Murders at White House Farm by Carol Ann Lee.

[guest1199]

TomG had also suggested Bamber would not have emerged from a big fight with Nevill unscratched. Although has not said how Sheila managed to.

I will copy my thread on this. I do wish he would keep up.

I will also quote TomG's post on this as he often denies saying things.

Again another mischievous straw-man argument.  Where did I suggest that there was a fight?

Hoots!

[susan]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/04/lack-of-appeal/&ved=0ahUKEwiGp_q2443UAhXKDsAKHfVnBrAQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHoQUl_IVv41KN7TQYC1Nvki6l5kw

Err, I never said a light weapon would benefit Bamber more than Sheila. I said Bamber chose a light weapon as he had to move quickly.

Bamber's vastly superior strenght would mean only he could cause the damage to Nevill with a light rifle.

Adam where is the source for Sheila being a recovering anorexic? A light weapon would suit Sheila more than Jeremy.

[Adam]

Adam where is the source for Sheila being a recovering anorexic? A light weapon would suit Sheila more than Jeremy.

Read it. I know it's a lot of words. But it never did me any harm.
 

[Adam]

TomG had also suggested Bamber would not have emerged from a big fight with Nevill unscratched. Although has not said how Sheila managed to.

I will copy my thread on this. I do wish he would keep up.

I will also quote TomG's post on this as he often denies saying things.

I thought TomG would deny saying something again.

He posts rubbish and then denies saying it after reading counter arguments.

And no Bamber is not innocent because Nevill's first two shots were from inches away were in the lip and jaw.

[Adam]

All the above along with the fact that the gun and ammunition were totally inappropriate makes your (A), (B), and (C) implausible.  He would also have had to emerge from all this without a scratch on him from a die-hard Nevill.  The pro-guilt argument is further compounded by the fact that the pre-laid plan that you continually refer to simply doesn't exist.

Hoots

[Adam]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/04/lack-of-appeal/&ved=0ahUKEwiGp_q2443UAhXKDsAKHfVnBrAQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHoQUl_IVv41KN7TQYC1Nvki6l5kw

Err, I never said a light weapon would benefit Bamber more than Sheila. I said Bamber chose a light weapon as he had to move quickly.

Bamber's vastly superior strenght would mean only he could cause the damage to Nevill with a light rifle.

For Susan. I already posted it for you but you then asked for it again.

[guest1199]

Altnough TomG posts a lot of rubbish, he's actually made a point about the lightness of the weapon.

It would have beneffitted Bamber who wanted to move quickly around WHF. As previously posted.

However to cause the horrific face & body damage Nevill received with such a light rifle in the kitchen fight, would have required extreme force.

Sheila was a recoveting anorexic on Haloperidol. So doubtful she could wave around a tin of sardines.

Hoots.

Nevill probably received these injuries when he was in no position to fight back, there is nothing to contradict that as yet. 

Can you cite the source for your claim that Sheila was anorexic.  CAL's book is very thorough regarding Sheila's life prior to the the killings, yet nothing is said about anorexia.  The book is very pro-guilt.

Hoots!

[Adam]

All the above along with the fact that the gun and ammunition were totally inappropriate makes your (A), (B), and (C) implausible.  He would also have had to emerge from all this without a scratch on him from a die-hard Nevill.  The pro-guilt argument is further compounded by the fact that the pre-laid plan that you continually refer to simply doesn't exist.

Hoots

As requested TomG. Here is where you said Bamber chose the wrong weapon.

You were insinuating you had not said this.

What weapon should he have used. Second request.

[susan]

For Susan. I already posted it for you but you then asked for it again.

Adam thank you for the link I apologise for not reading it first time round but I have read it now and have noted what it said about Sheila. Thank you.

[Adam]

Nevill probably received these injuries when he was in no position to fight back, there is nothing to contradict that as yet. 

Can you cite the source for your claim that Sheila was anorexic.  CAL's book is very thorough regarding Sheila's life prior to the the killings, yet nothing is said about anorexia.  The book is very pro-guilt.

Hoots!

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/04/lack-of-appeal/&ved=0ahUKEwiGp_q2443UAhXKDsAKHfVnBrAQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHoQUl_IVv41KN7TQYC1Nvki6l5kw

[susan]

Nevill probably received these injuries when he was in no position to fight back, there is nothing to contradict that as yet. 

Can you cite the source for your claim that Sheila was anorexic.  CAL's book is very thorough regarding Sheila's life prior to the the killings, yet nothing is said about anorexia.  The book is very pro-guilt.

Hoots!

Hi Tom

Adam's link to me states that Sheila was anorexic but I took it all with a pinch of salt as so much of the article was over the top IMO

[guest1199]

Adam

I think you appear to have a problem with mental flexibility.  You seem to be suggesting that if I suggest that the Anschutz 0.22 rifle was inappropriate that means there must have been another rifle that was appropriate, thereby trying to imply that I am unwittingly implicating JB in the crime. 

I think your a bit over-excited.

Hoots!

[guest1199]

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/04/lack-of-appeal/&ved=0ahUKEwiGp_q2443UAhXKDsAKHfVnBrAQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNHoQUl_IVv41KN7TQYC1Nvki6l5kw

Are you serious?  I was hoping that you'd come up with something from Sheila's medical records, or some other reliable proof.  Can you indicate where the author of this article might have gotten this factoid from?

Hoots!

[Adam]

Adam

I think you appear to have a problem with mental flexibility.  You seem to be suggesting that if I suggest that the Anschutz 0.22 rifle was inappropriate that means there must have been another rifle that was appropriate, thereby trying to imply that I am unwittingly implicating JB in the crime. 

I think your a bit over-excited.

Hoots!

You said the gun was 'totally inappropriate'.

So I assume you know there were more appropriate weapons available.

So what should he have used ? Third request.

[guest1199]

And no Bamber is not innocent because Nevill's first two shots were from inches away were in the lip and jaw.

I never said this.  The quotes that you post seem to have your warped spin on them.  You do know what a straw-man argument is?

Hoots