David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim

[Neil]

Why not?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way criticising you for doing so.  I am just curious as to why you chose to announce it now, rather than wait until such a time as an expert had had time to assess your findings. 

[David1819]

At the risk of repeating myself - your approach has been an excellent example to all of us ...

Instead of trying to point score with other members you have in fact been analysing the evidence with a fine tooth comb and an open mind ...

Very well done indeed - i salute you and your approach to this case !

I appreciate your support! 

[Stephanie]

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.

But David's findings may turn out to be wrong once looked at by an expert in the field Susan.

[Adam]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way criticising you for doing so.  I am just curious as to why you chose to announce it now, rather than wait until such a time as an expert had had time to assess your findings.

I did ask David how he got this unseen forensic evidence. But he did not answer.

There is no reason why he can't disclose the information now on here. Any CCRC hearing is years away.

If he isn't going to disclose it now, there was no point in mentioning it in the first place.

[Stephanie]

I did ask David how he got this unseen forensic evidence. But he did not answer.

There is no reason why he can't disclose the information now on here. Any CCRC hearing is years away.

If he isn't going to disclose it now, there was no point in mentioning it in the first place.

I understand your points Adam and agree with you. But David is obviously excited so we shouldn't knock him for that. I've done it myself and it turned out I was wrong.

[Neil]

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

It was the first sentence to which I was referring!

You've only now edited it, since I've drawn your attention to it. 

Again, it really doesn't bother me in the slightest, if someone chooses to insult me.  In fact, I would rather it wasn't edited. 

I would hope for fair and balanced editing though. 

[maggie]

I did ask David how he got this unseen forensic evidence. But he did not answer.

There is no reason why he can't disclose the information now on here. Any CCRC hearing is years away.

If he isn't going to disclose it now, there was no point in mentioning it in the first place.

That's your opinion Adam but David has every right to disclose it on the forum if he wishes to do so.
I understand David and Ngb agreed to release the information to stimulate debate..... it seems it has worked.

[Stephanie]

I appreciate your support! 

You have my support too David, only I believe Bamber is guilty. I'm not your enemy. I just don't think you've considered all the other factors at play in this case. Just my opinion of course..

[Stephanie]

That's your opinion Adam but David has every right to disclose it on the forum if he wishes to do so.
I understand David and Ngb agreed to release the information to stimulate debate..... it seems it has worked.

Think that was obvious Maggie 

[Neil]

That's your opinion Adam but David has every right to disclose it on the forum if he wishes to do so.
I understand David and Ngb agreed to release the information to stimulate debate..... it seems it has worked.

What are we debating?

[Adam]

I understand your points Adam and agree with you. But David is obviously excited so we shouldn't knock him for that. I've done it myself and it turned out I was wrong.

All that's happened is a theory has been sent to Andrew Hunter. Who may not be engaging with Bamber anymore. Hunter has not come out to play for years and I understand is ill.

It can be discussed on this board. If Hunter passes it onto Bamber it's up to him if it goes public,  or gets included in a future CCRC submission. Or both/neither.

[Stephanie]

All that's happened is a theory has been sent to Andrew Hunter. Who may not be engaging with Bamber anymore. Hunter has not come out to play for years and I understand is ill.

It can be discussed on this board. If Hunter passes it onto Bamber it's up to him if it goes public,  or gets included in a future CCRC submission. Or both.

I believe it's to do with David's previous posts, though I can't be bothered to go through them, something to do with the guns maybe?

[Adam]

Discussing it on this board will assist Bamber and his team.

It will help Bamber and the CT decide whether to use it at all. Or not.

[maggie]

It was the first sentence to which I was referring!

You've only now edited it, since I've drawn your attention to it. 

Again, it really doesn't bother me in the slightest, if someone chooses to insult me.  In fact, I would rather it wasn't edited. 

I would hope for fair and balanced editing though.

Sorry I missed it Neil, it was not intentional and certainly was not due to unfair or unbalanced editing. Of course it was removed when you pointed it out because I had MISSED it!!!!
I don't understand your attitude,
I'm afraid personally insulting posts are usually removed or edited and its not left to the personal choice of either person involved.

[maggie]

What are we debating?

Well I don't know but it seems to me people have plenty to say.  You're on here for one so I presume you have some interest apart from telling me how to mod the forum.