What makes Bamber innocent?

[Caroline]

Yes there is. Giving over too much information inadvertently is a leading factor in producing coerced statements, That is why today police don't use the same methods - They didn't give TOO much away, they asked about a wet suit, you're just trying to make more of it. It's in her statement that she was asked about it - NO CONSPIRACY!

There has been a conspiracy, you would have to be a simpleton not to see it. And I am not saying your simpleton because you KNOW the silencer is false evidence thus you KNOW a conspiracy has taken place. I believe it's false yes, but I also believe Bamber is guilty. Because I believe it to be false, doesn't mean it is and unless someone can PROVE it was false - there's no freedom party!!

You KNOW and UNDERSTAND that Julie is not a credible witness. If your trying to build a brick wall based on Julie Mugford (because you have nothing else) I'm just flying over it  . You're the one who has NOTHING, your arguments have been flown over and shat on, but you still try and pass them off as fact.

Yes its fuelled by the status quo. I don't believe Jeremy should be in prison. The Jury made their decision on false evidence and false testimony. To support the guilty position requires one to oppose the experts and deny the circumstances pointing to Sheila. The state is practising illegal confinement of the highest order. I believe he should, he killed 5 people - the state is doing nothing of the sort, believing the silencer is false and proving it are two different things and there is no way to prove it now.

[Jane]

Yes there is. Giving over too much information inadvertently is a leading factor in producing coerced statements, That is why today police don't use the same methods

There has been a conspiracy, you would have to be a simpleton not to see it. And I am not saying your simpleton because you KNOW the silencer is false evidence thus you KNOW a conspiracy has taken place.

You KNOW and UNDERSTAND that Julie is not a credible witness. If your trying to build a brick wall based on Julie Mugford (because you have nothing else) I'm just flying over it 

Yes its fuelled by the status quo. I don't believe Jeremy should be in prison. The Jury made their decision on false evidence and false testimony. To support the guilty position requires one to oppose the experts and deny the circumstances pointing to Sheila. The state is practicing illegal confinement of the highest order.

Saying you don't believe Jeremy should be in prison because of what you believe to be technicalities is rather different from saying he shouldn't be kin prison because he's innocent. As it stands it appears that you'd be happy to see a convicted prisoner, a child killer walk free just to prove your point. It screams of self aggrandisement.

[David1819]

They didn't give TOO much away, they asked about a wet suit, you're just trying to make more of it. It's in her statement that she was asked about it - NO CONSPIRACY!

Your misrepresenting my arguments again.

I believe it's false yes, but I also believe Bamber is guilty. Because I believe it to be false, doesn't mean it is and unless someone can PROVE it was false - there's no freedom party!!

It has been proven false

You're the one who has NOTHING, your arguments have been flown over and shat on, but you still try and pass them off as fact.

That's what you want the forum to believe but the reality is different and you know it.

I believe he should, he killed 5 people - the state is doing nothing of the sort, believing the silencer is false and proving it are two different things and there is no way to prove it now.

Where is the proof he killed five people beyond a reasonable doubt?

You are claiming step 9 when you are on step 1 

[David1819]

Saying you don't believe Jeremy should be in prison because of what you believe to be technicalities is rather different from saying he shouldn't be kin prison because he's innocent. As it stands it appears that you'd be happy to see a convicted prisoner, a child killer walk free just to prove your point. It screams of self aggrandisement.

I am not talking about technicalities I am talking about serious doubt. The state failing to justify Habeas corpus is not a technicality

[Adam]

off hand what is the thinking behind the fact the wetsuit was not used.i wouldnt say its impossible ,and as jm said it seemed a bit odd for it to be in jb's room,it was very well planned by jb.anyone who's father has phoned them for HELP would never ring the police and ask to be PICKED UP,they would make their own way there as quickly as possible

There is no big advantage or disadvantage in wearing a wet suit.

It would not hinder his movement. Surfers and divers wear them. The material is quite thick and skin tight. So may protect his torso if anything got past his clothes.

[Jane]

I am not talking about technicalities I am talking about serious doubt. The state failing to justify Habeas corpus is not a technicality

What you call "serious doubt" DOESN'T add up to his innocence. Whatever you claim as being unjustified by the state obviously wasn't transferred to the jury's consciousness.

[Adam]

If that is so then it blows the hacksaw theory out of the water.

Bamber testified he used the found hacksaw to get into WHF through the bathroom window. After the massacre. This explained the window marks. I don't know why Bamber didn't just use front door keys.

The judge suggested the marks may have been made before the massacre to give Bamber easy access. On the night.

The judge had a point.

[David1819]

There is no big advantage or disadvantage in wearing a wet suit.

Advantages: Stop blood getting on clothes, have shower after massacre wash all blood evidence off.

[Adam]

Advantages: Stop blood getting on clothes, have shower after massacre wash all blood evidence off.

The wet suit would be underneath the clothes. So blood would hit the clothes first.

I doubt he would be wearing just a wet suit. Suspect a balaclava, gloves, dark clothes and perhaps a wet suit underneath. 

A wet suit being skin tight would not prevent him from getting too big to fit through the windows. And would not effect his mobility.

[Adam]

The found hack saw is important forensic evidence.

Backed up by Jeremy who never claimed it was a plant and agreed the bathroom window marks were made by him. Amazingly he decided not to use front door keys after the massacre to gain entrance to his own property. 

I have put the hack saw thread into the library.

[sami]

JB was afraid to enter whf after the murders, so it is ridiculous to suggest that he stayed the night.

thats rubbish was is he a pansy or a poof,lets get it right jb did not enter whf because he didnt know how to react to the scene inside ,the eyes of the police would be on him to see how he would act.to suggest any thing else is nonsense

[sami]

If that is so then it blows the hacksaw theory out of the water.

not really it may have been used to slide the catch into the closed position when jb left whf

[Adam]

not really it may have been used to slide the catch into the closed position when jb left whf

No it was used on the bathroom window. Which is why there were hack saw marks on it.

Bamber testified he used it to gain entrance into WHF via the bathroom window. After the massacre 

[sami]

i would like to ask david why he thinks the silencer wasnt used

[sami]

The wet suit would be underneath the clothes. So blood would hit the clothes first.

I doubt he would be wearing just a wet suit. Suspect a balaclava, gloves, dark clothes and perhaps a wet suit underneath. 

A wet suit being skin tight would not prevent him from getting too big to fit through the windows. And would not effect his mobility.

adam there would be no point in wearing the wetsuit underneath the clothes,cause he would still have to dispose of any blooded clothing.if he did stay the night all he had to do was get up around 2am put the wetsuit and the other stuff youve mentioned on and carry out his work taking all the time he needed.people will disagree with me but its not impossible that he showered after the event.imo