the very next day he could have been questioned about those lies that he told to the police?

It does not really make sense does it?