are the appeal court and the ccrc guilty of double standards

[Neil]

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.

Perhaps Susan will confirm this. 

I guess Hartley, Vidvic, John, Shona and Andrea, amongst others, were all posting before your time.

[Jane]

What's banning got to do with this thread ?

Anyway Harters is the most banned poster I believe. Other posters have received permanent bans.

Being banned for a day or two doesn't really mean anything. It just means one moderator doesn't like what you have posted. It does not mean they are right. It's no secret one moderator does not like me. The other moderators will automatically agree to any ban as they can't be bothered to check.

You should be banned for this post as it's goading. But won't be and you are again confident enough to invite me to report you. I will PM NGB and ask him why former moderators and senior posters seem to be immune from action.

I don't know why you are so upset. It's no secret you changed stance and refused to say why. Thread created.

Well you officially spend more time than anyone else on here. Virtually all day every day. How you spend you're retirement time is up to you. I spend most of my free time off this forum. So not sad and lonely. Unlike you.

The glaring difference between you and H., Adam, is that H is always welcomed back with open arms and doesn't keep referring back to his bans.

I'd also point out that it's not so much about the amount of time one spends off forum, but the quality. From how you write -a litany of disrespectful sniping and goading, alternating with wingeing-  I'm prepared to bet my life is very much more satisfying in that area than your own.

Our moderator does a fine job handling your numerous complaints, especially as you make it abundantly clear you have little regard and no respect for her decisions. Again, it says far more about your own character than anyone else's. Catch you later Adam. Enjoy your day.

[Adam]

The glaring difference between you and H., Adam, is that H is always welcomed back with open arms and doesn't keep referring back to his bans.

I'd also point out that it's not so much about the amount of time one spends off forum, but the quality. From how you write -a litany of disrespectful sniping and goading, alternating with wingeing-  I'm prepared to bet my life is very much more satisfying in that area than your own.

Our moderator does a fine job handling your numerous complaints, especially as you make it abundantly clear you have little regard and no respect for her decisions. Again, it says far more about your own character than anyone else's. Catch you later Adam. Enjoy your day.

Thank you. A long day at work today.

You enjoy posting with Lookout and Mike.

[John]

Perhaps Susan will confirm this. 

I guess Hartley, Vidvic, John, Shona and Andrea, amongst others, were all posting before your time.

I originally came here several years ago somewhat sceptical but with an open mind, I really wanted Jeremy to be innocent of such a dreadful crime and not yet another victim of police corruption but over time I came to see that iin the final analysis it came down to him or Sheila.  The amount of forensic evidence is substantial and any unbiased reading of it clearly points away from Sheila, I'm afraid that leaves only one other suspect and that is Jeremy.  Add further circumstantial evidence and the testimony of several witnesses and it becomes clear that Jeremy had a history of criminal behaviour, hated his adopted family and had been scheming to get rid of them for some time.

My own view is that something or someone changed him while he was in New Zealand, he came home with only one thought and that was to get rich and return. The rest as they say is history.

[Neil]

I originally came here several years ago somewhat sceptical but with an open mind, I really wanted Jeremy to be innocent oif such a dreadful crime but over time I came to see that at the end of the day it iscxalmost certain he did it.

Are you saying that it was only once Adam had educated you, that you were finally persuaded of Bambers guilt? 

[John]

soin jenkins forenic evdence qustioned gets retrial.

barry geordge forensic brought into qustion gets retrial.

jeremy bammber forensic evedence brought in to qustion conviction upheld.

No definitely not, the forensic evidence clearly points to the killer.

[lookout]

If those of us named haven't come with any forensic evidence it points to there being NONE to start with.
How can such a subject be discussed when the " said " evidence isn't there ? Make it up like everyone else has

[nugnug]

the qustion is had the jury known about this at the time would they reached a diffrent verdict.

as it was 10 2 in the first place i cant say how the appeal court or the ccrc can sy for a fact they wouldent of done.

[David1819]

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.

The evidence of the wounds on Shelias neck was not challenged and remains unchallenged to this day. The CCRC came up with a few excuses, some reasonable but they can be adequately answered.

However they argued that the scratch marks in the kitchen showed the silencer was used, therefore argued it was used on the night.

The decision was a Joke IMO.

[nugnug]

how could scratch marks in the kitchen prove a silencer was used thats a total joke.

[sami]

every case is different you cant bunch jenkins geoge or others with bambers case

[John]

Are you saying that it was only once Adam had educated you, that you were finally persuaded of Bambers guilt? 

Hardly.  I make a point of making up my own mind after having considered the evidence.

[John]

If those of us named haven't come with any forensic evidence it points to there being NONE to start with.
How can such a subject be discussed when the " said " evidence isn't there ? Make it up like everyone else has

Why do you insist on promoting that particular myth lookout?  The forensic evidence is huge.

[John]

The evidence of the wounds on Shelias neck was not challenged and remains unchallenged to this day. The CCRC came up with a few excuses, some reasonable but they can be adequately answered.

However they argued that the scratch marks in the kitchen showed the silencer was used, therefore argued it was used on the night.

The decision was a Joke IMO.

It matters little, the forensic evidence in relation to the wounds does not point to a suicide.  Any fool can see that!

[nugnug]

every case is different you cant bunch jenkins geoge or others with bambers case

ok in barry geordges case the evdence was more or less non existent in the first place but the jenkins is very silmlar in the use of foensic evdence.

at the trail the proscution cliamed that the blood on his clothes was irfutable proof of guilt.

it later turned out to be noting of the sort.

the same as the silencer in this case.