David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim

[Adam]

I mentioned yesterday That one of the reasons I decided not go public with the findings is that if it turns out I am wrong I wouldn't want the campaign using it as propaganda. Of course I have considered I could be wrong. NGB can back me up on that one

So you're alleged forensic breakthrough could be wrong. But NGB who you went to cap in hand, said it was 'well written'.

Why worry about the CT ? If posters on here shoot down you're theory, then at least you know. And it's unlikely the CT will then use it as properganda.

Neville's alledged call to the police was made before this forum was created. So no one refuted it. Once the claim was made they couldn't back down after forums shot it down. It's now used for properganda.

As I said earlier today, there is nothing stopping you informing a Bamber forum what this alleged forensic breakthrough is. But you know it will carry more weight by not divulging.

[Neil]

I have removed some personal posts from this thread and am afrAid some of yours were included Neil.

What about reply #198?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the slightest bit bothered about being insulted by Jackie, or anyone else for that matter, but nothing I said to Jackie was any worse than that.

[Stephanie]

On the contrary, it's only just begun. A new chapter in the Bamber saga is on the Horizon you have my word on that John and I shall not disappoint

I mentioned yesterday That one of the reasons I decided not go public with the findings is that if it turns out I am wrong I wouldn't want the campaign using it as propaganda. Of course I have considered I could be wrong. NGB can back me up on that one 

So you do recognise you could be wrong?

[JackiePreece]

Well as absurd an unbelievable as it sounds that is actually what I have done. However its not so much well done me its more like shame on the authorities for not working it out yet.

NGB can verify this claim

You appear to have handled this situation perfectly and you have nobody to answer to.

I look forward to hearing more news from you in the future when the timing is right

[Neil]

I mentioned yesterday That one of the reasons I decided not go public with the findings is that if it turns out I am wrong I wouldn't want the campaign using it as propaganda. Of course I have considered I could be wrong. NGB can back me up on that one

Hello David, may I ask, why have you at this stage, decided to publicly declare that you have potentially found new evidence?

[Stephanie]

Well as absurd an unbelievable as it sounds that is actually what I have done. However its not so much well done me its more like shame on the authorities for not working it out yet.

In the SH case the prosecution failed to establish the exact motive therefore IMO left themselves wide open. The theory they came up with was that it was a burglary gone wrong but it wasn't... So I know these things happen.

I felt a bit like you as in "shame of the authorities for having not worked it out." Or maybe they did but couldn't secure a conviction with the evidence they had found?

[Adam]

Hello David, may I ask, why have you at this stage, decided to publicly declare that you have potentially found new evidence?

David has backed himself into a corner.

He's amazingly turned into a supporter. But knows only xxxx xxx xxx xxxx will support him on here. Mike usually posting on other threads.

His threads do nothing to convince guilters and he either defends 'guilty' threads or doesn't respond if the 'guilty' thread evidence is so overwhelming.

He claimed that he's sent new evidence to Andrew Hunter, which raised zero eyebrows. For some reason he then gave the documents to a fellow supporter on here, who wrote a conservation approval post.

David will now arguing Bamber's innocence on the basis of an undisclosed item he sent to Andrew Hunter. And I thought xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx xxx.

[David1819]

Hello David, may I ask, why have you at this stage, decided to publicly declare that you have potentially found new evidence?

Why not?

[Neil]

You appear to have handled this situation perfectly and you have nobody to answer to.

I look forward to hearing more news from you in the future when the timing is right

Jackie, you earlier claimed that there was other evidence, which is even more compelling than David's findings.  This obviously implies that you have seen what David has to offer. 

Are you or David able to confirm whether this is indeed the case? 

[David1819]

So you do recognise you could be wrong?

Once more you take my sentences out of context. At one stage I was not certain I was correct. however I am now certain I am correct but I have been told that if I release the information it could harm the legal process. Thus its for Jeremy's legal team to decide when or if its appropriate.

[David1819]

Jackie, you earlier claimed that there was other evidence, which is even more compelling than David's findings.  This obviously implies that you have seen what David has to offer. 

Are you or David able to confirm whether this is indeed the case?

Only person on this forum I have shown is Neil (NGB)

[maggie]

What about reply #198?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in the slightest bit bothered about being insulted by Jackie, or anyone else for that matter, but nothing I said to Jackie was any worse than that.

I edited the first sentence, nothing else particularly personal in the post. 

[susan]

Once more you take my sentences out of context. At one stage I was not certain I was correct. however I am now certain I am correct but I have been told that if I release the information it could harm the legal process. Thus its for Jeremy's legal team to decide when or if its appropriate.

David
quite right it would be totally inappropriate for you to disclose your find it is up to Jeremy's Legal team to decide that. 

[Stephanie]

Once more you take my sentences out of context. At one stage I was not certain I was correct. however I am now certain I am correct but I have been told that if I release the information it could harm the legal process. Thus its for Jeremy's legal team to decide when or if its appropriate.

What have I taken out of context?

NGB clearly states that he is not an expert in the field and for your findings to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions they would need to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert.

This hasn't happened yet so you could be wrong. I think you are jumping the gun.

[Stephanie]

Only person on this forum I have shown is Neil (NGB)

Wise move.