Jeremy's assumptions about his sister's meds and relatives' opinions

[Roch]

I have reported you to the moderators again.

Showing a CT video means nothing. Twenty independent sources said the kitchen window could be banged shut from outside. It was part of the prosecution case.

Keep up.

I am requesting to forum administrator and moderator that you be banned from the forum on the grounds that you are a well known pest and troll.

[Jane]

I think you need to carefully watch this video.  The window could not be secured from the outside. Read and listen to what the police stated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65t__yHjAjk

I wish to God you were banned from this forum.

Roch, I sincerely hope that wish doesn't include me and I hope that if you have a problem with me we can discuss it.

[susan]

I think you need to carefully watch this video.  The window could not be secured from the outside. Read and listen to what the police stated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65t__yHjAjk

I wish to God you were banned from this forum.

Hi Roch

thanks for posting that link about the windows I have never seen it before and leaves me again in doubt about Jeremy's conviction

[Roch]

Roch, I sincerely hope that wish doesn't include me and I hope that if you have a problem with me we can discuss it.

No it does not include you Jane. 

I'm not trying to rule over people's opinions here.  But this member has a horrendous record of being a troll.  He does not serve any purpose here either way. Hartley is / has been a formidable and effective guilty poster on this forum - but I would never in a million years request him to be banned - because unlike Adam - he is not and never has been a troll.  People with a guilty opinion should be allowed to post on this forum as much as people with an innocent or undecided opinion.  But Adam's tactics are deliberate disruption.  Sorry Adam - but this forum would be miles better without you and without anybody else taking up your mantle.

[Adam]

Hi Roch

thanks for posting that link about the windows I have never seen it before and leaves me again in doubt about Jeremy's conviction

It's a  CT video. For the gullible.

[Roch]

It's a  CT video. For the gullible.

On what grounds in this video in particluar - is the information held within - for the gullible?

Back up your claims

[Adam]

No it does not include you Jane. 

I'm not trying to rule over people's opinions here.  But this member has a horrendous record of being a troll.  He does not serve any purpose here either way. Hartley is / has been a formidable and effective guilty poster on this forum - but I would never in a million years request him to be banned - because unlike Adam - he is not and never has been a troll.  People with a guilty opinion should be allowed to post on this forum as much as people with an innocent or undecided opinion.  But Adam's tactics are deliberate disruption.  Sorry Adam - but this forum would be miles better without you and without anybody else taking up your mantle.

I have reported you to the moderators again.

It's very easy to beat you in a debate.

You say Sheila 'definately committed the massacre'. Then say 'you can't explain Nevill's phone calls'.

You say 'Ainsley 100% concealed evidence' then say you 'don't know what motivated him'.

You say Bamber 'chose the wrong weapon', then give no alternative weapon. Despite three requests.


You know this, which is why you are focusing on me. Only you know why you still support Bamber. But if you do, I'll just keep  beating you in debates.

[Roch]

I have reported you to the moderators again.

It's very easy to beat you in a debate.

You say Sheila 'definately committed the massacre'. Then say 'you can't explain Nevill's phone calls'.

You say 'Ainsley concealed evidence' then say you 'don't know what motivated him'.

You say Bamber 'chose the wrong weapon', then give no alternative weapon. Despite three requests.


You know this, which is why you are focusing on me. Only you know why you still support Bamber. But if you do, I'll just keep  beating you in debates.

I think you would be more at home on the red forum.  Your efforts will be appreciated there.

[susan]

It's a  CT video. For the gullible.

Adam sorry I don't agree with the statement you have just made Roch could never be described as gullible me yes but not Roch.

[Adam]

Adam sorry I don't agree with the statement you have just made Roch could never be described as gullible me yes but not Roch.

The kitchen window could be banged shut from outside. You know this.

Jan asked me for 10 (yes 10) independent sources once. I supplied them that afternoon. However more independent sources have since been found.

[lookout]

That's where I have a problem , they hadn't got a clue about jeremy or shiela, they made big assumptions on a minute bit of information they did have about her. I don't believe for a minute that they really knew how shiela illness was affecting her and neither did many others.

I think we've created the scene where shiela was unable to do anything and didn't have any coordination from the family who really did not know what it was doing to her and feel guilters have just decided this is tge truth and that shiela wasn't capable. !Ithink it is really iimportant for all her medical records to be released so we can see if it is in fact true or not.

I do find It odd that guilters will not consider that her illness could have been the reason she did it and that it was completely possible that she was more than capable .

Yes,I think it's important that we see Sheila's medical history----not to pry or gloat but to  get a picture/idea of her overall behaviour on her initial admission to the clinic/hospital. Whether her admission had first been a voluntary decision ?  Information in this area of mental health would then give an insight into her,what appeared to have been, complex problems.

[Roch]

Roch's just upset that people are now asking him to justify his bold 'definately'/100% statements.

I said I was 100% certain Sheila was the killer.  Not 100% certain that Jeremy had no foreknowledge and/or provided no assistance.  A suggested example I gave, for providing such assistance, was concocting a reason to leave out a loaded weapon for her.

I once made the fatal mistake of taking you off ignore.  I'll not make that mistake again.

[JackiePreece]

Great post.

Agreed great post

Every one of Sheila's medical records needs to be released
I see NO reason for that NOT to happen

[JackiePreece]

Hi Roch

thanks for posting that link about the windows I have never seen it before and leaves me again in doubt about Jeremy's conviction

Thank you Susan

[Adam]

I was having a really good time debating this yesterday, now it's turned into a squabble again, why can't we just debate on the case instead. :-(

Hopefully David will supply his 5th scenario attempt of how Sheila committed the massacre. That will give everyone something to debate.

He's been working on it for 4 months & it's got diagrams.

Or you could always supply a scenario. Just saying Bamber is innocent because he may have found moving Sheila a few feet difficult would only result in a one minute debate by a jury.