What makes Bamber innocent?

[Adam]

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

That is what I said to David just now.

The wet suit would just protect his body. And not pad him out too much for the windows.

[Jane]

That is what I said to David just now.

The wet suit would just protect his body. And not pad him out too much for the windows.

Protect his body from what? He wouldn't have been expecting to come in to body contact with his victims. I can understand that he may have wanted to protect his clothes from getting bloodied, though.

[sami]

That is what I said to David just now.

The wet suit would just protect his body. And not pad him out too much for the windows.

oh sorry adam.still waiting for david to say why he thinks silencer was not used.so there were contact shots and shots at close range yet not a trace of blood in the barrel.puzzling

[Adam]

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

As I said. It is strong material. So would protect him if he did end up in a scuffle. As it happened, he did have one. And it would not bulk him up too much.

[sami]

You mean David.

sorry adam.thats correct

[sami]

thanks to caroline for catching him out on the wallet,cause it shows us jb was in no hurry to leave whf that morning.

[Caroline]

Your misrepresenting my arguments again.

I don't know what your argument is David, you keep changing it! If Boutflour mentioned the wetsuit idea to the police, how else were they suppose to test it other than to ask? They didn't know it was used or not and as such, it wasn't crucial evidence, just a theory to be tested. You crashed and burned on this one ...... on and 'YOU KNOW IT' 

It has been proven false

No it hasn't

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

David, I don't give a rats arse what you or anyone else on the forum believes. I have my own thooughts and don't need yours or anyone else's approval. Don't pretend to know what I think - you'd be way off - like with most things!

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

Where's the proof he didn't or that Sheila did? If he wants to get out, that's what needs proving

You are claiming step 9 when you are on step 1 

You're not even on step one. Once again, you just saying something doesn't make it a fact and you can post and may silly pictures as you like - it was funny at first, now it's just old and predictable - bit like your arguments, whatever they are 

[sami]

I don't know what your argument is David, you keep changing it!

i dont think he knows himself.caroline

[sami]

on the silencer again.we dont know where it was or why police didnt find it.he may have taken it with him and returned it later.people must remember the case of that girl stabbing her boyfriend to death than blaming another motorist 'road rage' anyway she hid the murder weapon a small knife in her boot and than disposed of it so police would never find the murder weapon.cant remember her name

[Steve_uk]

on the silencer again.we dont know where it was or why police didnt find it.he may have taken it with him and returned it later.people must remember the case of that girl stabbing her boyfriend to death than blaming another motorist 'road rage' anyway she hid the murder weapon a small knife in her boot and than disposed of it so police would never find the murder weapon.cant remember her name

Yes sami that was the Tracie Andrews case, not forgetting her namesake Jane Andrews. It would be one huge risk for the relatives to take. Why were the sights removed from the rifle anyhow?

[sami]

Yes sami that was the Tracie Andrews case, not forgetting her namesake Jane Andrews. It would be one huge risk for the relatives to take. Why were the sights removed from the rifle anyhow?

thanks steve,thats the girl .she had it in her boot while talking to police telling them what had happened.now thats one cool murderer.imo steve the sights might have been a hinderence but not the silencer so jb removed the sights

[sami]

i must say i miss being insulted and abused its been about 2 weeks now.ps come back soon lookout

[David1819]

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 

And its important to note that the scratches on the bathroom window used as evidence against him in court were created after the massacre when he had no keys 

[David1819]

What you call "serious doubt" DOESN'T add up to his innocence.

you think I don't understand that?

I don't claim flat out JB is innocent because that's a claim I cannot prove. I don't mislead people and I am not concerned if people tell you otherwise , they are the ones that are misleading.

I believe JBs innocence is a strong possibility but no certainty.

[David1819]

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

that's a fair enough question I will come to it.