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

[guest7363]

A ban would kill two birds with one stone 

If that's what you think Maggie, for a man that wants Justice and honesty so be it, I could come back as born again Justice

[guest7363]

Although it could help when the forum is quiet. GoodJustice and BadJustice could keep the discussion going amongst themselves. I think they would get on fairly well without too many fall outs. 

Sorry Hartley I would be ruthless with bad Justice

[lookout]

Although it could help when the forum is quiet. GoodJustice and BadJustice could keep the discussion going amongst themselves. I think they would get on fairly well without too many fall outs. 

So in essence,he'd be talking to himself ? 

Well I suppose you couldn't talk to anyone better than yourself .

[Adam]

Oh there you are!!

I don't hAve to explain anything to you or anyone else thanks Adam.
I have never believed scenarios have any substance at all. How can I know what happened when?  Did Sheila stub her toe etc.

It is very helpful of you to tell me what I can or can't do as a moderator, now I will be equally helpful and as a moderator tell you the same.

Please stop pressurising people to give scenarios, some are happy to do so some prefer not to, it is their prerogative. 

I cannot find a clause anywhere in the forum rules which states every poster has to give a scenario because Adam says so.

I have always been neutral as a moderator and whatever my views are I will continue to be so. 

I have an open mind Adam, a condition incomprehensible to you I would guess. 

Maybe I was over enthusiastic 90/10....I'm leaning towards JB....... 50/50 is probably a good place to be.

After 5 years on the forum, you're still not going to give a view on how Sheila committed the massacre.

Bit weird in my view as all the crime scene evidence is available & not disputed. So it should be straight forward to match Sheila to it. Providing it is pretended she was not on Haloperidol.

How do explain all the forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Do you agree with Roch that Ainsley was brought in to hide all the evidence showing it was Sheila ?

[lookout]

Sheila committed the murders because of her state of mind.Need I say more ?

[maggie]

After 5 years on the forum, you're still not going to give a view on how Sheila committed the massacre.

Bit weird in my view as all the crime scene evidence is available. So it would be straight forward to match Sheila to it. Providing it is pretended she was not on Haloperidol.

How do explain all the forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Do you agree with Roch that Ainsley was brought in to hide all the evidence showing it was Sheila ?

I have told you my opinion of scenarios. Haven' t got time to write a fairy story. Sorry Adam

[lookout]

What I find appalling is the corruption and manipulation of evidence against Jeremy. Unforgivable !

[guest7363]

A ban would kill two birds with one stone 

It is something I forecast Maggie, the way Scorpio went, I am not bothered I will keep in touch with my friends through email.  The biggest joke is someone impersonating a police officer to drum up support for a mass murderer. The lowest of the low everyone knows who it is.

[Adam]

I have told you my opinion of scenarios. Haven' t got time to write a fairy story. Sorry Adam

Do you agree with Roch that Ainsley was brought in to hide evidence showing Sheila was the killer ?

If not, why do you believe the 50+ pieces of forensic evidence showing Bamber is guilty are wrong. Or are just some of the pieces wrong ? 

Other cases just need one piece of forensic evidence for a conviction. Why does the Bamber case need between 1 - 50+ ?

[maggie]

It is something I forecast Maggie, the way Scorpio went, I am not bothered I will keep in touch with my friends through email.  The biggest joke is someone impersonating a police officer to drum up support for a mass murderer. The lowest of the low everyone knows who it is.

Are you sure about that?  IMO everyone doesn't know about that.

[maggie]

Do you agree with Roch that Ainsley was brought in to hide evidence showing Sheila was the killer ?

If not, why do you believe the 50+ pieces of forensic evidence showing Bamber is guilty are wrong. Or are just some of the pieces wrong ? 

Other cases just need one piece of forensic evidence for a conviction. Why does the Bamber case need between 1 - 50+ ?

As you have just said only 'one piece of forensic evidence' is necessary.

Scenarios are a good game but mean nothing.

I have no idea what Ainsley did as I am not Roch and whatever he knows about that he hasn't told me.

[Adam]

Justice says that after 32 years no one being able to say how Sheila committed the massacre 'proves nothing'.

I believe it's massive proof as a scenario is based on the vast amount of undisputed crime scene evidence. Together with two alledged WHF phone calls Bamber said Nevill made.

However posters base their Bamber innocence on Julie identifying the twins or AE giving BC Nevill's wallet. These will not be sufficient to get the CCRC to look at the case for a third time.

[David1819]

Oh there you are!!

I don't hAve to explain anything to you or anyone else thanks Adam.
I have never believed scenarios have any substance at all. How can I know what happened when?  Did Sheila stub her toe etc.

It is very helpful of you to tell me what I can or can't do as a moderator, now I will be equally helpful and as a moderator tell you the same.

Please stop pressurising people to give scenarios, some are happy to do so some prefer not to, it is their prerogative. 

I cannot find a clause anywhere in the forum rules which states every poster has to give a scenario because Adam says so.

I have always been neutral as a moderator and whatever my views are I will continue to be so. 

I have an open mind Adam, a condition incomprehensible to you I would guess. 

Maybe I was over enthusiastic 90/10....I'm leaning towards JB....... 50/50 is probably a good place to be.

If xxxx is not xxxx xxxxxxxxx he demands impossible proof.

Demand impossible proof - Disinformation shills sometimes will demand proof then ignore it when its presented, or continue to demand impossible proofs. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, they will deem the material irrelevant and demand unattainable proof that is virtually impossible for the opponent to retrieve; for the purpose of detracting focus from the mounds of legitimate data available.

[Jane]

Do you agree with Roch that Ainsley was brought in to hide evidence showing Sheila was the killer ?

If not, why do you believe the 50+ pieces of forensic evidence showing Bamber is guilty are wrong. Or are just some of the pieces wrong ? 

Other cases just need one piece of forensic evidence for a conviction. Why does the Bamber case need between 1 - 50+ ?

Part of the problem lays in that this is no longer just about Jeremy's guilt/innocence. There is woven into it many other potential cases of innocence/guilt each having an individual influence on Jeremy's status.

[JackieD]

After 5 years on the forum, you're still not going to give a view on how Sheila committed the massacre.

Bit weird in my view as all the crime scene evidence is available & not disputed. So it should be straight forward to match Sheila to it. Providing it is pretended she was not on Haloperidol.

How do explain all the forensic evidence showing it was not Sheila. Do you agree with Roch that Ainsley was brought in to hide all the evidence showing it was Sheila ?

Do you know what Adam, why don't you apply to join the Official Campaign Team, then you would have your finger right on the pulse