Bathroom window: Quick Q & A's and a conclusion.

[Caroline]

It was Adam that started this topic not me. 

Indeed Caroline no need to elaborate, I am sure you already understand all this from before you mysteriously and inexplicably decided to jump on the guilt ship. Thus you know your excuses don't hold water on this subject. But if a few people on here believe you that is job done I guess 

Where did I say you started the topic? I didn't even insinuate that you did - simply that you've latched onto it. You 'thought' this was a new avenue - I told you it wasn't! 

They do hold water David and have done for 30 years - they will hold even more in the next 30, while like Bamber, you look for any little 'I' that isn't dotted and try and chip into it.

You stated 'no scratches, no entry; but that's BS!

[David1819]

Where did I say you started the topic? I didn't even insinuate that you did - simply that you've latched onto it. You 'thought' this was a new avenue - I told you it wasn't! 

I think I can read the date on the transcripts I post (2002) I am aware that is nothing new. It is a relatively new avenue for ME. And if Adam is going to post BS I will challenge him with it.

you stated 'no scratches, no entry; but that's BS!

I said no entry on that window! I never ruled out other possibilities of entry did I?

They do hold water David and have done for 30 years - they will hold even more in the next 30, while like Bamber, you look for any little 'I' that isn't dotted and try and chip into it.

Oh my God!  Bamber was picking flowers?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7323.msg344226#msg344226

You have cracked the case Caroline once and for all! Never has a mate been so checked 

[Adam]

I think I can read the date on the transcripts I post (2002) I am aware that is nothing new. It is a relatively new avenue for ME. And if Adam is going to post BS I will challenge him with it.

I said no entry on that window! I never ruled out other possibilities of entry did I?

Oh my God!  Bamber was picking flowers?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7323.msg344226#msg344226

You have cracked the case Caroline once and for all! Never has a mate been so checked 

You're the one who posts BS.

Claiming you have discovered a 'Forensic evidence breakthrough' at home. Then refusing to say what it was.

Prior to that you said you were going to create a detailed account of how Sheila committed the massacre. But bottled it and hoped no one would remember, because you knew you couldn't.

You're other recent threads that Julie somehow read RB's and AE's diaries, or worked with them to frame Bamber while still with him, or that the police should have wired up Julie after they had split, were both BS.

Recently you tried to ridicule a post of mine by putting up a laughing Ricky Gervais. Which is goading. Assuming I would not check what you had said. I did, and it was wrong.

You didn't challenge any of my BS 20 points in my thread post. Apart from claim Bamber made the scratch marks after the massacre.

[Caroline]

I think I can read the date on the transcripts I post (2002) I am aware that is nothing new. It is a relatively new avenue for ME. And if Adam is going to post BS I will challenge him with it. And the same goes for you!


I said no entry on that window! I never ruled out other possibilities of entry did I? And yet my challenge to you 'holds no water'? Not sure where you're supposed to be going with this but it's already fallen flat!


Oh my God!  Bamber was picking flowers? - Funny you didn't link to this one http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7323.msg344834#msg344834 or this one http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7323.msg345504#msg345504 However, the picking of flowers is yet another instance of 'ham acting' - just because you've fallen for it, doesn't mean the rest of us have.

You have cracked the case Caroline once and for all! Never has a mate been so checked  No, David, I didn't crack the case, the court did back in 1986.You're at a stage where you would like to 'promote your pawn' but it just keeps getting knocked off the board at the first hurdle! 

[Caroline]

You're the one who posts BS.

Claiming you have discovered a 'Forensic evidence breakthrough' at home. Then refusing to say what it was.

Prior to that you said you were going to create a detailed account of how Sheila committed the massacre. But bottled it and hoped no one would remember, because you knew you couldn't.

You're other recent threads that Julie somehow read RB's and AE's diaries, or worked with them to frame Bamber while still with him, or that the police should have wired up Julie after they had split, were both BS. I agee!

Recently you tried to ridicule a post of mine by putting up a laughing Ricky Gervais. Which is goading. Assuming I would not check what you had said. I did, and it was wrong. The Ricky Gervais was funny the first few times, now it's just old and I agree, an attempt to goad!

You didn't challenge any of my BS 20 points in my thread post. Apart from claim Bamber made the scratch marks after the massacre.

[David1819]

Claiming you have discovered a 'Forensic evidence breakthrough' at home. Then refusing to say what it was.

The reason for not showing the 'Forensic evidence breakthrough' is for the convenience of the defence on recommendation from AH and Legal team (see NGBs original post). Its only temporary, sooner or later I will upload my work to the forum for all to see you have my word on that.

Prior to that you said you were going to create a detailed account of how Sheila committed the massacre. But bottled it and hoped no one would remember, because you knew you couldn't.

I have given a detailed account

You didn't challenge any of my BS 20 points in my thread post. Apart from claim Bamber made the scratch marks after the massacre.

Most of your BS points can be dismantled by anyone with intermediate knowledge of the case. I do not need to provide 20 answers to refute 20 points. Most of your points are intermingled and consolidated to one another, thus it only takes one or two pieces of evidence to refute all 20 if that makes sense.
The way you structure your points is like a Jenga tower, one only needs to take one block away and it all comes crashing down.

[David1819]

You're other recent threads that Julie somehow read RB's and AE's diaries, or worked with them to frame Bamber while still with him, or that the police should have wired up Julie after they had split, were both BS.

I never said she read their notes or diaries. The point I was making is that the information does not come from Jeremy as she claimed, it can be traced back to somewhere else.

There are multiple possibilities as JM got that information. I believe she was coerced. A good example of a coerced statement is Jessie Misskelley of the WM3

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/life-autopilot/201108/the-west-memphis-three-four-step-recipe-false-confessions

[David1819]

No, David, I didn't crack the case, the court did back in 1986.You're at a stage where you would like to 'promote your pawn' but it just keeps getting knocked off the board at the first hurdle! 

This is a perfect example of how you make contradictory claims. You say the court 'cracked' the case in 1986 however they 'cracked' the case based on the one piece of evidence you believe was manufactured as 'insurance' combined with the testimony of a person you KNOW is a liar. 

Besides I do not think you believe as firmly in JBs guilt and you make out to. The evidence you put forward is far too weak to justify your bravado. Your behaviour is very reminiscent to that of Bob Woffinden, By inexplicably deciding that JB is guilty despite knowing the case is totally flawed, then providing lame, flimsy and insubstantial reasons for holding that view.

What ever made the likes of you and Woffinden change sides its not a reason driven by rationality or coherent thought that's for sure. It is more of a personal reason divorced from sound reasoning.


 

[buddy]

This is a perfect example of how you make contradictory claims. You say the court solved the case in 1986 however they 'cracked' the case based on the one piece of evidence you believe was manufactured as 'insurance' combined with the testimony of a person you KNOW is a liar. 

Besides I do not think you believe as firmly in JBs guilt and you make out to. The evidence you put forward is far too weak to justify your bravado. Your behaviour is very reminiscent to that of Bob Woffinden, By inexplicably deciding that JB is guilty despite knowing the case is totally flawed, then providing lame, flimsy and insubstantial reasons for holding that view.

What ever made the likes of you and Woffinden change sides its not a reason driven by rationality or coherent thought that's for sure. It is more of a personal reason divorced from sound reasoning.

To be fair to Caroline David she is not the only one who have changed their Minds.
When I fiest came here yonks ago I was 100% that JB was innocent. I am now about 20%.

[David1819]

To be fair to Caroline David she is not the only one who have changed their Minds.
When I fiest came here yonks ago I was 100% that JB was innocent. I am now about 20%.

There is nothing wrong with someone changing their mind if they have a good reason to and can put forward their case to justify the position they hold. If not then it does not hurt to be honest and admit you take a leap of faith.

Based on my observation's allot of people have gone from innocent to guilty because of Mike's various implausible theories and claims he has produced in the last 2 or 3 years. And Mike being seen as an Authority on the subject this made people lose confidence in JB.

[buddy]

There is nothing wrong with someone changing their mind if they have a good reason to and can put forward their case to justify the position they hold. If not then it does not hurt to be honest and admit you take a leap of faith.

Based on my observation's allot of people have gone from innocent to guilty because of Mike's various implausible theories and claims he has produced in the last 2 or 3 years. And Mike being seen as an Authority on the subject this made people lose confidence in JB.

That's a fair comment David. I think things like "z", and the photo of Shiela on the bed have probably
added to some peoples doubts, plus the helicopter story.

[buddy]

I often wonder how the jury would have voted had they known about JMs criminal activities, and PE concerns
about DS jones drunkenness.

[buddy]

It does Jones was a drinker which to me he was not a good cop.
Never know now will we.

[sami]

This is a perfect example of how you make contradictory claims. You say the court 'cracked' the case in 1986 however they 'cracked' the case based on the one piece of evidence you believe was manufactured as 'insurance' combined with the testimony of a person you KNOW is a liar. 

Besides I do not think you believe as firmly in JBs guilt and you make out to. The evidence you put forward is far too weak to justify your bravado. Your behaviour is very reminiscent to that of Bob Woffinden, By inexplicably deciding that JB is guilty despite knowing the case is totally flawed, then providing lame, flimsy and insubstantial reasons for holding that view.

What ever made the likes of you and Woffinden change sides its not a reason driven by rationality or coherent thought that's for sure. It is more of a personal reason divorced from sound reasoning.

thats nonsense that the jury only found him guilty because of the silencer.have you spoken to the 12 jury members.or are you at it again.'posting without any evidence

[Jane]

This is a perfect example of how you make contradictory claims. You say the court 'cracked' the case in 1986 however they 'cracked' the case based on the one piece of evidence you believe was manufactured as 'insurance' combined with the testimony of a person you KNOW is a liar. 

Besides I do not think you believe as firmly in JBs guilt and you make out to. The evidence you put forward is far too weak to justify your bravado. Your behaviour is very reminiscent to that of Bob Woffinden, By inexplicably deciding that JB is guilty despite knowing the case is totally flawed, then providing lame, flimsy and insubstantial reasons for holding that view.

What ever made the likes of you and Woffinden change sides its not a reason driven by rationality or coherent thought that's for sure. It is more of a personal reason divorced from sound reasoning.

I don't believe 'the likes of you' -how VERY rude- any person capable of decreeing what drives another's reason. The best -ONLY- thing they can do is offer their opinion.