are the appeal court and the ccrc guilty of double standards

[Adam]

yes you can its normally what happens.

No. The Barry George and Sion Jenkins cases only had one piece of forensic evidence. Their lawyers  managed to put doubt on these after years of effort.

Barry George getting released but no compensation after a failed appeal. Jenkins having two new trials where the jury could not reach a verfict.

The Bamber case has a mountain of forensic (and circumstantial) evidence.

[David1819]

No, they couldn't challenge the suggestion of contamination, not that it had never been used.

suggestion of contamination was 2001

never been used was 2011

[David1819]

No. The Barry George and Sion Jenkins cases only had one piece of forensic evidence. Their lawyers  managed to put doubt on these after years of effort.

Barry George getting released but no compensation after a failed appeal. Jenkins having two new trials where the jury could not reach a verfict.

The Bamber case has a mountain of forensic (and circumstantial) evidence.

No it does not

[Neil]

You have had ZILCH influence on ANYONE on this forum other than to be a complete irritant!

If anything, he's made me want to believe that Bamber is innocent! 

Sorry Ad!

[Adam]

If anything, he's made me want to believe that Bamber is innocent! 

Sorry Ad!

I don't recall any of you're posts. And don't believe you've created any threads. But feel free to show me something worthwhile from you. Sorry Neil.

Anyway, when I joined it was a pro Bamber forum. Everyone passionate Bamber supporters. Some of them for decades. Mike the pied piper whose word was gospel as he had met Bamber in prison.

After a ferocious fight from supporters -

Susan changed stance and said my posts influenced her.

Caroline changed stance and gave an incredibly weak reason about a last harvest.

Jane J changed stance and refused to give a reason.

Alias annonced she was now 'undecided'.

Grahame left the forum saying 'he has to concede defeat to his betters on the case' (Thread available).

Four other posters sent me PM's praising my posts.

Lookout was offerred the chance to PM me and change stance, but after 30 years wanted to stay loyal to Bamber.

Mike has not changed at all. But just posts on his own threads so wouldn't have read my posts.

[nugnug]

well adam i think certanly say youve had an effect on me.

[Adam]

well adam i think certanly say youve had an effect on me.

Why do you support Bamber when it is so obvious he is guilty ?

[David1819]

Why do you support Bamber when it is so obvious he is guilty ?

If its so obvious why do you have such a hard time convincing people?

[Caroline]

In 2001 the CCRC referred JB on the basis of new DNA evidence in the silencer.

In 2011 the CCRC denied a referral even thou JB had new evidence the silencer was never even used. Evidence the CCRC couldn't even challenge.

The double standards are as clear as day

Of course it was challenged, if they agreed with Jeremy about the silencer, he wouldn't be locked up now. The US tests were rejected because they weren't complete, therefore, they were challenged.

[Caroline]

I don't recall any of you're posts. And don't believe you've created any threads. But feel free to show me something worthwhile from you. Sorry Neil.

Anyway, when I joined it was a pro Bamber forum. Everyone passionate Bamber supporters. Some of them for decades. Mike the pied piper whose word was gospel as he had met Bamber in prison.

After a ferocious fight from supporters -

Susan changed stance and said my posts influenced her.

Caroline changed stance and gave an incredibly weak reason about a last harvest.

Jane J changed stance and refused to give a reason.

Alias annonced she was now 'undecided'.

Grahame left the forum saying 'he has to concede defeat to his betters on the case' (Thread available).

Four other posters sent me PM's praising my posts.

Lookout was offerred the chance to PM me and change stance, but after 30 years wanted to stay loyal to Bamber.

Mike has not changed at all. But just posts on his own threads so wouldn't have read my posts.

NO ONE HAS CHANGED THEIR STANCE BECAUSE OF YOU!

[Neil]

I don't recall any of you're posts. And don't believe you've created any threads. But feel free to show me something worthwhile from you. Sorry Neil.

Anyway, when I joined it was a pro Bamber forum. Everyone passionate Bamber supporters. Some of them for decades. Mike the pied piper whose word was gospel as he had met Bamber in prison.

After a ferocious fight from supporters -

Susan changed stance and said my posts influenced her.

Caroline changed stance and gave an incredibly weak reason about a last harvest.

Jane J changed stance and refused to give a reason.

Alias annonced she was now 'undecided'.

Grahame left the forum saying 'he has to concede defeat to his betters on the case' (Thread available).

Four other posters sent me PM's praising my posts.

Lookout was offerred the chance to PM me and change stance, but after 30 years wanted to stay loyal to Bamber.

Mike has not changed at all. But just posts on his own threads so wouldn't have read my posts.

My mind was made up long before you arrived here.  You wouldn't know if I started threads or not, as you weren't here.  I do take your you're point though.  I guess some people like the sound of their they're own voice more than others.

Keep up the work. 

[Adam]

If its so obvious why do you have such a hard time convincing people?

Yes. It was a ferocious fight from supporters who have since changed stance. Calling me every name under the sun.

Some who had been supporters for 30 years. Others who were writing to Bamber. Others joined the forum after watching one documentary and were brainwashed on here. 

But I didn't make forensic evidence breakthrough claims and then not say what it was. Or refuse to say how the massacre was committed. That would not have worked. The evidence was discussed and common sense used. 

[Neil]

Yes. It was a ferocious fight from supporters. Some who had been supporters for 30 years. Others who were writing to Bamber. Others joined the forum after watching one documentary and were brainwashed on here. 

But I didn't make forensic evidence breakthrough claims and then not say what it was. Or refuse to say how the massacre was committed. The evidence was discussed.

To my shame, I have been reading the posts on here daily, for a good few years now.  I've not noticed anyone acknowledging that you have altered their they're stance.

[Adam]

To my shame, I have been reading the posts on here daily, for a good few years now.  I've not noticed anyone acknowledging that you have altered their they're stance.

Well that's a surprise. Well Susan did.

People that joined the forum were usually already Bamber supporters. Being on a pro Bamber forum just made them feel more justified in their support. The incriminating forensic and circumstantial evidence was never discussed. Mike being the main poster who was never challenged.

[Adam]

NO ONE HAS CHANGED THEIR STANCE BECAUSE OF YOU!

Oh yes. You changed stance because Bamber didn't answer you're question about 'the last harvest'.