so wheres this forensic breakthrough then.

[Steve_uk]

I doubt what he wrote in 2008. Has much resemblance to what he has put together a present.

It's full of inaccuracies anyway.

[David1819]

It's full of inaccuracies anyway.

Outdated is a better word. Still interesting to read.

[nugnug]

What exactly has Nugnug achieved by starting this thread and implying that I'm lying about things?

This thread was created the very evening I came to my own conclusion/opinion that Luke Mitchell was guilty of killing Jodi.

If Nugnug has achieved anything here, its demonstrating an unhealthy emotional investment in the idea of Luke Mitchell's innocence.

do you think your word  isbehond qustion or somthing.

[Jane]

What exactly has Nugnug achieved by starting this thread and implying that I'm lying about things?

This thread was created the very evening I came to my own conclusion/opinion that Luke Mitchell was guilty of killing Jodi.

If Nugnug has achieved anything here, its demonstrating an unhealthy emotional investment in the idea of Luke Mitchell's innocence.

Actually, it would have been entirely unnecessary for Nugs to start a thread to imply you were "lying about things" -by now, I imagine that most members are fairly certain of it- although it's always gratifying to know that one's own beliefs are supported. Surely though, this is more about Luke Mitchell than Jeremy Bamber so this isn't the thread for comments on it.

[David1819]

do you think your word behond qustion or somthing.

If you don't want to take my word on something, that's fine. But just because I believe LM is guilty and point out the errors in your arguments for the contrary. Is no good reason for being salty with me on another case or subject ect.

[nugnug]

If you don't want to take my word on something, that's fine. But just because I believe LM is guilty and point out the errors in your arguments for the contrary. Is no good reason for being salty with me on another case or subject ect.

erm you make accusations that everybody else is lying you throw around the accusation all the time.

if you cant take it pal don't dish it out.

[Caroline]

erm you make accusations that everybody else is lying you throw around the accusation all the time.

if you cant take it pal don't dish it out.

In a post to Scipio when he is trying to sound like a Bamber authority David write the following;

 

The Series of issues you put forward are constructed with innumerable guesses and speculations on your part. Your portraying a prosecuting version of events rather than solid unbiased facts.

I appreciate the effort you make but at the end of the day not you or anyone else can solve the White House Farm murders I realised that myself a while ago having thoroughly read about the case being swayed one way or another by flimsy circumstantial evidence and opinion I soon realised you would have to have been there that night to be certain of what happened.

I once was fairly sure of Jeremy's guilt until two lawyers told me on separate occasions that if he was on trial today he would be found not guilty. That got me thinking and the more I looked into things the more cracks and holes I found in the prosecution. At the end of the day only Jeremy knows. So if he is innocent there will always be guesses rumors and doubt. If he is guilty he is only one that can effectively solve the case by providing a detailed confession.

In a post replying to NGB 4 years LATER, David writes;

That article was one of the first things I ever read about the case after I watched a documentary on JB in late 2014. Still ignorant on the subject I just took it all at face value. I still remember joining this forum a few month later naively thinking you were Jeremy’s "protector". Looking back I cant help but laugh.

 

[Caroline]

If you don't want to take my word on something, that's fine. But just because I believe LM is guilty and point out the errors in your arguments for the contrary. Is no good reason for being salty with me on another case or subject ect.

Perhaps because you not only 'point out what you believe to be errors', but start getting personal - like you always do! Then you try and slime your way back to the good books when you can see yourself losing a foot hold!   

[Caroline]

Alias's turned the picture of the palm print to match the stain on Sheila's nightdress - interesting! 

[Caroline]

Alias's turned the picture of the palm print to match the stain on Sheila's nightdress - interesting! 

Perhaps this could even be described as a forensic breakthrough - maybe even used in the next submissions? 

[lookout]

Where's the thumb print with those fingers ?

[Caroline]

Where's the thumb print with those fingers ?

On the left, were it usually is.

[lookout]

On the left, were it usually is.

But the index finger is missing.

[Caroline]

But the index finger is missing.

The fingers are squashed together and the thickness of the bible prevents a perfect print. It also depends on the hand being covered in blood or only certain fingers.

I think that is the most likely scenario for both stains.

[lookout]

The fingers are squashed together and the thickness of the bible prevents a perfect print. It also depends on the hand being covered in blood or only certain fingers.

I think that is the most likely scenario for both stains.

The partial hand/fingers could tell a lot from where/how her hand was placed  originally and by studying that pic, the placing of the rifle looks phoney as does her hand the way it's just resting on the rifle.

It's just not right.