Who has more rights thirty years on: Jeremy or Colin?

[lookout]

Or JM's acting when being questioned by the defence.

[Stephanie]

..and his reactions outside the farmhouse, knowing all were dead within.

... his blogs, his interview with Eric Allison, his letters to various supporters, the way he manipulates his supporters and gaslights all those people around him.. the manner to which he targets his next victim.. The way he feeds off the media attention be it good or bad.. His blatant avoidance of talking about the massacre, the way he turns on those who have helped him.. Etc etc

[David1819]

This isn't an argument David - this is your bias! If that is all the evidence you think is needed to support your claim them you've got a lot more to learn about this case!

Please enlighten me 

[Stephanie]

Please enlighten me 

You've already been enlightened David but you appear to be ignoring the facts that contradict your argument, preferring to use sarcasm or personal slights to anyone who opposes you.

[lookout]

Biased ? Don't make me laugh !! Aren't the guilters biased towards his guilt ? Give me strength.

[Jane]

Or JM's acting when being questioned by the defence.

We know too little of Julie's background to give a definitive answer, but it's not impossible that, although she knew/understood/intellectualized that what he'd done was wrong, she wasn't able to feel it. It also isn't impossible that since then she's had therapy/counselling.

[Steve_uk]

There is no documentary proof that Jeremy has been diagnosed with any mental illness and there is evidence to the contrary. A diagnoses of psychopathy alone or any mental illness for that matter does not establish ones guilt.

I put forward the argument here complete with all the evidence needed.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7554.0.html

David why did Jeremy telephone Julie at all and why did he make a beeline for her that first morning at Bourtree Cottage?

[David1819]

You've already been enlightened David but you appear to be ignoring the facts that contradict your argument, preferring to use sarcasm or personal slights to anyone who opposes you.

No its not that. I use sarcasm or personal slights because I get fed up of going round in circles with people.

If you read all of Julies September statements then compare it to the facts of the crime, then compare it to RWBs diary and AEs notes you will understand why Jeremy could not have confessed any information to her.

However this does not mean Jeremy is innocent, One can still accept Julie's testimony is false and still accuse Jeremy of being guilty.

[Stephanie]

No its not that. I use sarcasm or personal slights because I get fed up of going round in circles with people.

If you read all of Julies September statements then compare it to the facts of the crime, then compare it to RWBs diary and AEs notes you will understand why Jeremy could not have confessed any information to her.

However this does not mean Jeremy is innocent, One can still accept Julie's testimony is false and still accuse Jeremy of being guilty.

At least you are admitting to your behaviours.

I've read them and compared them and I stick by what myself and others have posted!

You'll have to explain in more detail your last statement, as it makes no sense to me whatsoever... Unless that was your point?

[Steve_uk]

No its not that. I use sarcasm or personal slights because I get fed up of going round in circles with people.

If you read all of Julies September statements then compare it to the facts of the crime, then compare it to RWBs diary and AEs notes you will understand why Jeremy could not have confessed any information to her.

However this does not mean Jeremy is innocent, One can still accept Julie's testimony is false and still accuse Jeremy of being guilty.

But the relatives did not live up close with him for a period of nearly two years. Of course Nevill and June felt the detestation but were distracted with worries over Sheila.

[David1819]

At least you are admitting to your behaviours.

Iv never denied being sarcastic or criticizing people. most of the time I mean no harm and it depends on the persons sense of humour if they become amused or offended.

I've read them and compared them and I stick by what myself and others have posted!

So you believe Jeremy confessed to Julie information that does not match the facts of the crime and it contains information only the police or the relatives had?

You'll have to explain in more detail your last statement, as it makes no sense to me whatsoever... Unless that was your point?

Julies testimony being false does not exonerate Jeremy

[lookout]

David why did Jeremy telephone Julie at all and why did he make a beeline for her that first morning at Bourtree Cottage?

Steve,Jeremy appeared to me to have been a hapless person in any situation let alone one in which his father had phoned about,so he obviously rang the person who was closest to him at the time,and who he'd thought would advise. He was wrong though wasn't he ? 

[Jane]

Iv never denied being sarcastic or criticizing people. most of the time I mean no harm and it depends on the persons sense of humour if they become amused or offended.

So you believe Jeremy confessed to Julie information that does not match the facts of the crime and it contains information only the police or the relatives had?

Julies testimony being false does not exonerate Jeremy

If Julie's testimony is false, but she only repeated what Jeremy had told her, she can hardly be held responsible for giving false testimony. I think it doubtful that Jeremy told her the whole truth. I think he may have hoped that what he did tell her, wouldn't be believed if she told anyone.

[David1819]

But the relatives did not live up close with him for a period of nearly two years. Of course Nevill and June felt the detestation but were distracted with worries over Sheila.

It's not difficult to work out.

The police by their own lack of communication gave Ann Eaton and Rober Boultflour false information about the crime. This exact same false information Julie claims Jeremy told her in his "detailed confession" Now had Jeremy actually confessed like she claims the information would match the crime scene as he is the supposed killer, but instead she gives the same false information the police told the relatives. Thus Jeremy did not and could not have told her anything it could only have come from the relatives or the police.

Do you get what I am saying?

[Stephanie]

Steve,Jeremy appeared to me to have been a hapless person in any situation let alone one in which his father had phoned about,so he obviously rang the person who was closest to him at the time,and who he'd thought would advise. He was wrong though wasn't he ?

Bamber wasn't unlucky, he phoned JM in order to somehow implicate her in order to attempt of protect himself. He probably wanted to gloat.