Author Topic: A question for Jackie:  (Read 29146 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #165 on: May 16, 2017, 03:06:PM »
I responded to Susans post.
I realise I misread your post  ;D   You are still my friend tho' so you are still lucky.  ;) ;) ;D

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44327
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #166 on: May 16, 2017, 03:06:PM »
Maggie I shall watch this space with you :) we all know Roch is very upfront and honest and would not make anything up or see something and take from it his own scenario.  As far as guilty is concerned only a couple of bits of evidence have been presented and IMO they are both suspect everything else on here is somebody's opinion :)may I add this is how I see things now

There are over 50 pieces of forensic evidence which shows Sheila is not the killer.

Where have you been ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #167 on: May 16, 2017, 03:09:PM »
Hahaha Maggie I like that your source is your brain I will start using that one :)) :)) :))

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #168 on: May 16, 2017, 03:12:PM »
There are over 50 pieces of forensic evidence which shows Sheila is not the killer.

Where have you been ?

Adam you know I am slow at catching up I am trying and will read all the 50 pieces of forensic evidence where is it all  by the way? I will read all 50

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #169 on: May 16, 2017, 03:13:PM »
Hahaha Maggie I like that your source is your brain I will start using that one :)) :)) :))
Quite proud of that Suse.  ;D ;D

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44327
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #170 on: May 16, 2017, 03:15:PM »
Hahaha Maggie I like that your source is your brain I will start using that one :)) :)) :))

I don't think that's a very good idea.

Jackie & Roch already have new top secret information which they are not going to post. And Mike has a picture of Sheila on the bed which he is not going to post.

You doing what all other supporters do of making big statements with no source & not revealing alledged new information will not enhance the forum.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2017, 03:25:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44327
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #171 on: May 16, 2017, 03:16:PM »
Adam you know I am slow at catching up I am trying and will read all the 50 pieces of forensic evidence where is it all  by the way? I will read all 50

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7204.msg375403.html#msg375403

Not sure what more people want.

There is one alive suspect with several motives, an opportunity & no alibi. A witness, a conviction & several failed appeals.

There is also a mountain of forensic & circumstsntial evidence.

Julie identifying the twins does not negate this.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2017, 03:19:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #172 on: May 16, 2017, 03:22:PM »
I don't think that's a very good idea.

Jackie & Roch already have new top secret information which they are not going to post. And Mike has a picture of Sheila on the bed which he is not going to post.

You doing what all other supporters do of making big statements with no source & not revealing new information will not enhance the forum.
Who said I'm a supporter, have never claimed that or are you speaking to Susan again?  Sorry to interfere in your little tete a tete.  8)

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44327
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #173 on: May 16, 2017, 03:24:PM »
Who said I'm a supporter, have never claimed that or are you speaking to Susan again?  Sorry to interfere in your little tete a tete.  8)

That was a reply to Susan.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #174 on: May 16, 2017, 03:29:PM »
That was a reply to Susan.
Oh dear silly old me!

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #175 on: May 16, 2017, 03:46:PM »
Oh dear silly old me!

Maggie do keep up please and stop trying to move in on my posts to Adam do your own :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :)) :))

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #176 on: May 16, 2017, 03:49:PM »
Who said I'm a supporter, have never claimed that or are you speaking to Susan again?  Sorry to interfere in your little tete a tete.  8)

Maggie do I detect sour grapes  :)) :P :o :-*

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #177 on: May 16, 2017, 03:52:PM »
Maggie do I detect sour grapes  :)) :P :o :-*
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
You have lead me off topic as well susan, the mods will be after us.  :-[

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #178 on: May 16, 2017, 04:13:PM »
:'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
You have lead me off topic as well susan, the mods will be after us.  :-[

Hahaha I was always good at that wonder I was never banned hehehe I will be good now and answer Adam's posts :))

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: A question for Jackie:
« Reply #179 on: May 16, 2017, 04:24:PM »
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7204.msg375403.html#msg375403

Not sure what more people want.

There is one alive suspect with several motives, an opportunity & no alibi. A witness, a conviction & several failed appeals.

There is also a mountain of forensic & circumstsntial evidence.

Julie identifying the twins does not negate this.

Adam
I know what you are saying is correct but I think Sheila did have motive and she was very ill poor Sheila.  Jeremy would have got a good share of everything when his parents died I know you will not agree with me but I think Julie did not think Jeremy murdered his family but when he was arrested she was brain washed into believing Jeremy murdered his family also the silencer I don't believe a silencer was used in the murders so IMO the evidence against Jeremy was weak and I think his Defence Team thought that and this is why they did not put their backs into defending him they really let him down :(