After nine closures, a time for a final closure ?

[Adam]

Supporters fall into two categories.

The media supporters who are always making sound bites, speaking on television or the radio. Or contributing to the OS and creating Youtube videos. Such as Poppy, Trudie and O'Neill.  These people do not debate the case on forums. The exception being Mike and briefly,  Jackie.

Then there are the forum supporters. Who will debate the case on a forum, either ignoring the evidence or saying it was wrong. But will not go outside of the forum to support Bamber.

[Jane]

ALl your efforts to establish me twisting have simply resulted in you looking foolish.  I post facts and evidence while you make up nonsense to suit your agenda.

You post your own opinion -and that's all it is-  the same as the rest of us but where we say "Could it be.............." OR "Perhaps it is..................." you INSIST that it is with nothing but facts you've twisted and re-twisted to force the scene/peoples thoughts to where they best fit your agenda.

[guest154]

Supporters fall into two categories.

The media supporters who are always making sound bites, speaking on television or the radio. Or contributing to the OS and creating Youtube videos. Such as Poppy, Trudie and O'Neill.  These people do not debate the case on forums. The exception being Mike and briefly,  Jackie.

Then there are the forum supporters. Who will debate the case on a forum, either ignoring the evidence or saying it was wrong. But will not go outside of the forum to support Bamber.

Is Poppy the same Poppy who pretends there are two COLP reports? 

[lookout]

Supporters fall into two categories.

The media supporters who are always making sound bites, speaking on television or the radio. Or contributing to the OS and creating Youtube videos. Such as Poppy, Trudie and O'Neill.  These people do not debate the case on forums. The exception being Mike and briefly,  Jackie.

Then there are the forum supporters. Who will debate the case on a forum, either ignoring the evidence or saying it was wrong. But will not go outside of the forum to support Bamber.

How do you know what I do and what I don't do to support JB ? How do you know that I don't go beyond this forum ?

[Adam]

Is Poppy the same Poppy who pretends there are two COLP reports? 

I have only seen her on TV once. When she said they had received new documents which showed Bamber is innocent
 

Although Trudie is now saying the police are still withholding evidence.

[Adam]

I suppose two media supporters saying two different things is the best of both worlds.

Poppy can say new received documents show innocence.

Trudie can say the police are withholding evidence.

Either sound bite is a positive one. But a bit confusing.

Good team work.

[Jan]

Supporters fall into two categories.

The media supporters who are always making sound bites, speaking on television or the radio. Or contributing to the OS and creating Youtube videos. Such as Poppy, Trudie and O'Neill.  These people do not debate the case on forums. The exception being Mike and briefly,  Jackie.

Then there are the forum supporters. Who will debate the case on a forum, either ignoring the evidence or saying it was wrong. But will not go outside of the forum to support Bamber.

You carry on thinking that if you want to. In Adams world (:

[scipio_usmc]

How do you know what I do and what I don't do to support JB ? How do you know that I don't go beyond this forum ?

He hasn't seen you on video

[lookout]

 Two categories :

 Those who want him to be innocent and those who want him to be guilty !!

[petey]

Two categories :

 Those who want him to be innocent and those who want him to be guilty !!

Can u honestly say that you hope jb is innocent?! To be honest I find that statement pretty staggering, even coming from you.

Would you rather that justice has been correctly carried out and the right man in jb has been convicted of the appalling crimes he carried out?

Or would u prefer that there was been a catastrophic miscarriage of justice whereby x number of people were involved in a cover up and framing operation to secure the conviction of an innocent man. But Lookout was correct all along in her 'gut instinct'?

This is a genuine question, but is it more important to you that you, Lookout were right all along? Or more important that despite the poor investigation, justice has been correctly meted out as jb is guilty?

This is not an attack on you but I find it quite incredible that you can openly post that you actually hope there has been a miscarriage of justice!
 

[lookout]

Can u honestly say that you hope jb is innocent?! To be honest I find that statement pretty staggering, even coming from you.

Would you rather that justice has been correctly carried out and the right man in jb has been convicted of the appalling crimes he carried out?

Or would u prefer that there was been a catastrophic miscarriage of justice whereby x number of people were involved in a cover up and framing operation to secure the conviction of an innocent man. But Lookout was correct all along in her 'gut instinct'?

This is a genuine question, but is it more important to you that you, Lookout were right all along? Or more important that despite the poor investigation, justice has been correctly meted out as jb is guilty?

This is not an attack on you but I find it quite incredible that you can openly post that you actually hope there has been a miscarriage of justice!

Well you've always been on the dramatic side as your posts convey.

Firstly, what's wrong in " hoping that JB is found to be innocent ?

Secondly,most times I live in hope that justice has been meted out accordingly in the majority of crimes.

Thirdly,it's NOT a case of " preferring "?? there to have been a MOJ, nor that there were x amount of people involved in a " cover-up or framing " ( which I've never admitted to-your words !)

Yes,a gut instinct,but obviously other areas of the case which didn't ring true also.
Why should/must it be important to me that I've possibly been right all along ? What sort of a question is that ?

Lastly,where have I posted,in words,that I " hope there has been a MOJ ?"

 What's it to you what I think anyway ?  I'm not forcing you or anyone else to share my thoughts,unlike some.

[petey]

Well you've always been on the dramatic side as your posts convey.

Firstly, what's wrong in " hoping that JB is found to be innocent ?

Secondly,most times I live in hope that justice has been meted out accordingly in the majority of crimes.

Thirdly,it's NOT a case of " preferring "?? there to have been a MOJ, nor that there were x amount of people involved in a " cover-up or framing " ( which I've never admitted to-your words !)

Yes,a gut instinct,but obviously other areas of the case which didn't ring true also.
Why should/must it be important to me that I've possibly been right all along ? What sort of a question is that ?

Lastly,where have I posted,in words,that I " hope there has been a MOJ ?"

 What's it to you what I think anyway ?  I'm not forcing you or anyone else to share my thoughts,unlike some.

By definition, the fact that you hope jb is innocent, this would lead to the fact that therefore you must hope that there has been a miscarriage of justice because you hope he is innocenct.

If it's easier for you I will ask directly.  Do u hope that there has been a miscarriage of justice whereby x number of people have set out to convict jb, knowing that he is innocent?

Your thoughts are inconsequential to me, but I have been pretty shocked how it looks to onlookers where you have consistently hoped jb is innocent and therefore as explained above, hoped that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Sadly and I may be wrong in this, but it appears from your posts that it is more important to you that you are correct in your case appraisal. I genuinely can't believe that you openly post by insinuation that you hope that an innocent man has been wrongly imprisoned for 30 years!

[petey]

Well you've always been on the dramatic side as your posts convey.

Firstly, what's wrong in " hoping that JB is found to be innocent ?

Secondly,most times I live in hope that justice has been meted out accordingly in the majority of crimes.

Thirdly,it's NOT a case of " preferring "?? there to have been a MOJ, nor that there were x amount of people involved in a " cover-up or framing " ( which I've never admitted to-your words !)

Yes,a gut instinct,but obviously other areas of the case which didn't ring true also.
Why should/must it be important to me that I've possibly been right all along ? What sort of a question is that ?

Lastly,where have I posted,in words,that I " hope there has been a MOJ ?"

 What's it to you what I think anyway ?  I'm not forcing you or anyone else to share my thoughts,unlike some.

Because that means u actually hope that an innocent man has been wrongly imprisoned for 30+ years!!

[Jan]

By definition, the fact that you hope jb is innocent, this would lead to the fact that therefore you must hope that there has been a miscarriage of justice because you hope he is innocenct.

If it's easier for you I will ask directly.  Do u hope that there has been a miscarriage of justice whereby x number of people have set out to convict jb, knowing that he is innocent?

Your thoughts are inconsequential to me, but I have been pretty shocked how it looks to onlookers where you have consistently hoped jb is innocent and therefore as explained above, hoped that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Sadly and I may be wrong in this, but it appears from your posts that it is more important to you that you are correct in your case appraisal. I genuinely can't believe that you openly post by insinuation that you hope that an innocent man has been wrongly imprisoned for 30 years!

You have missed one alternative - a set of people who set out to convict Jeremy because they thought he Was guilty - therefore it did not matter what methods were used.

We have to remember this was not at a time of cutting edge forensic science and the crime scene and exhibits had not been treated in the correct forensic manner - so perhaps there was the opportunity to turn the case whichever way was required.

[petey]

You have missed one alternative - a set of people who set out to convict Jeremy because they thought he Was guilty - therefore it did not matter what methods were used.

We have to remember this was not at a time of cutting edge forensic science and the crime scene and exhibits had not been treated in the correct forensic manner - so perhaps there was the opportunity to turn the case whichever way was required.

So do u think jb could have been convicted because people thought he was guilty and therefore adduced the evidence in that way.

Whereas all along he was innocent?

Do u think that he could be innocent yet nobody in the entire investigating team knows?