David1819 - forensic breakthrough claim

[nugnug]

i take all cliams of new relvlations with a tiny pinch becouse ive heard to many before.

but i do not belive ngb would give he blessing to a cliam that dident have at least some substance.

[Adam]

NGB is the "most respected supporter on here" for good reason.  He would never enter into such a dishonest plot. 

I think you're gonna have to face it Adam, David has it seems, at the very least, found a new point worthy of serious debate.

Well he wasn't going to ask Lookout to endorse it.

NGB and David woukd have jointly decided to not post the findings for debate on here. It would get ripped apart on here and die within an hour.

Anyone can send anything to Hunter. Saying it's been sent but refusing to say what it is or how it was found, gives it more weight.

[guest2181]

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. 

Yeah I kinda get all of that, people certainly can't comment on something that they haven't seen, well at least not with any authority.

NGB's view on something is perhaps of interest but hardly anything more, he doesn't have a good track record in this case of his belief of 'grounds for appeal' coming to fruition.

The 2012 submission was a strong case, compelling, almost a dead cert. In fact it wasn't going to go to another appeal, the charges were simply going to be dismissed. The CCRC decided otherwise and NGB then declared that the tests were incomplete. Clearly it was the CCRC's fault for dictating a deadline.

I don't actually believe NGB thinks Jeremy is innocent but rather he thinks there is a legal argument against his convictions.

I'm certainly not calling NGB out in any way or asking him to explain his position, nor indeed do I have any intention of being derisive towards him and I hope this isn't taken as such. We all have our opinions, I'm sure he'd be the first to agree. 

Regarding David's "new" evidence, I'm of the opinion that it's nothing of the sort, it may be another angle or 'Mikeism' theory which hasn't previously been presented, but highly subjective and requires the reader to have a leap of faith in order to entertain.

I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me. It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?

I believe that this will all amount to nothing, time will tell, but how long do we give it.

Can somebody remind me in a years time and we'll reassess.

[sherlock]

Have you got a source ?

Anyway there will always be an ongoing investigation. Bamber's always going on about it.

Try the Press Office ...

If they will talk to you that is ...

[Adam]

One thing David can disclose is how he got this theory.

Was he given priviledged information which no one has seen ? Or spoke to people who have never spoken before.

Or has he looked at evidence we've all seen and believes he's noticed something no one else has in 30 years.

I have asked him twice today, but similar to creating his 2016 'detailed' account of how Sheila did it, he's refusing to budge.

[Neil]

Yeah I kinda get all of that, people certainly can't comment on something that they haven't seen, well at least not with any authority.

NGB's view on something is perhaps of interest but hardly anything more, he doesn't have a good track record in this case of his belief of 'grounds for appeal' coming to fruition.

The 2012 submission was a strong case, compelling, almost a dead cert. In fact it wasn't going to go to another appeal, the charges were simply going to be dismissed. The CCRC decided otherwise and NGB then declared that the tests were incomplete. Clearly it was the CCRC's fault for dictating a deadline.

I don't actually believe NGB thinks Jeremy is innocent but rather he thinks there is a legal argument against his convictions.

I'm certainly not calling NGB out in any way or asking him to explain his position, nor indeed do I have any intention of being derisive towards him and I hope this isn't taken as such. We all have our opinions, I'm sure he'd be the first to agree. 

Regarding David's "new" evidence, I'm of the opinion that it's nothing of the sort, it may be another angle or 'Mikeism' theory which hasn't previously been presented, but highly subjective and requires the reader to have a leap of faith in order to entertain.

I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me. It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?

I believe that this will all amount to nothing, time will tell, but how long do we give it.

Can somebody remind me in a years time and we'll reassess.

That's the conclusion I've reached, having invited David to explain his actions on more than one occasion. 

[David1819]

Regarding David's "new" evidence, I'm of the opinion that it's nothing of the sort, it may be another angle or 'Mikeism' theory which hasn't previously been presented, but highly subjective and requires the reader to have a leap of faith in order to entertain.

I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me. It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?

Honesty Hartley I was told by AH not to disclose what I had found for several reasons, Him being the older and wiser and directly involved with the case I took his advice.

I don't have a reputation for being delusional or making false promises, so I am not impressed by your comments Hartley. You could at leased save the criticism till after you have seen what I have.

[maggie]

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.

The posts were not 'indescriminately' deleted I considered each post on its merits from a neutral position as I always do.

[sherlock]

Regarding David's "new" evidence, I'm of the opinion that it's nothing of the sort, it may be another angle or 'Mikeism' theory which hasn't previously been presented, but highly subjective and requires the reader to have a leap of faith in order to entertain.

I don't buy the secrecy for the benefit of reducing the CPS's ability to prepare a rebuttal, that sounds somewhat delusional to me. It also appears to me that David is desperate for recognition and fame, why else boast about something which he has decided not to disclose?

I believe that this will all amount to nothing, time will tell, but how long do we give it.

Can somebody remind me in a years time and we'll reassess.

I deal with a lot of lawyers and it sounds like very standard practice to me ...

If you read the thread carefully you will see David has already fully explained the circumstances of him breaking this news and then being rightly advised to hold back on the detail ...

Do try to pay attention in class Hartley 

[Stephanie]

Honesty Hartley I was told by AH not to disclose what I had found for several reasons, Him being the older and wiser and directly involved with the case I took his advice.

I don't have a reputation for being delusional or making false promises, so I am not impressed by your comments Hartley. You could at leased save the criticism till after you have seen what I have.

Are your findings in relation to your belief of the gun shot residue on SC hands being flawed? Or did you move on from that to something else?

[Stephanie]

Your first post on this forum was to Mike and read:

Why are you even allowed to post on this forum? You seem to have more fictional stories than Walt Disney!

Then today you have said:

Indeed, and all those who have been criticizing your efforts Mike wont have the final laugh. 

Surely you can see why we are sceptical with regards your claims David? And why some posters are critical of yours claims? You haven't been very consistent.

Not long ago you made a particularly insulting comment towards NGB with regards his beliefs but today you are supporting them because you believe they bolster your argument.

[David1819]

Your first post on this forum was to Mike and read:

Then today you have said:

Surely you can see why we are sceptical with regards your claims David? And why some posters are critical of yours claims? You haven't been very consistent.

Your selective reading fails completely once more.  I said those criticizing mikes efforts NOT those criticizing his stories

Mike has made allot of effort on this forum. but criticism of his stories is perfectly valid, if he can show me a photo of Shelia on the Bed and prove Jeremy has a daughter than I will take my accept the Disney comparison was wrong, but until then it stands

[Stephanie]

So is it the gunshot residue on the hands theory? Or am I wrong?

[Stephanie]

Hello all

I'm very sceptical of the safety of Bambers conviction. I believe only he knows what happened that early morning.

Due to the serious nature of what he has been convicted of The crown will not risk releasing him.

I do however agree with your above post David and don't think anyone can argue with your comment - 'only he knows what happened'

[maggie]

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.

I sense a whiff of sour grapes in some posts.
As far as I can see, David has found something which caught his attention. On further investigation it turned out to be something of interest which may go towards proving or casting doubt on JB's innocence/guilt or may not .
Sensibly he consulted with ngb to confirm he has something of value which needs to be looked at.
I cannot understand what the problem is, was he supposed to ignore what he found because it may not agree with his or others point of view?
I say good for David, surely all avenues should be explored, accepted or dismissed.