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

[Caroline]

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.

David, It ALWAYS makes me laugh when you TRY to use reverse psychology - you are so transparent  . You have no idea what I think or even why. Telling me my reasons are lame when you have to bend and shift the facts to make them fit into your school boy theories is just silly - you thinking something should have happened, doesn't mean there is a conspiracy just because it didn't. Oh, you are right, Julie's statements were flawed, they were flawed by the fact that Jeremy didn't tell her the full truth but the notion that she got the story from the relies and the police is stupid given that they included a HIT MAN!

You don't think I believe Jeremy is guilty? Well, that just shows how bad you are at judging things. What personal reason could I have for believing a complete stranger is guilty of a crime he was convicted of? This is the same as saying I have an agenda when you can't even justify your accusation - what a JOKE!! 

[notsure]

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.

trouble is jane some people offering thier opinions do so with an air of aggression and irritation and seem to be on the defensive if anyone dare to disagree. There really isnt any need for it is there. Just look back over the last few posts between caroline and david. I happen to believe both of them post some great threads, opinions etc and i really believe both of them have some valid points which i like to consider, but its like a battle of the wills. Every comment is taken to heart and neither will back down or agree that the other has a valid point.  and i dont believe it should be like that.

And then you post the comment above which i feel is totally unfair as i believe caroline fights her own battles very nicely.

Just a thought from an outsiders opinion!!!!!!!

[Caroline]

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.

You saying I don't have a good reason mean bugger all - funny how you make straight for my posts when you're supposed to believe I have no argument. My belief has nothing to do with Mike, perhaps you should stop concerning yourself with other people and get on with your own business!

No one is quite sure where you stand David, but I believe that you'll support innocent for now because you THINK you have a vested interest. 

[Caroline]

trouble is jane some people offering thier opinions do so with an air of aggression and irritation and seem to be on the defensive if anyone dare to disagree. There really isnt any need for it is there. Just look back over the last few posts between caroline and david. I happen to believe both of them post some great threads, opinions etc and i really believe both of them have some valid points which i like to consider, but its like a battle of the wills. Every comment is taken to heart and neither will back down or agree that the other has a valid point.  and i dont believe it should be like that.

And then you post the comment above which i feel is totally unfair as i believe caroline fights her own battles very nicely.

Just a thought from an outsiders opinion!!!!!!!

When someone is as sneaky and as underhanded as David - I will NEVER back down! He should try being honest - some people just can't help themselves I suppose.

[Caroline]

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%.

Thank you buddy

[Caroline]

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.

Is desperate 

[sami]

thanks to caroline.jane.adam.justice.and others iam in no doubt jb is where he belongs.ive learnt alot on the case thanks to the above people

[Adam]

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.


I have given a detailed account

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.

You didn't give a detailed account. You gave a basic account, which is fine as my version of Bamber committing the crime is basic. No one said it had to be detailed.

You then quickly gave a second account after I ripped apart the first one. The second was just as bad.

A few months later you said you were going to provide a detailed account of how Sheila committed the massacre. And said my account of Jeremy committing the massacre was not detailed enough. Which is fine, feel free.

You then disappeared from the forum for three months and stone walled my requests for you're detailed account when you returned.

[Adam]

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.


I have given a detailed account

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.

My 20 points are all facts. But feel free to challenge them.

They are also reasons why the prosecution choose to aledge that Bamber climbed in through the bathroom window. But again feel free to challenge them, rather than just say they can be 'dismantled'

If you are not going to dispute a fact such as 'Bamber knew how to get into WHF through the bathroom window', then feel free to explain why this would not support the prosecutions claim that Bamber did this on the massacre night.

[Adam]

I've always found it warped that supporters refuse to say how Sheila committed the massacre.

You would think it would be the first thing supporters would be ramming down everyones throat. The crime scene evidence is available to all and everything should easily fall into place for a guilty Sheila.

Instead the focus from supporters is trying to magnify minor obstacles Bamber had. Fire fighting the wealth of incriminating evidence, or highlighting documents which don't have a crossed 't'.

If supporters cannot explain how Sheila committed the massacre,  that is fine. They can simply say Bamber is guilty but I still believe he should not have been convicted. The police, Julie or the relatives lied etc. The problem with this is they are then supporting a 5X murderer. So supporters have nothing to lose by going the whole hog and claiming Bamber is innocent.

[notsure]

I've always found it warped that supporters refuse to say how Sheila committed the massacre.

You would think it would be the first thing supporters would be ramming down everyones throat. The crime scene evidence is available to all and everything should easily fall into place for a guilty Sheila.

Instead the focus from supporters is trying to magnify minor obstacles Bamber had. Fire fighting the wealth of incriminating evidence, or highlighting documents which don't have a crossed 't'.

If supporters cannot explain how Sheila committed the massacre,  that is fine. They can simply say Bamber is guilty but I still believe he should not have been convicted. The police, Julie or the relatives lied etc. The problem with this is they are then




supporting a 5X murderer. So supporters have nothing to lose by going the whole hog and claiming Bamber is innocent.

Adam, it isnt just a case of working out how shiela comitted the murders. She wasnt on trial, jeremy was and the reason he has supporters is because the evidence against him is all circumstantial and at best flimsy at times.i think it was a big mistake for the judge to say it had to be jb or sc. The trial was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt if jb was guilty or not and based on the evidence available some people feel there wasnt enough evidence against him


you can run streams of lists as long as your arm but most of it is speculation and opinion, no hard evidence. That is your right and i respect that but supporters have just as much right to disagree without your thoughts and opinions.

It isnt warped at all and you need to get down from that high horse of yours and respect other peoples opinions!

[Steve_uk]

Adam, it isnt just a case of working out how shiela comitted the murders. She wasnt on trial, jeremy was and the reason he has supporters is because the evidence against him is all circumstantial and at best flimsy at times.i think it was a big mistake for the judge to say it had to be jb or sc. The trial was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt if jb was guilty or not and based on the evidence available some people feel there wasnt enough evidence against him


you can run streams of lists as long as your arm but most of it is speculation and opinion, no hard evidence. That is your right and i respect that but supporters have just as much right to disagree without your thoughts and opinions.

It isnt warped at all and you need to get down from that high horse of yours and respect other peoples opinions!

It certainly limited the options of the Defence and the jury for the Judge to assert this, but it was the telephone call from Nevill which maintained Sheila had got the gun which led to this conclusion.

[Caroline]

Adam, it isnt just a case of working out how shiela comitted the murders. She wasnt on trial, jeremy was and the reason he has supporters is because the evidence against him is all circumstantial and at best flimsy at times.i think it was a big mistake for the judge to say it had to be jb or sc. The trial was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt if jb was guilty or not and based on the evidence available some people feel there wasnt enough evidence against him


you can run streams of lists as long as your arm but most of it is speculation and opinion, no hard evidence. That is your right and i respect that but supporters have just as much right to disagree without your thoughts and opinions.

It isnt warped at all and you need to get down from that high horse of yours and respect other peoples opinions!

It is very much a case of providing evidence of Sheila's guilt. It could only be either Jeremy or Sheila who killed the family because of the phone call. It would be difficult to find any forensic evidence to tie in Jeremy given that if guilty (although to me, there is no 'if'), he staged the scene and framed his sister. The police had no reason initially, to dispute what he told told them - therefore any forensics on his person or in his house etc. were lost. There were no forensics tying Sheila either, and she was present at the crime scene, supposedly massacred the entire family and managed to escape even the smallest spatter of blood from even one of the victims. That's quite a feat so it requires some explanation.

[Caroline]

It certainly limited the options of the Defence and the jury for the Judge to assert this, but it was the telephone call from Nevill which maintained Sheila had got the gun which led to this conclusion.

There is no other conclusion - according to Jeremy, he has been told there there is a problem at WHF and Sheila is involved so, either Sheila did go crazy or Jeremy made the whole thing up. Hence, it was either Sheila or Jeremy.

[sami]

There is no other conclusion - according to Jeremy, he has been told there there is a problem at WHF and Sheila is involved so, either Sheila did go crazy or Jeremy made the whole thing up. Hence, it was either Sheila or Jeremy.

simple common sense.the judge was well within his rights to make the statement he did