Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on December 18, 2015, 04:01:PM
-
I have just had a thought, it bugs me how Nevill would get passed Jeremy with a loaded weapon (which is why one of my considerations is that Nevill may have slept in Sheila's room but if not ......) - Jeremy may have ran shot of ammo upstairs, this would give Nevill the chance to rush him. So perhaps Nevill chased Jeremy downstairs? Once in the kitchen it would be a fight to get to the bullets so this may be how and when Nevill was bludgeoned. Once Jeremy got control, reloaded enough to end his fathers life after which, he reloads again and returns upstairs.
-
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5392.msg235367.html#msg235367
-
Caroline, that's interesting. More important, it's feasible. It would certainly have been much easier for Jeremy to have finished them all off upstairs. A few more bullets in the rifle and presumably Nevill wouldn't have been capable of getting downstairs. If he'd ever planned for Nevill to be downstairs, why would he have bothered to shoot him upstairs in the first place?
-
The other and least likely suggestion several people have put forward is Neville was marched downstairs. As Bamber needed him by the kitchen phone.
However Neville was shot four times upstairs. Twice from close range, in the head. Bamber was going for the upstairs kill. He could always plug in the bedroom phone.
-
I have just had a thought, it bugs me how Nevill would get passed Jeremy with a loaded weapon (which is why one of my considerations is that Nevill may have slept in Sheila's room but if not ......) - Jeremy may have ran shot of ammo upstairs, this would give Nevill the chance to rush him. So perhaps Nevill chased Jeremy downstairs? Once in the kitchen it would be a fight to get to the bullets so this may be how and when Nevill was bludgeoned. Once Jeremy got control, reloaded enough to end his fathers life after which, he reloads again and returns upstairs.
Caroline, I do believe Jeremy OVER estimated the power of the weapon, the gun HE wanted bought. So this would fit in with your above suggestion, that he ran out of bullets, not expecting to need that many to kill his parents int he upstairs bedroom, where would he have to go to get more? Downstairs.
-
The other and least likely suggestion several people have put forward is Neville was marched downstairs. As Bamber needed him by the kitchen phone.
However Neville was shot four times upstairs. Twice from close range, in the head. Bamber was going for the upstairs kill. He could always plug in the bedroom phone.
Go away Adam if you have nothing to contribute.
-
Caroline, I do believe Jeremy OVER estimated the power of the weapon, the gun HE wanted bought. So this would fit in with your above suggestion, that he ran out of bullets, not expecting to need that many to kill his parents int he upstairs bedroom, where would he have to go to get more? Downstairs.
And that would give Nevill the opportunity to try and gain control - it also explains how he got out of the bedroom. He didn't have to go passed Jeremy with a loaded gun because Jeremy was already off downstairs.
-
Go away Adam if you have nothing to contribute.
Well the thought you 'just had' was discussed in May 2014. I contributed to that thread. And created it.
-
Caroline, I do believe Jeremy OVER estimated the power of the weapon, the gun HE wanted bought. So this would fit in with your above suggestion, that he ran out of bullets, not expecting to need that many to kill his parents int he upstairs bedroom, where would he have to go to get more? Downstairs.
Jeremy would realise that a .22 would be the best weapon available. Reasons being.
A. Its a semi automatic and .22 is the only calibre of semi autos legal to purchase
B. Legal Shotguns in this county don't have magazines. (Ages to reload)
C. High calibre rifles available in this country must be reloaded manually.
The weapon used is most suited for a mass murder if one was to use a legally obtained weapon.
To get a higher calibre gun Jeremy would have to approach the underworld.
-
Jeremy would realise that a .22 would be the best weapon available. Reasons being.
A. Its a semi automatic and .22 is the only calibre of semi autos legal to purchase
B. Legal Shotguns in this county don't have magazines. (Ages to reload)
C. High calibre rifles available in this country must be reloaded manually.
The weapon used is most suited for a mass murder if one was to use a legally obtained weapon.
To get a higher calibre gun Jeremy would have to approach the underworld.
He had already approached Ann and Peter Eaton for advice on a more powerful weapon, they advised against it. He went for the best he could get but given that he had never shot anyone previously - it is perfectly feasible that he overestimated it's power and underestimated how many bullets would be required to kill someone.
-
Well the thought you 'just had' was discussed in May 2014. I contributed to that thread. And created it.
Guess it just goes to show how little value is put on your contributions, Adam. Quality is way above quantity and less is very definitely more.
-
Guess it just goes to show how little value is put on your contributions, Adam. Quality is way above quantity and less is very definitely more.
I'm sure Jeremy would love it if Adam was the chief prosecutor at a retrial. Acquittal would be plain sailing for the defence. ;D
-
I'm sure Jeremy would love it if Adam was the chief prosecutor at a retrial. Acquittal would be plain sailing for the defence. ;D
Yeah. A chief prosecutor who doesn't even know what forensic means!!!! Jeremy's dream ^-^
-
Well the thought you 'just had' was discussed in May 2014. I contributed to that thread. And created it.
I wouldn't have seen that, I don't read your post every often, however, every single point you make has been discussed before - more than once. If you did make the point, you clearly didn't make it very well!!
-
I'm sure Jeremy would love it if Adam was the chief prosecutor at a retrial. Acquittal would be plain sailing for the defence. ;D
We all wouldn't be here now, that's for sure!!
-
We all wouldn't be here now, that's for sure!!
There would be allot more to talk about thou. With Adam's prosecution strategy the Jury find him not guilty after 3 minutes deliberation, Then Jeremy can publish the autobiography he keeps talking about.
-
I wouldn't have seen that, I don't read your post every often, however, every single point you make has been discussed before - more than once. If you did make the point, you clearly didn't make it very well!!
You should click his link. Someone else made the point not him. He is a funny guy. He trying to take credit for this idea posted by someone else because he created the thread. In the link he posted he admitted to the person that he had not thought of it,
It was good that you suggested Neville could have followed Jeremy into the kitchen. I had never thought of that option before.
I have lurked for a long time and never posted before because other people know the case far better but this is too good to pass up. Never before did I see someone take credit for ideas from others because they started the topic where the ideas wound up being expressed. That really cracks me up I'm balling here.
-
You should click his link. Someone else made the point not him. He is a funny guy. He trying to take credit for this idea posted by someone else because he created the thread. In the link he posted he admitted to the person that he had not thought of it,
It was good that you suggested Neville could have followed Jeremy into the kitchen. I had never thought of that option before.
I have lurked for a long time and never posted before because other people know the case far better but this is too good to pass up. Never before did I see someone take credit for ideas from others because they started the topic where the ideas wound up being expressed. That really cracks me up I'm balling here.
Lemonhead, it's good to see you posting as opposed to lurking.
Sadly, Adam has become his own worst enemy -we can't ALL be wrong about this fact- he goad, taunts and insults just far enough below the radar that for a long time nothing was done. He's flooded the forum with fairly useless threads which amount to little more than "The Thoughts of Adam" presented as fact. He has no understanding of what forensic means yet bombards us with threads labelled such. He makes broad claims insisting or stating something as fact when it is only his opinion. It is a shame that something he's posted which IS of value, or gives credit elsewhere has become lost amongst his usual "style." However, I would like to point out that it does occur that someone makes a salient point which is ignored at the time but becomes taken up later when another poster might say something similar. That's just the way it is.
-
You should click his link. Someone else made the point not him. He is a funny guy. He trying to take credit for this idea posted by someone else because he created the thread. In the link he posted he admitted to the person that he had not thought of it,
It was good that you suggested Neville could have followed Jeremy into the kitchen. I had never thought of that option before.
I have lurked for a long time and never posted before because other people know the case far better but this is too good to pass up. Never before did I see someone take credit for ideas from others because they started the topic where the ideas wound up being expressed. That really cracks me up I'm balling here.
Yes, he always does that - but glad it brought you out to post! Welcome, hope you don't go back into lurking. :). Which side do you favour - or are you undecided?
-
There would be allot more to talk about thou. With Adam's prosecution strategy the Jury find him not guilty after 3 minutes deliberation, Then Jeremy can publish the autobiography he keeps talking about.
Why so long? :o ;D ;D ;D
-
Why so long? :o ;D ;D ;D
I was being nice ^-^
-
I was being nice ^-^
Awww :))
-
Lemonhead, it's good to see you posting as opposed to lurking.
Sadly, Adam has become his own worst enemy -we can't ALL be wrong about this fact- he goad, taunts and insults just far enough below the radar that for a long time nothing was done. He's flooded the forum with fairly useless threads which amount to little more than "The Thoughts of Adam" presented as fact. He has no understanding of what forensic means yet bombards us with threads labelled such. He makes broad claims insisting or stating something as fact when it is only his opinion. It is a shame that something he's posted which IS of value, or gives credit elsewhere has become lost amongst his usual "style." However, I would like to point out that it does occur that someone makes a salient point which is ignored at the time but becomes taken up later when another poster might say something similar. That's just the way it is.
Well this post is goading. I will forward it onto NGB for his view.
Well my threads get big responses. Some hundreds of pages. The topics have never been discussed before. The forum was totally dead when I joined. You always respond to my threads. So strange that in you're opinion they are 'fairly useless'. You post on here from mid morning to late evening every day, but have only ever created one thread, so haven't really got anything to back up you're 'fairly useless' statement.
But thank you for this time using the mild 'fairly useless' phrase. It was disappointing you called my last poll 'f--king useless'. As well as call me a 'cretin' and suggested I was taking drugs. I had spent several minutes creating it and it came back with good results and a big response. Everyone agreeing Bamber had to fire the second shot into Sheila and that suffocating her was not an option for him.
Well unlike most other posters, including you, I don't call posters 'areseholes', 'liars', 'pratts', 'bullshitters', 'cretins','depraved' etc. This is aggressive goading of the worst kind and badly degrades the forum. But appreciate my well written responses are sometimes too clever and witty for their own good and the moderators are often all over me. Wit on the forum ? Perish the thought ! So I have just been trying to discuss the case, on both forums. But obviously have to respond to personal attacks such as this, in a civilised way.
Me not knowing what forensic evidence is ? That's a new one and a rather sweeping and offensive statement. I hope that is not the case, as a lot of my recent posts have been on forensic evidence. Taken from the 2002 appeal, and lots of other sources from my research. This was because several posters from both sides were still saying the silencer is the only forensic evidence against Bamber, which is clearly not the case. I hope my 'Forensic Evidence Library' and other recent forensic posts have assisted everyone.
Well obviously my opinion is not fact. But I can only give my opinion from looking at the facts. My post yesterday from the facts taken from the 2002 appeal gave the opinion that Sheila's condition was surely enough for a conviction without needing the silencer evidence. No one has agreed or disagreed with this. It will be good to get peoples opinions.
-
'Three further cartridge cases were found in the kitchen, with a further case on the stairs leading up from the kitchen'.
This stairs shot at Neville must have been as he retreated to the kitchen.
-
Well this post is goading. I will forward it onto NGB for his view.
Well my threads get big responses. Some hundreds of pages. The topics have never been discussed before. The forum was totally dead when I joined. You always respond to my threads. So strange that in you're opinion they are 'fairly useless'. You post on here from mid morning to late evening every day, but have only ever created one thread, so haven't really got anything to back up you're 'fairly useless' statement.
But thank you for this time using the mild 'fairly useless' phrase. It was disappointing you called my last poll 'f--king useless'. As well as call me a 'cretin' and suggested I was taking drugs. I had spent several minutes creating it and it came back with good results and a big response. Everyone agreeing Bamber had to fire the second shot into Sheila and that suffocating her was not an option for him.
Well unlike most other posters, including you, I don't call posters 'areseholes', 'liars', 'pratts', 'bullshitters', 'cretins','depraved' etc. This is aggressive goading of the worst kind and badly degrades the forum. But appreciate my well written responses are sometimes too clever and witty for their own good and the moderators are often all over me. Wit on the forum ? Perish the thought ! So I have just been trying to discuss the case, on both forums. But obviously have to respond to personal attacks such as this, in a civilised way.
Me not knowing what forensic evidence is ? That's a new one and a rather sweeping and offensive statement. I hope that is not the case, as a lot of my recent posts have been on forensic evidence. Taken from the 2002 appeal, and lots of other sources from my research. This was because several posters from both sides were still saying the silencer is the only forensic evidence against Bamber, which is clearly not the case. I hope my 'Forensic Evidence Library' and other recent forensic posts have assisted everyone.
Well obviously my opinion is not fact. But I can only give my opinion from looking at the facts. My post yesterday from the facts taken from the 2002 appeal gave the opinion that Sheila's condition was surely enough for a conviction without needing the silencer evidence. No one has agreed or disagreed with this. It will be good to get peoples opinions.
Adam, I'm flattered that you choose to pick me out, from others, to censure. As always, please feel entirely free to share, with Neil, the post you refer to as "goading". Having taught English and won many literary awards, I'm perfectly convinced that the post is merely informative, if you want it to be. It becomes goading only if you choose it to be.
Referencing your other complaints. I obviously regarded whatever poll it was I was critical of as being what you said, however, I don't recall saying you were a cretin. I'd have been far more likely -as I have no proof- to have said you were acting or behaving like one. I have no recall of suggesting you were a drug user-again, I have no proof- but I may have asked if it was possible. It's only a matter of opinion, of course, but, contrary to what you say, having marked numerous English papers, I don't regard some of yours as being well written. However, on the occasions when I've agreed with you, I've said so. I don't regard you as being stupid, Adam, although I believe some of what you say may be. You're certainly clever enough to take every opportunity to describe posters with all the vile names you maintain you never use. I'd say it was a way to goad whilst putting on to others the responsibility for it.
Before your next complaint to Neil against me, Adam, perhaps you should ask yourself where are all your supporters who rush to defend you against my -allegedly- unjust criticisms of you. I would add that I'm by no means the only one and I don't believe it would be an over-estimation to say the present mod team probably receive more complaints about you than any other member here..................................................however, it's Christmas and I wish you a very happy one.
-
Well this post is goading. I will forward it onto NGB for his view.
Well my threads get big responses. Some hundreds of pages. The topics have never been discussed before. The forum was totally dead when I joined. You always respond to my threads. So strange that in you're opinion they are 'fairly useless'. You post on here from mid morning to late evening every day, but have only ever created one thread, so haven't really got anything to back up you're 'fairly useless' statement.
But thank you for this time using the mild 'fairly useless' phrase. It was disappointing you called my last poll 'f--king useless'. As well as call me a 'cretin' and suggested I was taking drugs. I had spent several minutes creating it and it came back with good results and a big response. Everyone agreeing Bamber had to fire the second shot into Sheila and that suffocating her was not an option for him.
Well unlike most other posters, including you, I don't call posters 'areseholes', 'liars', 'pratts', 'bullshitters', 'cretins','depraved' etc. This is aggressive goading of the worst kind and badly degrades the forum. But appreciate my well written responses are sometimes too clever and witty for their own good and the moderators are often all over me. Wit on the forum ? Perish the thought ! So I have just been trying to discuss the case, on both forums. But obviously have to respond to personal attacks such as this, in a civilised way.
Me not knowing what forensic evidence is ? That's a new one and a rather sweeping and offensive statement. I hope that is not the case, as a lot of my recent posts have been on forensic evidence. Taken from the 2002 appeal, and lots of other sources from my research. This was because several posters from both sides were still saying the silencer is the only forensic evidence against Bamber, which is clearly not the case. I hope my 'Forensic Evidence Library' and other recent forensic posts have assisted everyone.
Well obviously my opinion is not fact. But I can only give my opinion from looking at the facts. My post yesterday from the facts taken from the 2002 appeal gave the opinion that Sheila's condition was surely enough for a conviction without needing the silencer evidence. No one has agreed or disagreed with this. It will be good to get peoples opinions.
Your threads get lots of responses because you wind people up in the way you post and they can't help saying so. To be honest, I think they would be better saying nothing.
You talk down to people and can't help goading in just about every post. I could understand if it was just now and again and the result of a difference of opinion but people on both sides are fed up with your sneering and digs at other people's theories and ideas.
Contrary to your own belief that you saved the forum with your threads of many colours, I think the opposite is true. Thing is, if you stuck to debating and stopped trying to badger people with your suggestions , this may actually go back to being enjoyable. If someone doesn't agree with you, you don't just debate the point - you start the sneering and the foot stamping and you go on, and on and on. You don't do this on the red forum Adam so you shouldn't be doing it here!
-
Me not knowing what forensic evidence is ? That's a new one and a rather sweeping and offensive statement. I hope that is not the case, as a lot of my recent posts have been on forensic evidence. Taken from the 2002 appeal, and lots of other sources from my research. This was because several posters from both sides were still saying the silencer is the only forensic evidence against Bamber, which is clearly not the case. I hope my 'Forensic Evidence Library' and other recent forensic posts have assisted everyone.
Well obviously my opinion is not fact. But I can only give my opinion from looking at the facts. My post yesterday from the facts taken from the 2002 appeal gave the opinion that Sheila's condition was surely enough for a conviction without needing the silencer evidence. No one has agreed or disagreed with this. It will be good to get peoples opinions.
Adam when will the reports by the Chief Medical Examiner of Virginia Dr David Fowler and Chief Medical examiner of Oakland county Michigan Dr Dragovic explaining that the Silencer was not attached on the gun when Shelia was shot? The peer reviews by Pathologist Dr. Marcella Fierro and ballistics expert Philip Boyce would be a good addition also.
I am sure these reports are a must have addition to your 'Forensic Library' when can we expect them to be indexed?
-
Adam when will the reports by the Chief Medical Examiner of Virginia Dr David Fowler and Chief Medical examiner of Oakland county Michigan Dr Dragovic explaining that the Silencer was not attached on the gun when Shelia was shot? The peer reviews by Pathologist Dr. Marcella Fierro and ballistics expert Philip Boyce would be a good addition also.
I am sure these reports are a must have addition to your 'Forensic Library' when can we expect them to be indexed?
Well my forensic library was created in direct response to several posters saying the silencer was the only forensic evidence against Bamber.
With the library highlighting the vast amount of forensic evidence against Bamber, this will not be said again by current posters. However new posters may make this claim in future, as 'Wiggy' and 'Notsure' did when joining. Myself or anyone else can then direct them to the library.
It would confuse posters if my forensic library had posts and thread links supporting Bamber. However feel free to go into the individual links to discuss.
If you wish to create a forensic library showing Sheila was the killer, feel free. I will now amend the title of my library to include 'Jeremy' in it.
-
................... My post yesterday from the facts taken from the 2002 appeal gave the opinion that Sheila's condition was surely enough for a conviction without needing the silencer evidence. No one has agreed or disagreed with this. It will be good to get peoples opinions.
It might be worth considering that perhaps no one is in a hurry to give you their opinions because A) they probably don't think you have any interest in their opinions and B) they wish to avoid being sneered at and spoken down to. I find it interesting that whilst you accuse me of goading you, you appear to feel you have a perfect right to do it to everyone else.
-
Well my forensic library was created in direct response to several posters saying the silencer was the only forensic evidence against Bamber.
With the library highlighting the vast amount of forensic evidence against Bamber, this will not be said again by current posters. However new posters may make this claim in future, as 'Wiggy' and 'Notsure' did when joining. Myself or anyone else can then direct them to the library.
It would confuse posters if my forensic library had posts and thread links supporting Bamber. However feel free to go into the individual links to discuss.
If you wish to create a forensic library showing Sheila was the killer, feel free. I will now amend the title of my library to include 'Jeremy' in it.
A) What they said was probably rhetorical and not an open invitation/request for your response.
B) It's perfectly possible that your alleged "library" will be viewed in the same way as most of your threads -with disinterest and soon forgotten.
C) They would only be confused if they read them.
D) Why would you think that everyone who disagrees with you, automatically thinks Sheila did it? I feel certain no one will mind what you decide to rename your "library" but it may be best not to include "forensic" in it.
-
Well my forensic library was created in direct response to several posters saying the silencer was the only forensic evidence against Bamber.
With the library highlighting the vast amount of forensic evidence against Bamber, this will not be said again by current posters. However new posters may make this claim in future, as 'Wiggy' and 'Notsure' did when joining. Myself or anyone else can then direct them to the library.
It would confuse posters if my forensic library had posts and thread links supporting Bamber. However feel free to go into the individual links to discuss.
If you wish to create a forensic library showing Sheila was the killer, feel free. I will now amend the title of my library to include 'Jeremy' in it.
Adam It has been pointed out to you that we don't require anymore threads in the so called 'forensic library' by yourself or anyone else. We have more than enough and the forum is being swamped by unnecessary threads.
Myself and ngb1066 has asked you to resist the urge and warned you of the consequences of you continuing in this way never mind encouraging others to join in.
This is your last warning, would be grateful if you cooperate.
With thanks, maggie
-
Yes, he always does that - but glad it brought you out to post! Welcome, hope you don't go back into lurking. :). Which side do you favour - or are you undecided?
His guilt is apparent to me. I like to come see if anything new pops up. I don't really see any point in arguing with supporters though. People have already done that far more competently than I could yet the net result of all such efforts came to naught. The supporters maintain their positions with religious zealousness no matter what is brought to bear against their claims. It's more peaceful to just lurk and take things in.
-
Nothing wrong in being a supporter !!
-
Adam It has been pointed out to you that we don't require anymore threads in the so called 'forensic library' by yourself or anyone else. We have more than enough and the forum is being swamped by unnecessary threads.
Myself and ngb1066 has asked you to resist the urge and warned you of the consequences of you continuing in this way never mind encouraging others to join in.
This is your last warning, would be grateful if you cooperate.
With thanks, maggie
Well I was responding to David's post.
You said several days ago I will get banned if I add threads or posts to my forensic library. Which was disappointing as it was created to assist everyone on the forum, and new posters who often join believing the silencer is the only forensic evidence against Bamber.
Nevertheless I have done what you asked and not added to it by adding older posts or threads, meaning the library is only half full. I will just have to refer to these older threads or posts individually, if anyone in future claims the silencer is the only forensic evidence against Bamber. Don't see why myself or other posters shouldn't quote old threads or posts. Rather than spend time typing the same thing.
The 2002 appeal report has turned into a recent treasure trove of forensic information, as my threads and posts have this month highlighted. Most of this information is in the library. What a pity that if I find even more evidence, it can't be added.
-
Nothing wrong in being a supporter !!
he didn't say there was - bit defensive Lookout? ;D
-
Well I was responding to David's post.
You said several days ago I will get banned if I add threads or posts to my forensic library. Which was disappointing as it was created to assist everyone on the forum, and new posters who often join believing the silencer is the only forensic evidence against Bamber.
Nevertheless I have not added to it by adding older posts or threads, meaning the library is only half full. The 2002 appeal report has turned into a recent treasure trove of forensic information, as my threads and posts have this month highlighted. Hopefully I won't have to keep referring to these as well, if claims are made in future that the silencer is the only forensic evidence against Bamber.
Today I have pointed out that we don't need a thread on every detail of the case, many points can be dealt with within one thread.
Just do as you have been asked please, Adam.
You are not the only member of the forum with rights, everyone has to be taken into consideration. Thanks.
-
Hi Lemonhead, sorry to be a pain but it's tradition that new members introduce themselves in the foyer before general posting.
Would be grateful if you could post a few lines there explaining your interest in the case.
Cheers! :)
-
he didn't say there was - bit defensive Lookout? ;D
I'm wary,is that alright ?
-
Today I have pointed out that we don't need a thread on every detail of the case, many points can be dealt with within one thread.
Just do as you have been asked please, Adam.
You are not the only member of the forum with rights, everyone has to be taken into consideration. Thanks.
Well I believe my last five threads were on the crime scene forensic evidence of Neville, June, Nicholas/Daniel and Sheila. And the kitchen fight. Using the 2002 COA report as an excellent reference.
I believed each crime scene and individual was important and different enough to warrant an individual thread. Putting all of these huge issues into one thread is too big an amalgamation in my view.
-
Well I believe my last five threads were on the crime scene forensic evidence of Neville, June, Nicholas/Daniel and Sheila. And the kitchen fight. Using the 2002 COA report as an excellent reference.
I believed each crime scene and individual was important and different enough to warrant an individual thread.
Nobody else does, it just ends up being countless threads about the same thing.
-
I am asking you to temper your threads and that's the end of it, it doesn't seem to matter how tolerant I am with you, against huge pressure from others, you continue to argue and ignore.
Just do as I ask or I shall ban you for a month, you are a pest.
-
Nobody else does, it just ends up being countless threads about the same thing.
Well each crime scene is vastly different for each individual. But each one just as important. No one has ever really quoted the 2002 appeal before either, which is an excellent source.
Putting them all into one thread is too big an amalgamation in my view. They are all huge and vitally important.
-
I am asking you to temper your threads and that's the end of it, it doesn't seem to matter how tolerant I am with you, against huge pressure from others, you continue to argue and ignore.
Just do as I ask or I shall ban you for a month, you are a pest.
Thank you Maggie.
I won't create another thread on the case this year.
-
Thank you Maggie.
I won't create another thread on the case, this year.
Many will be pleased to hear you say that, however you know very well I am only asking for reasonable and considerate behaviour, not a complete ban on starting threads. I look forward to a better relationship from now on, thank you.
-
Well each crime scene is vastly different for each individual. But each one just as important. No one has ever really quoted the 2002 appeal before either, which is an excellent source.
Putting them all into one thread is too big an amalgamation in my view. They are all huge and vitally important.
Adam, people quote from it all of the time - can't believe you said that!
-
Well each crime scene is vastly different for each individual. But each one just as important. No one has ever really quoted the 2002 appeal before either, which is an excellent source.
Putting them all into one thread is too big an amalgamation in my view. They are all huge and vitally important.
I have explained to you Adam, you take it far too far! For a start, why does the bike have its own crime scene? Surely you can see that's a bit much! :o
-
Thank you Maggie.
I won't create another thread on the case this year.
You weren't being given permission to flood the forum with more useless threads on January 1st, either.
-
I have explained to you Adam, you take it far too far! For a start, why does the bike have its own crime scene? Surely you can see that's a bit much! :o
Well I created a thread several weeks ago on the bike being forensically tested. And why should there be incriminating evidence on it, a month after the crime.
Should I have asked this question on an unrelated thread ?
Anyway, several posters discussed this issue. Including you.
-
Well I created a thread several weeks ago on the bike being forensically tested. And why should there be incriminating evidence on it, a month after the crime.
Should I have asked this question on an unrelated thread ?
Anyway, several posters discussed this issue. Including you.
Adam, I wonder if you begin to appreciate how lucky you are that Maggie is dealing with you? She has been amazingly tolerant of your constant arguing, childishness, petulance and total disregard for her requests -I'd have banned you for life, months back- but I get the impression you've pushed her just about as far as she'll allow herself to be pushed and you're now living in Last Chance Saloon. If you want to stay, my advice is that you shut up.
-
You weren't being given permission to flood the forum with more useless threads on January 1st, either.
Well you post on here every day, from mid morning to late evening. So feel free to create what you consider are 'not useless' threads.
I am afraid I have forgotten the only one thread you created on here. I must have been too busy creating what you consider are 'useless' threads. Or perhaps discussing it, they do get big responses, from you and everyone else.
-
Well you post on here every day, from mid morning to late evening. So feel free to create what you consider are 'not useless' threads.
I am afraid I have forgotten the only one thread you created on here. I must have been too busy creating my vastly inferior threads.
It's 'quality' that counts Adam - not 'quantity' ;)
-
It's 'quality' that counts Adam - not 'quantity' ;)
Ok, now I am not creating threads, I'll read the thread on the black mark on Sheila's finger. I am sure it is a lot more interesting than my recent threads on the individual crime scenes and the kitchen fight. As well as continue to read the 2002 COA document, which has excellent information.
-
Well you post on here every day, from mid morning to late evening. So feel free to create what you consider are 'not useless' threads.
I am afraid I have forgotten the only one thread you created on here. I must have been too busy creating my vastly inferior threads.
You have yet to display anything like consideration for what others think, Adam. which could go some way to explaining why so many complaints are made about you. Prizes aren't given for the most posts created and from the sound of it I'm not alone in thinking yours are "vastly inferior". As I've said on many occasions, quality is preferable to quantity.
-
Ok, now I am not creating threads, I'll read the thread on the black mark on Sheila's finger. I am sure it is a lot more interesting than my recent threads on the individual crime scenes and the kitchen fight. As well as continue to read the 2002 COA document, which has excellent information.
Well, if you did read other people's posts, you would realise that the 2002 Appeal documents has been quoted many times. The fact that you don't know that 'forensically' proves you don't read other people's posts ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
Well, if you did read other people's posts, you would realise that the 2002 Appeal documents has been quoted many times. The fact that you don't know that 'forensically' proves you don't read other people's posts ;) ;D ;D ;D
I was the poster who first quoted the 2002 appeal report. And then quoted it on a regular basis for a short period, a long time ago. Unless you can show me a post quoting it prior to me joining. Scipio then quoted it a couple of times.
It is an excellent reference and starting point to discuss the forensic crime scene of each individual. Together with Neville's kitchen fight. So I have been using it again this month and will read it some more.
-
I was the poster who first quoted the 2002 appeal report. And then quoted it on a regular basis for a short period, a long time ago. Unless you can show me a post quoting it prior to me joining. Scipio then quoted it a couple of times.
It is an excellent reference and starting point to discuss the forensic crime scene of each individual. Together with Neville's kitchen fight. So I have been using it again this month and will read it some more.
Adam, there's no "I" in team. Sadly, your world only seems to be about "I, Me and Myself" but no one but you cares, so it's of no moment to anyone that you may, or not, have been the first person to quote something.
-
I was the poster who first quoted the 2002 appeal report. And then quoted it on a regular basis for a short period, a long time ago. Unless you can show me a post quoting it prior to me joining. Scipio then quoted it a couple of times.
It is an excellent reference and starting point to discuss the forensic crime scene of each individual. Together with Neville's kitchen fight. So I have been using it again this month and will read it some more.
The following post goes back to 2011 - long before you and I were members here. You were certainly NOT the first person to quote it and a simple search will prove that to you. You don't read other people's posts Adam, unless they mention you - which is why you only THINK you were the first to quote it!
Check out the link - you weren't the first by any means!! http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,754.msg20173.html#msg20173
-
The following post goes back to 2011 - long before you and I were members here. You were certainly NOT the first person to quote it and a simple search will prove that to you. You don't read other people's posts Adam, unless they mention you - which is why you only THINK you were the first to quote it!
Check out the link - you weren't the first by any means!! http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,754.msg20173.html#msg20173
Excellent work.
I don't know how you managed to find a post from 2011 quoting a section of the 2002 appeal report. As you said, you were not a member and it was nearly three years before I joined.
-
Excellent work.
I don't know how you managed to find a post from 2011 quoting a section of the 2002 appeal report. As you said, you were not a member and it was two years before I joined.
I did a search Adam - it's easy!! You must have missed this one http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3628.msg142028.html#msg142028 - guess who Caroline R is? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Well I didn't read posts dating back nearly three years from the date I joined the forum.
Several months after joining I quoted the 2002 appeal report several times. It had never been quoted by anyone since I had joined. Although it has been quoted since by Scipio.
I have quoted it a lot on my recent threads about the five crime scenes and the kitchen fight.
I will give it another read. It is heavy going but an excellent Primary source which can't be disputed. Although everyone is free to interpret the evidence how they wish.
-
Well I didn't read posts dating back nearly three years from the date I joined the forum.
Several months after joining I quoted the 2002 appeal report several times. It had never been quoted by anyone since I had joined. Although it has been quoted since by Scipio.
I have quoted it a lot on my recent threads about the five crime scenes and the kitchen fight.
I will give it another read. It is heavy going but an excellent Primary source which can't be disputed. Although everyone is free to interpret the evidence how they wish.
People quote the appeal document all of the time. I have seen Jan quote it many times, I quote it, Mike quotes it. Most poster have at one time or another QUOTED it! Not that it matters Adam but you seem to have a fascination with portraying yourself as the forum guru but just remember, if you post it, quote it or read it; it's been posted, quoted and read by lots of people before you.
-
Well you're post 53 said the 2002 appeal document is quoted all the time. And used Mike's 2011 quote to back this up !
I did not recall anyone quoting it after I joined. Scipio quoted it a bit, after I had quoted it several times.
Appreciate my statement that it had never, ever been quoted before on here, was bold. And you have highlighted Mike had quoted it nearly three years before I joined.
-
Well you're post 53 said the 2002 appeal document is quoted all the time. And used Mike's 2011 quote to back this up !
I did not recall anyone quoting it after I joined. Scipio quoted it a bit, after I had quoted it several times.
Appreciate my statement that it had never, ever been quoted before on here, was bold. And you have highlighted Mike had quoted it nearly three years before I joined.
Yes, it was VERY bold but nuff said!