Gun at first floor window - set to shoot safety of convictions to bits!!

[Caroline]

Thanks for the memory.

Yes, I was once as deluded as you and the F*CK wit above

[Caroline]

Posting things I once said when I thought he was innocent is just stupid and a first class example of someone attacking the poster and NOT the post. Only an idiot would post such examples and only a bigger idiot wouldn't realise that OBVIOUSLY changing your mind includes a reevaluation of what you thought before. It's easy to be brain washed by some of the stuff posted on here, especially when it is repeated in the media 'Crimes That Shook Britain' was the catalyst for my thinking he might be innocent which was further fueled by things posted here. After writing to Jeremy himself, I started to have doubts and looked into some of the claims on CTSB and stuff posted here in more detail - it didn't take long before most of it could be explained and already had been - twists by the conspiracy theorist were easily dismantled. I still hold that some of the documentaries that have appeared on TV are not well researched and they get basic stuff wrong - but then people who have posted here for YEARS also get basic stuff wrong.

So for any numb nut who wishes to post my old posts - fill your boots - one in particular has used them for the basis of his/her own theories so I guess that makes them look even more of an idiot!

[Jane]

Posting things I once said when I thought he was innocent is just stupid and a first class example of someone attacking the poster and NOT the post. Only an idiot would post such examples and only a bigger idiot wouldn't realise that OBVIOUSLY changing your mind includes a reevaluation of what you thought before. It's easy to be brain washed by some of the stuff posted on here, especially when it is repeated in the media 'Crimes That Shook Britain' was the catalyst for my thinking he might be innocent which was further fueled by things posted here. After writing to Jeremy himself, I started to have doubts and looked into some of the claims on CTSB and stuff posted here in more detail - it didn't take long before most of it could be explained and already had been - twists by the conspiracy theorist were easily dismantled. I still hold that some of the documentaries that have appeared on TV are not well researched and they get basic stuff wrong - but then people who have posted here for YEARS also get basic stuff wrong.

So for any numb nut who wishes to post my old posts - fill your boots - one in particular has used them for the basis of his/her own theories so I guess that makes them look even more of an idiot!

Not only is he posting old posts here, Caroline, he MAY have posted them on another forum. He's certainly been slagging us off on another forum.....................I thought it was against forum rules for members to do such.

[David1819]

Posting things I once said when I thought he was innocent is just stupid and a first class example of someone attacking the poster and NOT the post.

Your former post dealt with your latter post rather well.

"ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument"

Only an idiot would post such examples and only a bigger idiot wouldn't realise that OBVIOUSLY changing your mind includes a reevaluation of what you thought before.

Tu quoque can indeed be a form of ad hominem fallacy. However it can be non-fallacious i.e the person fails to give a reasonable explanation as to why they changed their mind.

It's easy to be brain washed by some of the stuff posted on here

So far you've only succeeded in brainwashing JaneJ. If its so easy why do you only have one sucker?

[Adam]

It's no secret Caroline & Jane J were passionate Bamber supporters. Bamber was writing to Caroline while Jane J didn't like Julie's court outfit.

They both changed stance at the same time. Caroline due to Bamber not responding to a last harvest question. Jane J changing stance straight after Caroline and always refusing to give a reason.

Quoting old posts from them just highlights that anything that supposedly supported Bamber people no longer believe.

[Caroline]

It's no secret Caroline & Jane J were passionate Bamber supporters. Bamber was writing to Caroline while Jane J didn't like Julie's court outfit.

They both changed stance at the same time. Caroline due to Bamber not responding to a last harvest question. Jane J changing stance straight after Caroline and always refusing to give a reason.

Quoting old posts from them just highlights that anything that supposedly supported Bamber people no longer believe.

Nothing to do with the last harvest question Adam, I didn't ask him about that - you're thinking of the wallet - however, that is only one aspect.

[Caroline]

Not only is he posting old posts here, Caroline, he MAY have posted them on another forum. He's certainly been slagging us off on another forum.....................I thought it was against forum rules for members to do such.

He can please himself, most people know he's a troll except for his two NZ fans on the IA joke board. I don't know why he keeps trying to goad, I have him blocked so can't see the bollocks he posts anyway. Maybe he'll share his little report about the palm print or maybe I will!

[Adam]

Nothing to do with the last harvest question Adam, I didn't ask him about that - you're thinking of the wallet - however, that is only one aspect.

Are you saying that Bamber knew about the wallet at WHF. Or he knew what was inside. Or both ?

Surely Bamber could just say the police told him about this.

[Jane]

He can please himself, most people know he's a troll except for his two NZ fans on the IA joke board. I don't know why he keeps trying to goad, I have him blocked so can't see the bollocks he posts anyway. Maybe he'll share his little report about the palm print or maybe I will!

It will be interesting to see how he manages to get away with passing you're work off as his own. Be even more interesting to see what he does with it if you decide to get in first. There'll be no disputing who did the research, then.

[Caroline]

Are you saying that Bamber knew about the wallet at WHF. Or he knew what was inside. Or both ?

Surely Bamber could just say the police told him about this.

Yes, the day he went back to WHF on the invitation of AE it's the first thing he went to find after looking around the rooms with Ann. He knew there was £400.00 - £500.00 hundred in the wallet and was annoyed that he couldm't find it. The police couldn't have told him, they didn't have it, AE and RWB removed it from the house and gave it to the solicitor. I asked him how he knew what was inside. After avoiding the question for about a year he finally said that he didn't remember what my question was but the answer was 'no' or 'I didn't' (he said this also the first time I asked him), then went on to say (further in the letter), that he hadn't thought the wallet was important and so he didn't answer. Two different reasons in one letter, he also said his dad usually carried around £100.00 - £200.00. So it was unusual for him to have £400.00 - £500.00 and yet Jeremy knew  what was in it.

[Steve_uk]

Yes, the day he went back to WHF on the invitation of AE it's the first thing he went to find after looking around the rooms with Ann. He knew there was £400.00 - £500.00 hundred in the wallet and was annoyed that he couldm't find it. The police couldn't have told him, they didn't have it, AE and RWB removed it from the house and gave it to the solicitor. I asked him how he knew what was inside. After avoiding the question for about a year he finally said that he didn't remember what my question was but the answer was 'no' or 'I didn't' (he said this also the first time I asked him), then went on to say (further in the letter), that he hadn't thought the wallet was important and so he didn't answer. Two different reasons in one letter, he also said his dad usually carried around £100.00 - £200.00. So it was unusual for him to have £400.00 - £500.00 and yet Jeremy knew  what was in it.

Where does it say that Jeremy knew his dad had £400 in the wallet? Couldn't Nevill just have told him sometime on that last day with an explanation that he had some bills to pay?

[Adam]

Yes, the day he went back to WHF on the invitation of AE it's the first thing he went to find after looking around the rooms with Ann. He knew there was £400.00 - £500.00 hundred in the wallet and was annoyed that he couldm't find it. The police couldn't have told him, they didn't have it, AE and RWB removed it from the house and gave it to the solicitor. I asked him how he knew what was inside. After avoiding the question for about a year he finally said that he didn't remember what my question was but the answer was 'no' or 'I didn't' (he said this also the first time I asked him), then went on to say (further in the letter), that he hadn't thought the wallet was important and so he didn't answer. Two different reasons in one letter, he also said his dad usually carried around £100.00 - £200.00. So it was unusual for him to have £400.00 - £500.00 and yet Jeremy knew  what was in it.

Where does it say he knew there was £400 - £500 in the wallet. Did he say it to AE ?

He would have looked for the wallet regardless of guilt or innocence if he knew Nevill always carried £100 - £200.

[David1819]

Yes, the day he went back to WHF on the invitation of AE it's the first thing he went to find after looking around the rooms with Ann. He knew there was £400.00 - £500.00 hundred in the wallet and was annoyed that he couldm't find it. The police couldn't have told him, they didn't have it, AE and RWB removed it from the house and gave it to the solicitor. I asked him how he knew what was inside. After avoiding the question for about a year he finally said that he didn't remember what my question was but the answer was 'no' or 'I didn't' (he said this also the first time I asked him), then went on to say (further in the letter), that he hadn't thought the wallet was important and so he didn't answer. Two different reasons in one letter, he also said his dad usually carried around £100.00 - £200.00. So it was unusual for him to have £400.00 - £500.00 and yet Jeremy knew  what was in it.

That's rather different to what you originally told the forum.

Just to let you all know that I received a letter from Jeremy today and he said that he mentioned 'no amount' when asking about the wallet. He said he doesn't remember the incident that well but that he is sure he didn't mention an amount. I am happy that he has now answered and accept his reply. It's now a case of Jeremy's word against AE's

[Adam]

There is probably some truths and half truths from both parties.

Bamber hunting for money from Nevill so soon after the massacre is incriminating. Bamber admits hunting for the wallet.

Bamber hunting for the wallet highlights that he knew Nevill kept a lot of money in there. Which is not surprising as people often keep lots of money in wallets.

AE will be correct in that the wallet had £400 - £500 in as she handed it in.

The main question is whether Bamber knew Nevill had £400 - £500 in the wallet.  After committing the massacre, he may well check Nevill's wallet. But knew he could not take it back with him on the night.

[David1819]

There is probably some truths and half truths from both parties.

Bamber hunting for money from Nevill so soon after the massacre is incriminating. Bamber admits hunting for the wallet.

Bamber hunting for the wallet highlights that he knew Nevill kept a lot of money in there. Which is not surprising as people often keep lots of money in wallets.

AE will be correct in that the wallet had £400 - £500 in as she handed it in.

The main question is whether Bamber knew Nevill had £400 - £500 in the wallet.  After committing the massacre, he may well check Nevill's wallet. But knew he could not take it back with him on the night.

Its nothing but a side track.

If I had my way. Anyone claiming to repeat what Jeremy has told them in writing should be obliged to post a scanned image of the letter. Its in the interest of establishing the truth.

Caroline's claims to what is allegedly written in these letters has changed. Not only that but she refuses to post them. To my mind it's deserving of suspicion and distrust.