Adams claims

[Caroline]

What is wrong with the Guardian? Besides it is the date that's important.

Buddy was under the impression this was said shorty after JB was convicted and that the money was spent in "such a short space of time" But that is not the case.

Spending almost £500,000 over a period of 25 or so years in nothing peculiar. Most people spend that on living (bills & food ect).

OMG! See how you TWIST things, you weren't pointing out ANY date or making the point that a reasonable length of time had passed for the money to be gone, you were using the article to back up claims that all the money had been spent! Just try being honest for once! You said the quote was from the horses mouth - it wasn't!

Also, there is nothing wrong with The Guardian - it renowned for supporting Jeremybut that quote was NOT from the horses mouth.

[Jane]

Spending almost £500,000 over a period of 25 or so years in nothing peculiar. Most people spend that on living (bills & food ect).

They'd have been hellishly extravagant living bills back in 1985.

[Adam]

Adam has claimed that the Boutflours were really wealthy, which is untrue.
When David was asked he said all the money is gone. How?
If the Boutflours were so rich where did the money go in such a short space of time?
The fact is the family were beholden to Neville, and with JB in charge they were going to be sunk.
It is no secret that JB disliked the Boutflours and the feelings were mutual.
Neville had already bought ground from under the Boutflours feet which caused a punch up with Neville.
It was imperative that JB was out of the equation.
I am sure the cops never knew of this, and were spoonfed by the family, and Sherlock Jones fell for it.

Shouldn't this thread be Adam's claim. As you just mentioned one. Which I have provided a source for.

[David1819]

OMG! See how you TWIST things, you weren't pointing out ANY date

 

If I remember correctly this claim was made in 2009.

OK I got the year slightly wrong

you weren't pointing out ANY date

[Steve_uk]

What is wrong with the Guardian? Besides it is the date that's important.

Buddy was under the impression this was said shorty after JB was convicted and that the money was spent in "such a short space of time" But that is not the case.

Spending almost £500,000 over a period of 25 or so years in nothing peculiar. Most people spend that on living (bills & food ect).

You seem to forget that Anthony Pargeter and Jackie Wood were granted half of that, which was £436,000 in any case.

[Caroline]

OK I got the year slightly wrong

You weren't making the point about the date and you know it - that's why you said 'straight from the horses mouth'!

You're such a twister!! 

[Adam]

More or less everything Adam claims is untrue.

If I remember correctly this claim was made in 2009.

Neville owned the land they farmed on.

When AE got wind of JBs intentions to sell that land, she went ape shit.

Moderators can you remove David's post.

I did ask several hours ago when NGB was online but got no response.

Otherwise I will re post the things David has said which are untrue.

Thank you.

[nugnug]

What is wrong with the Guardian? Besides it is the date that's important.

Buddy was under the impression this was said shorty after JB was convicted and that the money was spent in "such a short space of time" But that is not the case.

Spending almost £500,000 over a period of 25 or so years in nothing peculiar. Most people spend that on living (bills & food ect).

dont you know the only exepted news source here isthe sun and the news of the world.

[mike tesko]

Adam has claimed that the Boutflours were really wealthy, which is untrue.
When David was asked he said all the money is gone. How?
If the Boutflours were so rich where did the money go in such a short space of time?
The fact is the family were beholden to Neville, and with JB in charge they were going to be sunk.
It is no secret that JB disliked the Boutflours and the feelings were mutual.
Neville had already bought ground from under the Boutflours feet which caused a punch up with Neville.
It was imperative that JB was out of the equation.
I am sure the cops never knew of this, and were spoonfed by the family, and Sherlock Jones fell for it.

Sounds just about right...

[mike tesko]

More or less everything Adam claims is untrue. untrue, he does refer to some truths...

If I remember correctly this claim was made in 2009.

Neville owned the land they farmed on. Are you referring to the land the Boutflouyrs and the Eatons farmed on?

When AE got wind of JBs intentions to sell that land, she went ape shit. Not surprisingly...

[mike tesko]

From the horses mouth.

"I have inherited quite a large amount of money as a result of Jeremy. And most of it I've wasted, I've spent," he said. Not surpringly, I might add...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/30/jeremy-bamber-appeal-murders-evidence

'Money - easy come, easy go' (the propensity to consume)...

[Adam]

Everything I post I have a source for Mike.

[mike tesko]

Everything I post I have a source for Mike.

I am sure that you do, Adam...

My concern, is that no matter which side of the fence we might be on, it is possible to find a source or other to support what we are saying...

For example, if I find something and refer to a source, which I believe that this proves or establishes this, that, or the other, there is a strong possibility that someone else will quote another source which they say proves what they are saying, which could be opposite to what we, I, you might be saying...

This is very worrying to me...

[Adam]

It is disappointing that David posted 'more or less everything claims is untrue'. And disappointing the moderators ignored two requests by me on this thread to remove this post.

Each of my 60+ forensic points has at least one source.

Anyway, below is a list of a few things David has posted which are untrue -

He has a forensic evidence breakthrough. 

Bamber has written 6 letters to him. 

He cycled to a meeting with Bamber's legal advisors. 

He was never a guilter. 

He changed stance from '95% guilty' & 'all the forensics point to Jeremy' because he realised the relatives could fabricate one piece of evidence.

The court of appeal is not a valid source. 

The rifle bullets bounce off walls. 

He accuses me of posting 'gish gash' when sourced evidence is supplied. 

Wilkes's book is not a valid source.

It would take 90 minutes to walk 3 miles.

It would take 30 minutes longer to cycle 3 miles in the dark.

-----------------

David has since claimed he didn't cycle to his aledged 45 minute journey to meet Jeremy's legal advisors. But has refused to say how he travelled there.

[mike tesko]

It is disappointing that David posted 'more or less everything claims is untrue'. And disappointing the moderators ignored two requests by me on this thread to remove this post.

Each of my 60+ forensic points has at least one source.

Anyway, below is a list of a few things David has posted which are untrue -

He has a forensic evidence breakthrough. He might have...

Bamber has written 6 letters to him.Ok...

He cycled to a meeting with Bamber's legal advisors. Can't see how this proves anything...

He was never a guilter. it's irrellevant...

He changed stance from '95% guilty' & 'all the forensics point to Jeremy' because he realised the relatives could fabricate one piece of evidence. I am more interested in any motive the relatives might have got in carrying out the extinguishing of the bamber caln, and any benefits that would come the Boutflour / Eaton / Pargeter families...

The court of appeal is not a valid source. Unfortunately, it is...

The rifle bullets bounce off walls. it's possible...

He accuses me of posting 'gish gash' when sourced evidence is supplied. Don't let it deter you...

Wilkes's book is not a valid source.  Yes, it is I was in contact with Roger Wilkes prior to the publication of his manuscript...

It would take 90 minutes to walk 3 miles. Depends on how fast or slow you walk, or run, or slouch...

It would take 30 minutes longer to cycle 3 miles in the dark. ditto...

-----------------

David has since claimed he didn't cycle to his aledged 45 minute journey to meet Jeremy's legal advisors. But has refused to say how he travelled there.