There is a mass of Circ evidence against Bamber. But no matter what anyone said, you would simply do your usual childish denial's regardless. But I have done the list (although still adding to it) - have you started yours yet? Have you seen Fatal Vision? Not only is there a frantic phone call but on finding that his family are dead, MacDonald goes into little boy mode and asks 'why he can't talk to his family' - I recall someone else doing that! 
Your refusal to post any substantial circumstantial evidence speaks volumes
If you misquote something I will point it out, if you don't like that then you're the one with the agender. If you misquote or suggest something must be a fact simply because you think so -
Correction, if I quote something you will desperately try to distort it. If you try to deceive the forum I will point it out, So no more trying to portray Julie as a credible witness when you know she isn't.
then you should expect to get criticised but it's not just me who has pointed out your failings. Credibility? What credibility? Oh by the way - what is my agender?
Your not pointing out any "failings" your just trying very hard to make it seem that way.
You know what your Agenda is
Why are you here almost everyday trying to shove the opposite? While boasting about a revelation that was already known and discussed?
This does not answer the question I asked but nevermind
What two points? I've just answered your last two points, I've also done the list and am still adding to it - when are you going to even START showing how Sheila 'could' be guilty - without resorting to misquotes and twisting other people's words? By the way - you didn't comment on Michael Turner's comment and his decision to drop much of what he intended to bring to the 2002 appeal. Or couldn't you think of a good enough misquote?
The two points you failed to answer. I don't have to remind you
