David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim

[Adam]

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.

There is nothing to debate.

David alleges he has made a forensic breakthough. But refuses to say how or what. But got a fellow Bamber supporter to post diplomatic support.

[maggie]

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.

Maybe Adam but David and Ngb have decided not to discuss it on here which is their prerogative.

[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.

David I take it you know if your findings do turn out to be supported by experts in the field, it could be years before your findings lead anywhere? Do you think you'll be able to keep it quiet for that long? 

[Adam]

Maybe Adam but David and Ngb have decided not to discuss it on here which is their prerogative.

Seems a very cynical ploy to me. After Trudies vlogs didn't work.

If David had just created a thread regarding the details of what he had sent to Hunter, it would have simply been shot down and dismissed by guilters,  and then died a death.

However to be fair,  to make a bold claim but refuse to say what it is or how it was found is the sort of thing a Bamber supporter would do.

[Stephanie]

Seems a very cynical ploy to me. After Trudies vlogs didn't work.

If David had just created a thread regarding the details of what he had sent to Hunter, it would have simply been shot down and died a death..

However to make a bold claim but refuse to say what it is or how it was found is the sort of thing a Bamber supporter would do.

Adam 

[David1819]

There is nothing to debate.

David alleges he has made a forensic breakthough. But refuses to say how or what. But got a fellow Bamber supporter to post diplomatic support.

If you read Neil's post, He believes its enough for a fresh appeal. So that is allot to debate if you ask me. Neil is cautious but I am convinced it will get Jeremy back to the court of appeal.

However I can understand why those who have not seen what I have cannot appreciate it. 

[Stephanie]

If you read Neil's post, He believes its enough for a fresh appeal. So that is allot to debate if you ask me. Neil is cautious but I am convinced it will get Jeremy back to the court of appeal.

However I can understand why those who have not seen what I have cannot appreciate it. 

No he doesn't state that David I think you've misinterpreted what he has said.

Here it is again:
I am not an expert in the field involved and clearly for this to be presented to the CCRC as part of new submissions david1819's report and conclusions would have to be reviewed and validated by a suitably qualified expert.  However, I can see no reason to doubt the conclusions reached and have given david1819 my view in more detail.

[David1819]

Seems a very cynical ploy to me. After Trudies vlogs didn't work.

If David had just created a thread regarding the details of what he had sent to Hunter, it would have simply been shot down and dismissed by guilters,  and then died a death.

However to be fair,  to make a bold claim but refuse to say what it is or how it was found is the sort of thing a Bamber supporter would do.

Don't try and provoke me into releasing it Adam it wont work 

[Neil]

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.

I am interested in finding out what the other 'compelling piece of evidence' is, that Jackie was referring to earlier.  My earlier posts regarding this, have been indiscriminently deleted. 

I am also keen to find out what motivated David to share this piece of news now. 

[Stephanie]

Don't try and provoke me into releasing it Adam it wont work 

I wonder if you'll be able to say nothing for the next however many years or whether by the end of this week or next you will succumb to the pressure 

I'll be watching you like a hawk David lol 

Joking btw...

[David1819]

I am interested in finding out what the other 'compelling piece of evidence' is, that Jackie was referring to earlier.  My earlier posts regarding this, have been indiscriminently deleted. 

I am also keen to find out what motivated David to share this piece of news now.

I only made the discovery three weeks ago. Its not like I have held onto it for ages and said nothing

[Adam]

Don't try and provoke me into releasing it Adam it wont work 

You, xxxx and xxxxxxx have you're own ways to support Bamber on here.

You've chosen to send something to Hunter and ask another supporter on here to praise it. Which no other poster has ever done.

You will now be supporring Bamber on here using something no one has seen and no one knows how you got it.

[Stephanie]

You, Mike and Lookout have you're own ways to support Bamber on here.

You've chosen to send something to Hunter and ask another supporter on here to praise it. You will now be supporring Bamber on here using something no one has seen and no one knows how you got it.

I'm sure if you go through all of David's posts there will be a clue there somewhere Adam.

[nugnug]

well we will just have to wait and see then.

[Neil]

If you read Neil's post, He believes its enough for a fresh appeal. So that is allot to debate if you ask me. Neil is cautious but I am convinced it will get Jeremy back to the court of appeal.

However I can understand why those who have not seen what I have cannot appreciate it. 

All we have to debate, is NGB's flowery assessment of your findings.

The way I interpreted it was; 

Looks like a good point, but would require conformation/further work by an expert.
Alone, it would probably not be enough to get the CCRC to have another look at the case.