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.
I think you have missed the point.
I am not criticising your findings, in fact my very first sentence in the post that you quoted states that:
"... people certainly can't comment on something that they haven't seen, well at least not with any authority"
My belief that your "new" evidence will amount to nothing is based on the numerous claims that have gone before.
I have not labelled you delusional, I have stated that:
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
As an attempt to further clarify something which already appears to be quite clear. I am saying that I do not believe that the Crowns ability to respond to allegations would be enhanced or hindered by the release or non-release of your theories. The very idea seems ridiculous to me and I personally find it quite delusional and overly dramatic, to use that as a reason for keeping things on the QT.
Having said that, I have no problem with keeping it to yourself and have previously stated that I think it's "fair enough" to do so.
I have not called you delusional or indeed suggested that you have a reputation for being delusional and making false promises.
I have stated that:
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?
It is just my personal view but there are a number of other members who appear to agree. You do appear to be attention seeking and trying to obtain recognition.
It's not that long ago when you decided that you had single handedly come up with the suggestion that a phone off the hook would disable other handsets on the same line, even claiming that your idea had been stolen and included in a published book. Obviously that wasn't the case at all and came across as if you were craving to be seen as important.
You also appear to be boasting about your allegedly "new" information, whilst keeping it under wraps, and then complain about being criticised saying that I should
"at leased least save the criticism till after you have seen what I have".As already mentioned, my scepticism regarding your "new" claims comes from the countless utterly baseless claims that have gone before. I have however said that we will have to wait and see.
I am not criticising your claims, but your behaviour, boasting and apparent smugness, which all comes across as a bit cringeworthy and has led to other members using your claims as an opportunity to attack others.
You may have sought advice from Andrew Hunter, citing him as being older and wiser. Whilst he is certainly older, being 73 years old and having survived a major stroke in May 2014. I do however question his wisdom, to use your favourite accusation of being delusional, this is the man who in 2005 stood up in Parliament and preached that:
First, at 5.25 am, officers in police car call sign Charlie-Alpha 7—the same officers who had met Bamber at White House farm and spent much of the time with him—relayed a message from the tactical firearms team to incident headquarters. The firearms team was in conversation with a person inside the farm. If the police were in conversation with somebody inside the farm at 5.25 am, the case against Bamber collapses. He could not have murdered everybody in the farmhouse before 3 am if at 5.25 am the police were talking to one of his supposed victims. If, on the other hand, the police were in conversation with a third party inside the farmhouse, the judge's ruling that either Jeremy or Sheila and nobody else could have committed the crimes is blatantly wrong.
An apparent cut 'n' paste from the campaign team website of the time? Or maybe the chicken came first, unless it was the egg?
Also next time you are speaking with him, you can also let him know that I/R stands for 'Information Room'.
.......records a message from a Detective Inspector "IR"—we know only his initials—which. said:
"Police entered premises. One male dead, one female dead".
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7579.0.htmlObviously I don't see his endorsement of your "new" evidence as being particularly impressive.
Whilst you say:
I am not impressed by your comments Hartley
I say that I am not impressed by your interpretation of my comments, say's I.
On a final note, and again as already mentioned, we will wait and see, but to the disappointment of some I am sure, I won't be holding my breath.
