Re - Professor Herbert Leon MacDonell:

[David1819]

Caroline, Jane J, Graheme, Susan, Alias.

Caroline and Susan gave specific reasons. Caroline because Bamber didn't answer her question on the last harvest. Susan due to the posts of me and Harters.

Jane J refused to give a reason and Graheme said he 'has to give in to his betters'.

The reasons they have given are utterly pathetic. They are in fact too embarrassed to go into any of details for that very reason. None have changed stance because of you Adam. However in the unlikely event that they did change stance because of you it would still be a better reason than the vague and feeble reasons they have given publicly.

You are the only one who has changed stance from guilty to innocent after you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' thread.

I never changed stance from "guilty to innocent" My alteration in stances is the sequential order that follows  probably guilty - probably innocent - almost certainly guilty - probably innocent - innocent de facto

Incase your wondering what made me believe he was "almost certainly guilty" was because of this post from Scipio.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6681.msg304481.html#msg304481

My transition back to probably innocent was due to being able to refute those claims after hours of research of materials and sources in order to establish the facts and reach new conclusions. Most of them can be found it the forensic publications of Vincent Di Maio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio

[lookout]

I think he left because he got fed up.

I want to hear Adam's reason.
I have my own reasons for wanting to know why Adam has chosen Graham,because I believe it's a lie.

[mike tesko]

Some peoples eyes remain open when sleeping and indeed in death. Not sure this theory works Mike. I've witnessed someone sleeping with their eyes open..

Sheila did not resist at the time the second shot was inflicted, she was out cold when police brought the rifle to her body from the first floor window. During the performance of 'informatives' using her body with the rifle upon it, cops soon realised that the rifle with its silencer fitted was too long for the police to suggest that she had shot herself. It was after this was established that the all important second shot got discharged from the rifle which produced an entry wound slightly higher up on her throat just under the point of the chin. The distance from that entry wound to Sheila's trigger finger on the rifle matched perfectly. The problem for the police then, however, was that they had the family rifle with a silencer fitted to its barrel which could not have been used by Sheila herself to inflict the first shot because of the shorter distance between the lower entry wound, and Sheila's trigger finger on the gun. After much debate between senior officers stood around her body, there was talk of it being possible to suggest that both shots had gone off one immediately after the other, involving recoil which was common when using semiautomatic weapons. However, they realised that they would have to remove the silencer so as to make the overall length f the rifle shorter so that they could suggest she had taken her own life. The silencer was thus removed, which caused Jones Junior to return to the scene later on in the morning to collect it ('SBJ/1').

[lookout]

The reasons they have given are utterly pathetic. They are in fact too embarrassed to go into any of details for that very reason. None have changed stance because of you Adam. However in the unlikely event that they did change stance because of you it would still be a better reason than the vague and feeble reasons they have given publicly.

I never changed stance from "guilty to innocent" My alteration in stances is the sequential order that follows  probably guilty - probably innocent - almost certainly guilty - probably innocent - innocent de facto

Incase your wondering what made me believe he was "almost certainly guilty" was because of this post from Scipio.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6681.msg304481.html#msg304481

My transition back to probably innocent was due to being able to refute those claims after hours of research of materials and sources in order to establish the facts and reach new conclusions. Most of them can be found it the forensic publications of Vincent Di Maio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio

Adam has used the murders of five people for his sick game to boost his ego. Disturbing and Disgusting.

[Stephanie]

The reasons they have given are utterly pathetic. They are in fact too embarrassed to go into any of details for that very reason. None have changed stance because of you Adam. However in the unlikely event that they did change stance because of you it would still be a better reason than the vague and feeble reasons they have given publicly.

I never changed stance from "guilty to innocent" My alteration in stances is the sequential order that follows  probably guilty - probably innocent - almost certainly guilty - probably innocent - innocent de facto

Incase your wondering what made me believe he was "almost certainly guilty" was because of this post from Scipio.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6681.msg304481.html#msg304481

My transition back to probably innocent was due to being able to refute those claims after hours of research of materials and sources in order to establish the facts and reach new conclusions. Most of them can be found it the forensic publications of Vincent Di Maio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio

David I have never read so much clap trap.

There is no such thing as probably innocent or probably guilty. Someone is either guilty or innocent. The in between are your conflicting thoughts.

A victim is not probably dead or probably alive. They are either dead or alive.

The reasons other posters have decided on guilt are clear. But for some reason you have a problem seeing these facts.

And now you are making the same mistake as others before you by going down the embarrassed route. There is nothing embarrassing about making a mistake.

What your post clearly shows is you flitting in between denial and out again.

And your posts prior to this post show you are only able to argue certain points. Points that go in favour of what ever you are arguing at the time.

You are not consistent David. Your posts are see through.

And your research is bias in favour of whatever it is you think you've discovered at the time.

The Vincent Di Maio theory has been disputed time and time again but you refuse to accept the facts.

[Stephanie]

Adam has used the murders of five people for his sick game to boost his ego. Disturbing and Disgusting.

Adam has done no such thing. There is nothing disgusting or disturbing about Adams posts!

It is not Adam who has written the most unforgivable things about the 5 victims; it is others.

[Stephanie]

The reasons they have given are utterly pathetic. They are in fact too embarrassed to go into any of details for that very reason. None have changed stance because of you Adam. However in the unlikely event that they did change stance because of you it would still be a better reason than the vague and feeble reasons they have given publicly.

I never changed stance from "guilty to innocent" My alteration in stances is the sequential order that follows  probably guilty - probably innocent - almost certainly guilty - probably innocent - innocent de facto

Incase your wondering what made me believe he was "almost certainly guilty" was because of this post from Scipio.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6681.msg304481.html#msg304481

My transition back to probably innocent was due to being able to refute those claims after hours of research of materials and sources in order to establish the facts and reach new conclusions. Most of them can be found it the forensic publications of Vincent Di Maio.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio

The bottom line is you do not have a clue and have a lot to learn. And in my opinion you are easily led.

[lookout]

Adam has done no such thing. There is nothing disgusting or disturbing about Adams posts!

It is not Adam who has written the most unforgivable things about the 5 victims; it is others.

Well you aren't going to see any wrong in a guilter are you ? If I'd said the same as he, I'd have a chorus shouting me down,that's for sure.

[Adam]

I want to hear Adam's reason.
I have my own reasons for wanting to know why Adam has chosen Graham,because I believe it's a lie.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5653.msg249319.html#msg249319

[lookout]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5653.msg249319.html#msg249319

I've heard from him since then and he hasn't changed his stance.Not that I could imagine he would do on your say-so.

[Stephanie]

It may be a good idea to give Mike and Lookout the option of engaging with you via PM, prior to a stance change. As a stance change after years or decades is a big thing to do.

A lot of people changed stance after I joined. I should have been softer & only gave Lookout the chance to PM me after she dug in.

Adams post is clear. He stated:

"people changed stance after he joined.

He doesn't list the reasons why people changed stance.

[Stephanie]

I've heard from him since then and he hasn't changed his stance.Not that I could imagine he would do on your say-so.

Personally I would need to hear it from the man himself. I take what you say with a pinch of salt Lookout and would advise other members to do the same.

[lookout]

Personally I would need to hear it from the man himself. I take what you say with a pinch of salt Lookout and would advise other members to do the same.

I have 3 saved PM's from him,if anyone would like to bear me out. I DON'T lie !
Any hackers out there ?

[Adam]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5846.msg260850.html#msg260850

Grahame returned 7 weeks later as Mr Gee. After supporters publicially requested he return.

Now caiming the police framed Bamber. Although it's been agreed the police didn't even change stance.

[lookout]

Grahame is a staunch supporter who's in the know with those who have a closer insight into the case.