Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on January 16, 2021, 06:58:AM
-
AFTER YEARS OF PAINSTAKING RESEARCH, EVIDENCE HAS BEEN DISCOVERED THAT THE EXISTSENCE 0F PREVIOUSLY UNDISCLOSED FORENSIC/PHOTOGRAPHIC/BLOOD GROUP/ DNA (APPLICABLE AFTER THE DATE OF ARREST/CONVICTION AND SENTENCE) EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISHES WHO FIRED THE .22 ANSHUZT RIFLE DURING THE SHOOTING INCIDENTS, BACKED UP BY PHOTOGRAPHIC (POLICE) EVIDENCE WHICH WAS CONCEALED FROM THE JURY/COURT AT THE TIME OF JEREMY BAMBERS OCTOBER, 1986 CHELMSFORD CROWN COURT TRIAL ...
-
LINK THAT/THIS TO THE FOLLOWING:-
-
How astonishing that one of the relatives (David Boutflourj), in particular, refers to a trigger guard mark which he claims he saw on Jeremys index finger at the time of the shootings, or very shortly thereafter?
Jeremy Bamber has cuts on his hands, and he suggests to the police that they submit the rifle to forensics to have the weapons trigger guard for blood!
-
How odd that there has never yet been any disclosure regarding this important matter?
The main focus of this particular thread rests upon and with/to the fact that anyone who handled that rifle during any part of the shooting incident, would probably had got cuts to their hands/ fingers - such marks which could have been made by (for example) the shooters index finger, getting a cut (s) from it coming into contact with the trigger guard of the gun, whilst tyhey were shooting victims dead!
Quite extraordinarily, it (that/this) favours Bamber that on the morning when the police commenced their investigation into these shootings, the police officer who was taking Jeremy Bambers first witness statement (7th August 1985), paid particular interest to Bambers hands and fingers, and confirms that at that stage Jeremy Bambers hands / fingers were uninjured and cut free...
-
Quite extraordinarily, it (that/this) favours Bamber that on the morning when the police commenced their investigation into these shootings, the police officer who was taking Jeremy Bambers first witness statement (7th August 1985), paid particular interest to Bambers hands and fingers, and confirms that at that stage Jeremy Bambers hands / fingers were uninjured and cut free...
By the time the case came to trial (October, 1986), the prosecution/police were deceiving the jury to the effect that Sheila Caffells hands /fingers were spotlessly clean of blood, and uninjured..
With this in mind, all photographs taken at the scene by one police officer or another which showed a view of Sheila's right hand/fingers remained undisclosed to those representing Jeremy Bambers interests..
There was no bloodstaining, or marks on any part of her hands/fingers which could/ would give 'a very strong clue' as to the identity of the shooter of the gun (rifle) during this shooting tragedy..
-
There was no bloodstaining, or marks on any part of her hands/fingers which could/ would give 'a very strong clue' as to the identity of the shooter of the gun (rifle) during this shooting tragedy..
a few decades later, photographic images that police took of Sheila Caffells feet and hands showed that her feet were bloodstained, and there was a cut on the index finger of her right hand, which was caused by her persistently activating the trigger of the gun which resulted in the trigger guard cutting her right index finger..
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10500.0;attach=57338;image)
Its quiet shockingly the amount of lies the relatives told the police and the jury in order to incriminate JB. It makes it as plain as a pikestaff that they contaminated the silencer. And its a travesty they still get away with it to this day.
-
Its quiet shockingly the amount of lies the relatives told the police and the jury in order to incriminate JB. It makes it as plain as a pikestaff that they contaminated the silencer. And its a travesty they still get away with it to this day.
It's nice to be able to agree on something.
-
Why did David Boutflour introduce the false claim that Jeremy had got cuts on his hand that were said to have been made by the trigger guard of the anshuzt rifle? What did he know what only the police and the pathologist Peter Venezis knew? Why did David Boutflour wait until the 14th and the 16th September 1985 before introducing such a lie?
anyone who had allegedly fired that rifle a total of 25 times would almost certainly have got marks or small cuts on the hand / fingers that they activated the trigger with. It would be relatively easy to match such cuts or marks to the trigger guard had Jeremy been responsible for using the gun as alleged. But, he didn't have any such cuts, or marks on his hands or fingers. But the police had evidence that Sheila Caffell did in the form of a crime scene photograph, which they secreted away as part of 'The Senior Investigating Officers Album'which was kept locked away in ACC Peter Simpsons office safe with instruction that no-one could get access mto it without permission from him...
Here is a copy of that particular crime scene photograph, showing a series of cuts and marks on her index finger and the top part of her right hand in the region between thumb and index finger. The police had this evidence which was sufficient for them to be sure that Sheila had handled and fired that rifle. But they hid it away, and instead opted for David Boutflour to make the false claim that Jeremy had got such cuts and marks on his hands on the very morning of the shootings...
Sheila had the cuts and marks on her right hand and index finger (as photographed at the scene with her body insitu, versus the false claim introduced in witness statements made by David Boutflour, dated 14th September and 16th September 1985 that Jeremy had got the very same cuts and marks caused by rapid/repeat use of the trigger mechanism of the gun, in particular, by coming into direct contact with the guns trigger guard...
-
It's nice to be able to agree on something.
I thought you believed Ainsley and dark forces in EP were behind it?
-
I thought you believed Ainsley and dark forces in EP were behind it?
One set of officers were prepared to go along with the ACC's wishes, which were brought about by Robert's persistence. Ainsley and Robert got on well. One set of officers ended up in cahoots with the family. One or two family members suspecting Jeremy snowballed in to three or four etc. I believe that their suspicions were fed by self interest and prejudices. The police were also prejudiced.
-
AFTER YEARS OF PAINSTAKING RESEARCH, EVIDENCE HAS BEEN DISCOVERED THAT THE EXISTENCE 0F PREVIOUSLY UNDISCLOSED FORENSIC/PHOTOGRAPHIC/BLOOD GROUP/ DNA (APPLICABLE AFTER THE DATE OF ARREST/CONVICTION AND SENTENCE) EVIDENCE THAT ESTABLISHES WHO FIRED THE .22 ANSHUZT RIFLE DURING THE SHOOTING INCIDENTS, BACKED UP BY PHOTOGRAPHIC (POLICE) EVIDENCE WHICH WAS CONCEALED FROM THE JURY/COURT AT THE TIME OF JEREMY BAMBERS OCTOBER, 1986 CHELMSFORD CROWN COURT TRIAL ...
Thank you
-
Didn't AE also point out to someone that there was a cut on JB's hand ? Or was it AP who'd pointed it out ?
As if surmising that it came from an injury while " struggling with his father " .
The only injury of the index finger that I recollect was the one RWB had, of which was never spoken about.
-
Mike, regarding this:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,10501.0.html
Vanezis was drawn to comment upon some of those marks by Drake. He is invited by Drake to give an opinion and he (Vanezis) uses this to dismiss the marks as smears or smudging. The exchange seems almost contrived.
-
One set of officers were prepared to go along with the ACC's wishes, which were brought about by Robert's persistence. Ainsley and Robert got on well. One set of officers ended up in cahoots with the family. One or two family members suspecting Jeremy snowballed in to three or four etc. I believe that their suspicions were fed by self interest and prejudices. The police were also prejudiced.
Who do you believe contaminated the sound moderator?
-
Who do you believe contaminated the sound moderator?
For a long time I wondered whether it was a particular SOCO. Re family members, could one have acted under police instruction (ie informal advice)?
-
For a long time I wondered whether it was a particular SOCO. Re family members, could one have acted under police instruction (ie informal advice)?
So you don't agree with what I wrote in reply #6.
-
So you don't agree with what I wrote in reply #6.
I hold my hands up. I must have skim read your original post, which was this:
Its quiet shockingly the amount of lies the relatives told the police and the jury in order to incriminate JB. It makes it as plain as a pikestaff that they contaminated the silencer. And its a travesty they still get away with it to this day.
My position is more like this:
It's quiet shocking the amount of lies the relatives were orchestrated to tell the jury in order to incriminate JB. It's as plain as a pikestaff that the silencer/s were contaminated with the knowledge of some police officers / relatives. And it's a travesty they still get away with it to this day.
-
I hold my hands up. I must have skim read your original post, which was this:
My position is more like this:
It's quiet shocking the amount of lies the relatives were orchestrated to tell the jury in order to incriminate JB. It's as plain as a pikestaff that the silencer/s were contaminated with the knowledge of some police officers / relatives. And it's a travesty they still get away with it to this day.
Well that's a relief. Given your strong gravitation towards loony theories. You agreeing with me creates for me a cause for concern. ;D
-
Well that's a relief. Given your strong gravitation towards loony theories. You agreeing with me creates for me a cause for concern. ;D
I always take your views and research in to account. Keep going and keep arguing for what you believe in 8)
-
I always take your views and research in to account. Keep going and keep arguing for what you believe in 8)
No amount of belief makes something a fact. 8)
-
No amount of belief makes something a fact. 8)
Well I meant, keep arguing for what you deduce from the facts as you see them. Your take on the case is interesting. It seems to imply that the police under Ainsley were deceived by the relatives, which resulted in JB's conviction. A bit ironic, since the relatives implied that the police under Taff had been deceived by Jeremy.
-
Well I meant, keep arguing for what you deduce from the facts as you see them. Your take on the case is interesting. It seems to imply that the police under Ainsley were deceived by the relatives, which resulted in JB's conviction. A bit ironic, since the relatives implied that the police under Taff had been deceived by Jeremy.
You only need to watch the interviews of Bews, Miller and Jones. They come across as a bunch that would struggle to organize a piss up at a brewery. If remember correctly Nevil used to call them "Dads Army".
They were deceived one way or another regardless of what happened at WHF on August 7th.
-
You only need to watch the interviews of Bews, Miller and Jones. They come across as a bunch that would struggle to organize a piss up at a brewery. If remember correctly Nevil used to call them "Dads Army".
They were deceived one way or another regardless of what happened at WHF on August 7th.
But I always liked Dad's Army.
Who do you think you are kidding Jeremy Bamber, if you think this investigation's done!
we are the boys who will stop your little game;
we are the boys who will make you think again!
Why didn't they have that as a scene in the recent series? Ultimately, they could have turned it into an entertaining Broadway musical.
One for Steve: Is it Dad's Army, or Dads' Army or Dads Army?
Officially it's Dad's Army; I assume because normally there is only one dad in a family, but I should think 'Dads' is more accurate to signify that there is a plurality of 'dads' (i.e. older men) in the fictitious Home Guard unit and it's non-possessive. Steve may think differently.
Adam may also want to add his thoughts on various TV series, especially Eastenders.
-
But I always liked Dad's Army.
Who do you think you are kidding Jeremy Bamber, if you think this investigation's done!
we are the boys who will stop your little game;
we are the boys who will make you think again!
Why didn't they have that as a scene in the recent series? Ultimately, they could have turned it into an entertaining Broadway musical.
One for Steve: Is it Dad's Army, or Dads' Army or Dads Army?
Officially it's Dad's Army; I assume because normally there is only one dad in a family, but I should think 'Dads' is more accurate to signify that there is a plurality of 'dads' (i.e. older men) in the fictitious Home Guard unit and it's non-possessive. Steve may think differently.
Adam may also want to add his thoughts on various TV series, especially Eastenders.
You can be 'Walker'. Who's going to be 'Pike'?
-
You can be 'Walker'. Who's going to be 'Pike'?
My accent is just like Walker's too and I even look a bit like him, but I've never been a black marketeer.
-
The police didn't have a clue and relied heavily on the extended family to give their views on JB's overall character etc. This was no way to have conducted an investigation into murder.
-
a few decades later, photographic images that police took of Sheila Caffells feet and hands showed that her feet were bloodstained, and there was a cut on the index finger of her right hand, which was caused by her persistently activating the trigger of the gun which resulted in the trigger guard cutting her right index finger..
You can clearly see from close inspection of photographs taken of her right hand index finger, which was caused by her activating the. 22 semi-autatic rifles trigger, encapsulated inside the trigger guard, which caused the cuts, as described when she repeatedly fired the gun..
-
Explains all the crying on National TV. Not as cocky lately as in earlier interviews. Him and all the relatives who benefited from Jeremys conviction should be facing life sentences.
-
You only need to watch the interviews of Bews, Miller and Jones. They come across as a bunch that would struggle to organize a piss up at a brewery. If remember correctly Nevil used to call them "Dads Army".
They were deceived one way or another regardless of what happened at WHF on August 7th.
Why would Nevill know Bews, Miller & Jones?
They were police men in a small part of Essex. Not Inspector Morse. Although able to spot a frame attempt a mile off.
-
Explains all the crying on National TV. Not as cocky lately as in earlier interviews. Him and all the relatives who benefited from Jeremys conviction should be facing life sentences.
Bamber was found guilty in a court of law some 3 decades ago. The motive accepted by the courts was greed and a desire to fast forward his inheritance. It is against the law to benefit from the proceeds of crime. Therfore his inheritance passed to the relatives. On what basis do you they should be facing life sentences?
-
David Boutflour claimed that he had seen cuts on 'Jeremys' right hand and index finger, and he asked police to test the rifles trigger guard to see if there was a presence of his blood upon it. In contrast, Essex police have always maintained that there were no marks or blood on either her feet, and her hands..
But, look carefully at the index finger of 'Sheilas' right hand" and the top part of the same hand, to see that she had been handling the rifle, and had fired it - marks that were made 'by the trigger guard' of 'the rifle' ..
-
Bamber was found guilty in a court of law some 3 decades ago. The motive accepted by the courts was greed and a desire to fast forward his inheritance. It is against the law to benefit from the proceeds of crime. Therfore his inheritance passed to the relatives. On what basis do you they should be facing life sentences?
How easy a motive it was for people to say " he was greedy and did it for the money " What rubbish !
Though JB wasn't particularly clever, he was intelligent enough to realise that committing something such as murder would have voided any forthcoming inheritance.
The pic. of Sheila's hand tells us that it was either a defence mark or she'd been involved. Defence in that she'd picked up a rifle against her foe or she'd spent some time with the rifle that it caused the trigger to dig in with the pressure of holding and using the rifle.
If she'd been defending her children, as you would, then the attacker would be shot/ injured, no matter what the consequences. An animal protects its young.
Anyone with half an eye can see that there's been pressure put on Sheila's hand.
There were TWO rifles so if JB had been present at all he'd have been walloped with one of them if taken by surprise. Someone would have attempted out of the three adults !
-
How easy a motive it was for people to say " he was greedy and did it for the money " What rubbish !
Though JB wasn't particularly clever, he was intelligent enough to realise that committing something such as murder would have voided any forthcoming inheritance.
The pic. of Sheila's hand tells us that it was either a defence mark or she'd been involved. Defence in that she'd picked up a rifle against her foe or she'd spent some time with the rifle that it caused the trigger to dig in with the pressure of holding and using the rifle.
If she'd been defending her children, as you would, then the attacker would be shot/ injured, no matter what the consequences. An animal protects its young.
Anyone with half an eye can see that there's been pressure put on Sheila's hand.
There were TWO rifles so if JB had been present at all he'd have been walloped with one of them if taken by surprise. Someone would have attempted out of the three adults !
It might be "rubbish" to you but the court at trial were obviously impressed by the motive given.
Those who claim Sheila had marks on her person that went unnoticed by the Home Office pathologist need to overcome the fact that the defence pathologist had access to all relevant material, including images, and the pair pretty much agreed on everything.
-
It might be "rubbish" to you but the court at trial were obviously impressed by the motive given.
Those who claim Sheila had marks on her person that went unnoticed by the Home Office pathologist need to overcome the fact that the defence pathologist had access to all relevant material, including images, and the pair pretty much agreed on everything.
The verdict was 10 to 2 so it was touch and go, so not sure how you can say "the court at trial were obviously impressed by the motive given"
I am confident a trial today with all the information now available would be not guilty.
-
The verdict was 10 to 2 so it was touch and go, so not sure how you can say "the court at trial were obviously impressed by the motive given"
I am confident a trial today with all the information now available would be not guilty.
I can say with confidence the court at trial was obviously impressed by the motive since Bamber was found guilty on a majority verdict. Furthermore despite the system allowing for appeals to date Bamber has been unsuccessful.
-
I can say with confidence the court at trial was obviously impressed by the motive since Bamber was found guilty on a majority verdict. Furthermore despite the system allowing for appeals to date Bamber has been unsuccessful.
You can believe whatever you want and so can I, but the 10 to 2 verdict will always be a thorn in the prosecutions case as there was obviously doubt in the jury.
-
You can believe whatever you want and so can I, but the 10 to 2 verdict will always be a thorn in the prosecutions case as there was obviously doubt in the jury.
Such a thorn its stood the test of time for over 35 years.
-
Such a thorn its stood the test of time for over 35 years.
We'll see !!
-
Such a thorn its stood the test of time for over 35 years.
Anyone who is fair and impartial can see what has gone on, as Lookout says "We'll see !!"
-
Anyone who is fair and impartial can see what has gone on, as Lookout says "We'll see !!"
If this is so how come Bamber has so few people on side?
Look at the recent Theroux documentary?
If anything it gets worse eg former best friend Brett Collins remanined silent for decades but now he too believes Bamber is behind the killings and is quite vocal about it!
-
We'll see !!
If you're relying on the recent submission I think you will be sorely disappointed. And its not just my view, NGB1066 has given you his view on the chances of a referral to the appeal courts.
-
If this is so how come Bamber has so few people on side?
Look at the recent Theroux documentary?
If anything it gets worse eg former best friend Brett Collins remanined silent for decades but now he too believes Bamber is behind the killings and is quite vocal about it!
Brett Collins refused an interview on TV, for which he could have been paid quite a packet for. I wonder why ? The same man wasn't backwards in coming forwards when he told JB the antique values of items within the farmhouse though !
-
If I didn't have such a suspicious mind I'd say that a few people have been handed sweeteners ( hush money ) to change tack and turn like snakes.
Afterall, business at the farm would have brought in millions and whatever was " given away " would be offset in tax. What's a few grand between friends when keeping them onside ? It's worth it isn't it ?
Barbara Wilson, who at one time said she wished her own son was like Jeremy.
Brett Collins who'd threatened to go to the newspapers with a large heading " Jeremy didn't murder his family ".
Of course Julie Mugford was already paid off.
Honesty is no longer the best policy---it doesn't pay the bills !
-
Brett Collins refused an interview on TV, for which he could have been paid quite a packet for. I wonder why ? The same man wasn't backwards in coming forwards when he told JB the antique values of items within the farmhouse though !
Where's the evidence Brett Collins was offered an interview on tv, for which he could have been paid quite a packet for? You make a lot of statements but do not seem to have any supporting evidence to back them up with?
What has valuing antiques got to do with anything?
-
Where's the evidence Brett Collins was offered an interview on tv, for which he could have been paid quite a packet for? You make a lot of statements but do not seem to have any supporting evidence to back them up with?
What has valuing antiques got to do with anything?
Doesn't common sense tell you that when you appear for something like that on TV that you get paid well ?
-
If I didn't have such a suspicious mind I'd say that a few people have been handed sweeteners ( hush money ) to change tack and turn like snakes.
Afterall, business at the farm would have brought in millions and whatever was " given away " would be offset in tax. What's a few grand between friends when keeping them onside ? It's worth it isn't it ?
Barbara Wilson, who at one time said she wished her own son was like Jeremy.
Brett Collins who'd threatened to go to the newspapers with a large heading " Jeremy didn't murder his family ".
Of course Julie Mugford was already paid off.
Honesty is no longer the best policy---it doesn't pay the bills !
You have been on this forum for years making tens of thousands of posts but never seem to have any supporting evidence for anything.
-
Doesn't common sense tell you that when you appear for something like that on TV that you get paid well ?
Common sense tells me that when someone posts something on an internet discussion board it means squat without supporting evidence.
-
You have been on this forum for years making tens of thousands of posts but never seem to have any supporting evidence for anything.
I have my own type of supporting evidence, no books, degrees etc involved, just common sense !
-
Common sense tells me that when someone posts something on an internet discussion board it means squat without supporting evidence.
Exactly ! You're clearly lost without using your grey matter.
-
If this is so how come Bamber has so few people on side?
Look at the recent Theroux documentary?
If anything it gets worse eg former best friend Brett Collins remanined silent for decades but now he too believes Bamber is behind the killings and is quite vocal about it!
Because most people me included believe he was a evil b****** who killed his family and was 100% guilty, it was not until I watched the WHF series and become interested in the case I began to think this was a MOJ.
-
I have my own type of supporting evidence, no books, degrees etc involved, just common sense !
Well thankfully courts of law are evidence based and not your definition of common sense!
-
Exactly ! You're clearly lost without using your grey matter.
I look for reliable forms of evidence eg pathology reports not something some unknown entitiy posts on an internet discussion board.
-
Common sense tells me that when someone posts something on an internet discussion board it means squat without supporting evidence.
I asked you before what evidence convinces you of JB's guilt?
Convince me then?
-
I asked you before what evidence convinces you of JB's guilt?
Convince me then?
All the evidence Adam posts!
-
Because most people me included believe he was a evil b****** who killed his family and was 100% guilty, it was not until I watched the WHF series and become interested in the case I began to think this was a MOJ.
Theroux was trying to make a name for himself like thousands of other airheads who have tried to do the same thing, but without much success. They've all been copying each other to make a quick buck ::)
-
I look for reliable forms of evidence eg pathology reports not something some unknown entitiy posts on an internet discussion board.
On the face of it, a pathology report should be reliable. But how can you guarantee that it is? Professionals can be got at, compromised or induced. People probably thought Harold Shipman was a reliable source of medical information.. for a good while anyway. His example may be extreme, however, it is food for thought.
-
Theroux was trying to make a name for himself like thousands of other airheads who have tried to do the same thing, but without much success. They've all been copying each other to make a quick buck ::)
Well it obviously had some success as Rob has just said he's a recent convert ;D
-
Well thankfully courts of law are evidence based and not your definition of common sense!
That's all well and good when evidence exists, but when it doesn't-----------
-
That's all well and good when evidence exists, but when it doesn't-----------
It does exist but you are either unable or unwilling to read it. Instead you rely on what unknown individuals post on the internet.
-
All the evidence Adam posts!
Safety in numbers,eh ? ::)
-
Well thankfully courts of law are evidence based and not your definition of common sense!
And what " evidence based " would that be ?
-
It does exist but you are either unable or unwilling to read it. Instead you rely on what unknown individuals post on the internet.
No, I don't always follow anyone on the internet at all. I rely on my lifetime involvement with people in general. Age too brings its fill of experience.
So what is this " existing evidence "?
-
On the face of it, a pathology report should be reliable. But how can you guarantee that it is? Professionals can be got at, compromised or induced. People probably thought Harold Shipman was a reliable source of medical information.. for a good while anyway. His example may be extreme, however, it is food for thought.
Saw a recent doc on Shipman.
One thing Shipman didn't know about was computer detectives.
Shipman was sometimes updating his patient death records days before killing them.
A computer detective was able to find out the dates entries were being made onto the computer. Which would be different to the date of deaths Shipman entered on his patients databases.
As Bamber is aware, everyone slips up.
-
On the face of it, a pathology report should be reliable. But how can you guarantee that it is? Professionals can be got at, compromised or induced. People probably thought Harold Shipman was a reliable source of medical information.. for a good while anyway. His example may be extreme, however, it is food for thought.
As I keep saying alll material eg pathology report, scene of crime images, post mortem images were fact checked by Prof Knight for the defence. He did not dispute Prof Vanezis' findings.
To believe something was overlooked deliberately or otherwise we have to believe two pathologists are either corrupt and/or incompetent when there's not a scintilla of evidence for either.
-
Didn't Shipman protest his innocence at trial?
Ditto Steve Wright, Levi Bellfield & the 'night stalker' Delroy Grant.
-
I await ALL this existing evidence ? Unless like me you can't produce any for JB ?
-
I await ALL this existing evidence ? Unless like me you can't produce any for JB ?
Agree totally you can't produce any evidence for Bamber because he is guilty as charged!
-
All the evidence Adam posts!
Ok thanks for replying but Adam is the one who convinced me JB is innocent!
-
Shipman also claimed the incriminating 'will' was created by someone else.
However experts were able to match his type writer to the will.
Hardly CSI but that is two big mistakes made. By an academic.
-
Ok thanks for replying but Adam is the one who convinced me JB is innocent!
Well it just goes to show ;D
-
All the evidence Adam posts!
Thanks.
Yes there are over 70 pieces. All with at least one source.
The CT disputes one piece - you guessed it.
Posters like Rob are in 'self denial' mode.
David, Lookout & JackieD support Bamber for non evidence reasons.
-
People say that 'self denial' results in people getting lost when outside'.
Once they have chosen a path to walk, they don't want to double back. Firstly it takes time, secondly it is admitting they were wrong. So they just dig in & keep walking.
Rob is lost.
-
Agree totally you can't produce any evidence for Bamber because he is guilty as charged!
Guilty on what evidence ?
-
People say that 'self denial' results in people getting lost when outside'.
Once they have chosen a path to walk, they don't want to double back. Firstly it takes time, secondly it is admitting they were wrong. So they just dig in & keep walking.
Rob is lost.
So why is JB continuing to fight this and lost souls like yourself ? You seem to know how it feels because you're describing it by naming someone else.
-
Guilty on what evidence ?
All the evidence Adam posts! Ie the evidence the crown relied upon at trial!
-
All the evidence Adam posts! Ie the evidence the crown relied upon at trial!
What about your OWN ?