Why did jeremy say this.

[Adam]

this is from somone who has never provided a single source for any of there claims.

I thought Jeremy was the source of unditfied male cliam apperantly it was ab policeman.

and not him.

I post sources all the time.

Right so Bamber did not tell the police he saw a 'male' figure in the window. You're thread post was wrong.

Apparently it is now a police man who saw a 'male' figure in the window. Although I have not seen a source for this either.

Can you ensure that you're thread questions have a source when the question is based on what someone has said. Preferably include the source link in you're thread post. Ditto all you're posts.

Just making a claim you have no source for & hopeing no one asks, then ignoring source requests by posting on other threads, is not acceptable.

[lookout]

Sources in capitals.


Perfectly clean palm of hands on Sheila - Not disputed - COA

One blood mark on back of hand of Sheila - Not disputed - COA

Extremley low levels of lead found on hands on Sheila.  Not consistent with handling a rifle. Significantly higher traces expected - Not disputed - COA

Well manicured nails on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.

No broken nails - Not disputed COA.

Nails in tact - Not disputed - COA.

No marks or indentations on Sheila's fingers - Not disputed - COA.

No blood on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.

No dirt on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.

No powder on finger tips - Not disputed - COA.

Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE, BAMBER.

No trace of any lead dust coating on Sheila - Not disputed - COA.

No traces of the lubricant from re loading twice - Not disputed - COA

Very clean feet - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.

Feet free from significant blood staining - Disputed with one picture of foot with redness - COA.

Bamber doing nothing between 3.10am - 3.26/36am - Not disputed - BAMBER

No debris such as sugar on feet - Not disputed - COA.

No foot injuries after bare footed aggressive movement around big house & brutal fight - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.

Only Sheila Caffell's blood on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.

No presence of firearm residue on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.

No trace of rifle oil on nightdress - Not disputed - COA.

No mention of nightdress damage from agressive movement and brutal kitchen fight - Not disputed - COA.

No facial injuries on Sheila - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.

Bamber/Sheila avoiding kitchen fight injuries - Not disputed - FORUM.

Nevill's massive height/weight advantage over Sheila - Not disputed - ACCEPTED FACT.

Impossibility of shower removing evidence off Sheila - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Impossibility of Sheila showering after killing herself - Not disputed - SCIENTIFIC FACT.

Nevill being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.

Sheila being found bare footed in pyjamas suggesting she had just got out of bed - Not disputed - PHOTOS.

Paint in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES. .

Aga scratch's - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.

Blood in silencer - Not disputed but suggestion from Bamber cousins did this - NUMEROUS SOURCES.

No blood in the rifle end - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.

Sheila's legs pulled after second shot - Not disputed - COA.

Sheila's blood underneath the bible - Not disputed - COA.

A lot of blood on Nevill's side of the bed - Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.

Large scale multiple mental & physical effects of Haloperidol - Not disputed. - NUMEROUS SOURCES.

Sheila having Haloperidol in her body - Not disputed - COA.

Sheila's condition hours before the massacre - Not disputed. Bamber being a main witness - BAMBER & OTHER PEOPLE.

Sheila under sedation - Not disputed - COA.

Easy window entrance into WHF - Not disputed. Agreed by Bamber. - BAMBER.

Shutting kitchen window from outside - Disputed but 20 independent sources prove otherwise - 20 SOURCES IN THE LIBRARY.

No better massacre weapon options - Not disputed - FORUM.

Professor Herbert Leon Mcdonell - Not disputed after Bamber hired him - WILKES'S BOOK.

Easy bike routes to WHF - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.

Bike brought to Bamber's cottage just before the massacre - Not disputed - BAMBERS POLICE INTERVIEWS.

June not waking/getting shot in bed - Not disputed - COA.

Nevill's back burns - Not disputed. Suggestion burns were caused minus silencer rejected - BAMBER.

2012 CCRC court judgement - judicial review request made & rejected - JUDICIAL REVIEW DOCUMENT.

The twins not waking - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.

Bamber's call to the police - Not disputed - NUMEROUS SOURCES.

Nevill's horrific injuries - Not disputed - COURT OF APPEAL.

Sheila's time limits - Not disputed - POLICE STATEMENTS.

No valid Sheila scenario - Not disputed - OS & FORUM.

Bamber's 3am call to Julie - Not disputed - BAMBER.

Nevill's 2/4 second call to Bamber - Not disputed - BAMBER.

Bamber asking the police to pick him up - Not disputed - WILKES, CRIMES, HEARTS & CORONETS.

Nevill's back burns - Not disputed - BAMBER.

Ease for a man to lift & carry a woman - Not disputed. YOUTUBE VIDEO.

Crime scenes of 5 individuals - Not disputed - COA.

June & the twins not waking - Not disputed - COA.

The found hacksaw - Not disputed - BAMBER.

Bible on Sheila's arm- Not disputed - PHOTOGRAPHS.

Execution period 12am - 3am - Not disputed - BAMBER

Housekeeper evidence of items around the sink being moved - Not disputed- PB WS, WILKES'S BOOK

I didn't ask for  Psalm-------------just a straight answer on forensic evidence .

[Adam]

Why don't you provide a source of forensic evidence ??

Well you did ask for sources.

[David1819]

I post sources all the time.

No you don't. Writing things like 'COA' or 'NUMEROUS SOURCES' is not posting a source. You basically claiming a source merely exists. Often in a misleading fashion.

Every now and then you copy and paste from the COA 2002, but fail to provide the sources the COA relied on.

[Adam]

No you don't. Writing things like 'COA' or 'NUMEROUS SOURCES' is not posting a source. You basically claiming a source merely exists. Often in a misleading fashion.

Every now and then you copy and paste from the COA 2002, but fail to provide the sources the COA relied on.

My sources are better than you're 3D diagrams. Or letters from Bamber & 'forensic evidence breakthrough' which you are scared to disclose.

So I have to post the source the COA used ? No thanks. The COA is a good enough source on it's own.

[nugnug]

I post sources all the time.

Right so Bamber did not tell the police he saw a 'male' figure in the window. You're thread post was wrong.

Apparently it is now a police man who saw a 'male' figure in the window. Although I have not seen a source for this either.

Can you ensure that you're thread questions have a source when the question is based on what someone has said. Preferably include the source link in you're thread post. Ditto all you're posts.

Just making a claim you have no source for & hopeing no one asks, then ignoring source requests by posting on other threads, is not acceptable.

you have no source for any of your claims other than saying coa over and over again if you actually bothred to read the thread in the first place what the source.

[Adam]

you have no source for any of your claims other than saying coa over and over again if you actually bothred to read the thread in the first place what the source.

My list in reply 70 of 62 pieces of incriminating evidence against Bamber has 16 different sources -

Bamber.
Court of Appeal.
Photographs.
Official site.
Scientific fact.
CCRC judicial review.
Forum.
Wilkes.
Crimes, hearts & coronets.
Interview transcripts.
Witness statements.
Youtube videos.
Pathologist.
Accepted fact.
Internet articles.
Tonight documentary programme.

Several pieces will have dozens of sources. Such as blood being in the silencer , Bamber's WHF entrance/exit options & Sheila being unmarked.

I could find more sources for each point. But do not need to.

[David1819]

So I have to post the source the COA used ? No thanks.

I do. And anyone who wants to establish the facts should do. Guess you are worried the COA is not as objective as you like to think it is.

[David1819]

My list in reply 70 of 62 pieces of incriminating evidence against Bamber has 15 different sources -

Bamber.
Court of Appeal.
Photographs.
Official site.
Scientific fact.
CCRC judicial review.
Forum.
Wilkes.
Crimes, hearts & coronets.
Interview transcripts.
Witness statements.
Youtube videos.
Pathologist.
Accepted fact.
Internet articles.

Several pieces will have dozens of sources. Such as blood being in the silencer , Bamber's WHF entrance/exit options & Sheila being unmarked.

Writing things like 'Wilkes' 'Interview transcripts' 'Accepted fact' 'Pathologist'. Is not posting a source. You basically claiming a source merely exists. Often in a misleading fashion.