Reason to believe cops shot Sheila, and how her blood ended up inside Silencer!

[Roch]

Hi Roch you sound elated and that must be a wonderful feeling to have knowing in your heart of hearts you are not wrong in your belief Sheila was the killer.

I'm not sure I'm elated - it's not like I've won the lottery.  Having peace of mind is good though.  People should remember that at one point i was virtually 50/50.  knowing how far from reality debate is on this forum is an eye opener also.   

[Roch]

Roch, you're actually starting to come across a little on the rude side, maybe you should tone it down and show some respect to other members of the forum, regardless of their views on the case?

Sorry - not my intention to be rude.   

[guest2181]

Sorry - not my intention to be rude.   

Just an observation mate.

[susan]

I'm not sure I'm elated - it's not like I've won the lottery.  Having peace of mind is good though.  People should remember that at one point i was virtually 50/50.  knowing how far from reality debate is on this forum is an eye opener also.

Hi Roch sorry I used the wrong word in that of elated I meant to know within yourself your belief's are correct must be very good for the mind other than being all over the place with your fifty/fifty and it is so obvious you know things about the case the rest of us don't but guess we will at some stage.

[Caroline]

What you've actually done is to lead yourselves up a blind alley - from which you refuse to return. 

as for conspiracy theories - an easy tag to use to dismiss things.  You are going to be in for a shock!

Well, from what I can see, you (and others) have made many subsequent alley's with the title of 'something' that allow many unfounded theories to be entered as 'fact'. 'Something' happened and 'someone' found out but the theories are always very thin on motive. People work on motives, they are inherent in human nature. The officer(s) you accuse of framing Bamber have no motive because they weren't there and could simply have found a scapegoat much further down the ranks; although as already stated, there is nothing that would warrant such action and you have been unable to provide a good enough reason.

[Jane]

Well, from what I can see, you (and others) have made many subsequent alley's with the title of 'something' that allow many unfounded theories to be entered as 'fact'. 'Something' happened and 'someone' found out but the theories are always very thin on motive. People work on motives, they are inherent in human nature. The officer(s) you accuse of framing Bamber have no motive because they weren't there and could simply have found a scapegoat much further down the ranks; although as already stated, there is nothing that would warrant such action and you have been unable to provide a good enough reason.

It brings to mind the manta in "Cold Comfort Farm" about there being "something nasty in the wood house". It undoubtedly caused a frisson but there was nothing to back it up.

[Caroline]

Sorry - not my intention to be rude.   

I don't find you rude, but you do come across differently - you're starting to sound like the CT. The arguments you are using seem to be a match for their recent addition of the 'liars lobby'? 

[Roch]

Just an observation mate.

Yes fair enough I will tone it down.

Well, from what I can see, you (and others) have made many subsequent alley's with the title of 'something' that allow many unfounded theories to be entered as 'fact'. 'Something' happened and 'someone' found out but the theories are always very thin on motive. People work on motives, they are inherent in human nature. The officer(s) you accuse of framing Bamber have no motive because they weren't there and could simply have found a scapegoat much further down the ranks; although as already stated, there is nothing that would warrant such action and you have been unable to provide a good enough reason.

I think that the concept of police corruption doesn't sit comfortable with you.   I did post up an insider's opinion of police culture contemporary to events - tbf.   It was dismissed under a flag of convenience as somebody with an 'axe to grind' which is absolute bollocks.  It's somebody with a moral compass pointing in the right direction.

And as i have said - I cannot excuse or explain the corrupt actions of others.  They've got tongues in their heads.  But I cannot force them to speak honestly and openly (the ones who are still alive).

[guest7363]

Sorry - not my intention to be rude.   

Roch, in all honesty you know how many times we and others have been lead up the garden path, surely in your heart you cannot blame people. 

[Roch]

I don't find you rude, but you do come across differently - you're starting to sound like the CT. The arguments you are using seem to be a match for their recent addition of the 'liars lobby'?

I've had no dealings with them.  I think they are in a very difficult position caught in-between the various agencies but I don't always condone the line they take on different things.  I recently criticised one of their videos - while praising another.

Roch, in all honesty you know how many times we and others have been lead up the garden path, surely in your heart you cannot blame people.

I think in the long run you will find that on several issues - you were maybe not so much led up the garden path as you think.  You have to try and understand that for the defence - solving the case is like piecing together a massive and partly damaged jigsaw with pieces missing. 

The very sad fact is that some people knew pretty much what the truth was from the very beginning (I'm not referring to Jeremy and Stan).

[guest2181]

Well, from what I can see, you (and others) have made many subsequent alley's with the title of 'something' that allow many unfounded theories to be entered as 'fact'. 'Something' happened and 'someone' found out but the theories are always very thin on motive. People work on motives, they are inherent in human nature. The officer(s) you accuse of framing Bamber have no motive because they weren't there and could simply have found a scapegoat much further down the ranks; although as already stated, there is nothing that would warrant such action and you have been unable to provide a good enough reason.

There must also be some thought given to a persons ability to interpret information correctly.

If Roch is not simply having a laugh (which is where my 50p bet goes) and has seen what he thinks is some sort of 'smoking gun evidence', then why should anybody have any faith that he has interpreted the 'evidence' correctly? Especially given the fact that many of us don't believe he has even interpreted information which actually is available correctly.

I'll reserve judgment until/if there is something to judge. In the meantime my gut tells me that the boy is crying wolf .......... again.

[Caroline]

Yes fair enough I will tone it down.

I think that the concept of police corruption doesn't sit comfortable with you.   I did post up an insider's opinion of police culture contemporary to events - tbf.   It was dismissed under a flag of convenience as somebody with an 'axe to grind' which is absolute bollocks.  It's somebody with a moral compass pointing in the right direction.

And as i have said - I cannot excuse or explain the corrupt actions of others.  They've got tongues in their heads.  But I cannot force them to speak honestly and openly (the ones who are still alive).

You couldn't be MORE wrong, someone very close to me was framed by a police officer. The officer in question destroyed a piece of evidence that was vital to the defence, after that, it was his word against the person I knew. It was a simple act which affected someone's life but there was no grand conspiracy just one dishonest git who wanted a conviction (that was his motive)!

I'm not a naive idiot - I don't believe the boys in blue are the people's champions - but in order for them to risk everything on the scale you're talking, they would need a motive. No one is asking you to speak for them, just to explain your theory but you can't say what the evidence is (although I still think it might be the suicide note that hasn't been proven to be a suicide note) and you can't provide a motive.

There are lots of bones Roch, just no meat.

[Jane]

I don't find you rude, but you do come across differently - you're starting to sound like the CT. The arguments you are using seem to be a match for their recent addition of the 'liars lobby'?

Well, he's certainly coming across with a fervour similar to that of the Jehovah's Witnesses who regularly knock at my door......................lovely people, mind you.

[Roch]

There must also be some thought given to a persons ability to interpret information correctly.

If Roch is not simply having a laugh (which is where my 50p bet goes) and has seen what he thinks is some sort of 'smoking gun evidence', then why should anybody have any faith that he has interpreted the 'evidence' correctly? Especially given the fact that many of us don't believe he has even interpreted information which actually is available correctly.

I'll reserve judgment until/if there is something to judge. In the meantime my gut tells me that the boy is crying wolf .......... again.

I think that final remark is bang out of order Hartley and i think you should retract it.   

As for the evidence I have been referring to - I think it would be difficult to interpret in any other manner other than the one I have.  But perhaps not impossible.  Somebody die-hard like Robert Boutflour for example - I doubt he would have interpreted it the same.

[guest2181]

I think that final remark is bang out of order Hartley and i think you should retract it.   

As for the evidence I have been referring to - I think it would be difficult to interpret in any other manner other than the one I have.  But perhaps not impossible.  Somebody die-hard like Robert Boutflour for example - I doubt he would have interpreted it the same.

In the context of: Sutherst's evidence; Burn Evidence; All of the 2002 Appellant Grounds.

Many things are put forward with such commentary as that displayed by yourself above.
The outcome has always been the same.