Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on June 02, 2017, 05:14:AM
-
There are 20+ pieces of undisputed forensic evidence proving that Sheila did not fire a rifle. Twenty of these are condensed in points 47 - 51 in a 522 point 'Court of Appeal' report.
Then there are related pieces of evidence such as Sheila being on Haloperidol, having 'limited' experience with guns according to Bamber & the paint & Sheila's blood in the silencer.
To jusify the evidence, a claim that Sheila had a shower and changed into a nightie has been made. This is unproven & would not have removed evidence off Sheila. A shower & clothes change could also not be taken after Sheila had killed herself.
A picture of an unbloodied, clean, & undamaged foot has been posted while a desparate claim was made that the COA evidence should not be accepted because it is now 2017 !
The logical thing to conclude from Sheila not firing a rifle is that Bamber is guilty. However this approach may not be taken by all supporters. One saying 'hell would freeze over' before support is ever withdrawn.
Luckily for supporters they can still promote Bamber's innocence based on Mike's & Sherlock's suggestions that the massacre was carried out by either RB, AE, a random stranger, a hit man or SAS style hit man team.
Amazingly and disappointingly some posters said they are going to ignore the 20+ pieces of forensic evidence as well as Mike's & Sherlock's alternatives, & still say Sheila fired a rifle.
On a real life crime forum, is it unethical to refuse to accept a mountain of forensic evidence if it does not support a chosen vision. Does it prevent proper debate on a topic if some posters are posting based on the evidence, while other posters are making up their own evidence to match their vision ?
-
There are 20+ pieces of undisputed forensic evidence proving that Sheila did not fire a rifle. Twenty of these are condensed in points 47 - 51 in a 522 point 'Court of Appeal' report.
That is proven incorrect
here
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8426.msg401454.html#msg401454 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8426.msg401454.html#msg401454)
and here
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg362836.html#msg362836 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg362836.html#msg362836)
On a real life crime forum, is it unethical to claim you have 'undisputed pieces of evidence' when in actual fact those 'pieces' are not just disputed they are proven to be incorrect.
-
That is proven incorrect
here
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8426.msg401454.html#msg401454 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8426.msg401454.html#msg401454)
and here
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg362836.html#msg362836 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7638.msg362836.html#msg362836)
On a real life crime forum, is it unethical to claim you have 'undisputed pieces of evidence' when in actual fact those 'pieces' are not just disputed they are proven to be incorrect.
David there is no evidence Sheila fired a rifle. But a mountain of evidence showing she didn't.
I know Bamber & AH writing to you makes you feel important, but I'm not sure where you go from here.
-
A picture of an unbloodied, clean, & undamaged foot has been posted while a desparate claim was made that the COA evidence should not be accepted because it is now 2017 !
A picture of Sheila's dirty and damaged foot was posted. Adam claimed it was someone else's dirty damaged foot. Having now seen proof of it being Sheila's. Adam now claims the photo shows a perfectly clean foot ::)
desparate claim was made that the COA evidence should not be accepted because it is now 2017 !
Adam posted material from 2002 under the rhetoric of "is this the end". It was then explained to Adam that since its now 2017 and still being challenged, the answer is clearly no.
-
A picture of Sheila's dirty and damaged foot was posted. Adam claimed it was someone else's dirty damaged foot. Having now seen proof of it being Sheila's. Adam now claims the photo shows a perfectly clean foot ::)
Adam posted material from 2002 under the rhetoric of "is this the end". It was then explained to Adam that since its now 2017 and still being challenged, the answer is clearly no.
David Sheila didn't fire a weapon.
To be fair I don't believe you've ever tried to negate the evidence by claiming Sheila had a shower & changed. Unlike Susan you probably knew that wouldn't work.
I've no idea whose undamaged, clean & unbloodied foot that is. Although it is a lot brighter than the other one you posted.
I know you feel you would be being disloyal to Bamber & AH & discrediting you're 'forensic evidence breakthrough' if you changed stance back to guilty. However as mentioned you can support Mike's or Sherlock's suggestions & remain in the innocent camp.
-
A picture of Sheila's dirty and damaged foot was posted. Adam claimed it was someone else's dirty damaged foot. Having now seen proof of it being Sheila's. Adam now claims the photo shows a perfectly clean foot ::)
Adam posted material from 2002 under the rhetoric of "is this the end". It was then explained to Adam that since its now 2017 and still being challenged, the answer is clearly no.
Where is this photo?
-
Susan has continuously agreed that the mountain of forensic evidence that Sheila did not fire a rifle is correct. So much so that she gave a reason why the evidence says this - Sheila changed & had a shower.
When it was pointed out a shower/change would not remove evidence on Sheila & she could not do this after killing herself, Susan refused to change stance or support Mike's or Sherlock's suggestions. Saying that "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself".
Surely agreeing with the forensic evidence that Sheila did not fire a rifle, then saying "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself" is unethical & grossly unfair on an innocent Sheila.
-
Susan has continuously agreed that the mountain of forensic evidence that Sheila did not fire a rifle is correct. So much so that she gave a reason why the evidence says this - Sheila changed & had a shower.
When it was pointed out a shower/change would not remove evidence on Sheila & she could not do this after killing herself, Susan refused to change stance or support Mike's or Sherlock's suggestions. Saying that "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself".
Surely agreeing with the forensic evidence that Sheila did not fire a rifle, then saying "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself" is unethical & grossly unfair on an innocent Sheila.
Adam once again has to make up that people agree with him. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
-
Adam once again has to make up that people agree with him. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Hopefully today Susan will clear up the muddle she has got herself in.
Agreeing that there was no forensic evidence on Sheila showing she had fought, fired 26 bullets & reloaded twice, then saying "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family & then killed herself" is very perverted.
Do you believe Sheila had a shower & changed mid massacre ?
-
God give me strength
-
Hopefully today Susan will clear up the muddle she has got herself in.
Agreeing that there was no forensic evidence on Sheila showing she had fought, fired 26 bullets & reloaded twice, then saying "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family & then killed herself" is very perverted.
Do you believe Sheila had a shower & changed mid massacre ?
Evidence showing Sheila fired 26 bullets.
1. Gun found on Sheila.
2. Right handed with Right hand by the trigger.
3. Higher levels of lead on her right hand than her left hand showing she handled and loaded bullets.
4. Twenty four shots fired into four people. Typical of a psychotic overkill.
5. Lack of Livor Mortis and Rigour Mortis indicating she died at a time when the person you are claiming is responsible was outside with police.
-
Evidence showing Sheila fired 26 bullets.
1. Gun found on Sheila.
2. Right handed with Right hand by the trigger.
3. Higher levels of lead on her right hand than her left hand showing she handled and loaded bullets.
4. Twenty four shots fired into four people. Typical of a psychotic overkill.
5. Lack of Livor Mortis and Rigour Mortis indicating she died at a time when the person you are claiming is responsible was outside with police.
David you can't fire fight over 20 pieces of undisputed forensic evidence by mentioning weak unrelated things.
The gun found on Sheila was put there by Bamber.
Sheila's right hand was put there by Bamber.
There was no forensic evidence of Sheila firing a rifle 26 times, reloading twice & fighting a male. On her hands, fingers & nails. As well as the rest of her body & nightdress. All said on page one.
Bamber fired 24 shots into other people and brutally beat Nevill.
The liver mortis claim is not valid. Otherwise Bamber would not be in jail.
Do you believe Sheila had a shower & changed mid massacre ? Second time the question has been asked.
-
Susan has continuously agreed that the mountain of forensic evidence that Sheila did not fire a rifle is correct. So much so that she gave a reason why the evidence says this - Sheila changed & had a shower.
When it was pointed out a shower/change would not remove evidence on Sheila & she could not do this after killing herself, Susan refused to change stance or support Mike's or Sherlock's suggestions. Saying that "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself".
Surely agreeing with the forensic evidence that Sheila did not fire a rifle, then saying "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself" is unethical & grossly unfair on an innocent Sheila.
Adam I have agreed nothing about your forensic evidence and yes I do believe firmly that Sheila murdered her family.
-
I suspect David is not going to say whether he believes Sheila had a shower. But will be happy to be proved wrong. This is disappoiting as he has previously refused to answer other questions.
I can only assume he does not believe Sheila changed and had a shower.
Quite how Sheila didn't leave over 20 pieces of expected evidence that she had fired 26 bullets, reloaded twice & fought a man twice as big as her, moving around at least 4 rooms, I will never know.
-
Adam I have agreed nothing about your forensic evidence and yes I do believe firmly that Sheila murdered her family.
You agreed that Sheila did not have any forensic evidence on her showing she had fired a rifle 26 times, reloaded twice & fought a large man.
You have said this was because Sheila changed and had a shower.
Since being shown that a shower would not remove evidence & Sheila could not shower/change if dead, you have said "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself".
Agreeing there is no evidence Sheila committed the massacre but continuing to accuse her of such a terrible crime is perverted.
Please confirm if you are going to change stance or support one of Mike's or Sherlock's third party suggestions.
-
You agreed that Sheila did not have any forensic evidence on her showing she had fired a rifle 26 times, reloaded twice & fought a large man.
You have said this was because Sheila changed and had a shower.
Since being shown that a shower would not remove evidence & Sheila could not shower/change if dead, you have said "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself".
Agreeing there is no evidence Sheila committed the massacre but continuing to accuse her of such a terrible crime is perverted.
Please confirm if you are going to change stance or support one of Mike's or Sherlock's third party suggestions.
Hello Adam I will not change my stance and I will not agree with Mike or Sherlock. Sorry for being perverted but I cannot change my stance :)
-
Hello Adam I will not change my stance and I will not agree with Mike or Sherlock. Sorry for being perverted but I cannot change my stance :)
Susan I'm sure you're not perverted but you may be perverse.
-
Susan I'm sure you're not perverted but you may be perverse.
Hello Steve but on the other hand I maybe right :)
-
Hello Adam I will not change my stance and I will not agree with Mike or Sherlock. Sorry for being perverted but I cannot change my stance :)
Agreeing there is no forensic evidence on Sheila showing she committed the massacre. Then saying "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself" is supporting the real killer. Which is perverted.
But continue to pretend the evidence does not exist to accuse an innocent and murdered woman.
-
Agreeing there is no forensic evidence on Sheila showing she committed the massacre. Then saying "I will continue to say Sheila murdered her family and then killed herself" is supporting the real killer. Which is perverted.
But continue to accuse Sheila.
Adam thank you for your understanding.
-
Hello Adam I will not change my stance and I will not agree with Mike or Sherlock. Sorry for being perverted but I cannot change my stance :)
Mrs Malaprop. :)) :)) :)) :))
-
Mrs Malaprop. :)) :)) :)) :))
Hi Lookout who is she bet she is a lovely woman who has the gift of "second sight" hehehe that is one thing Adam don't have in his Library :)) :)) :))
-
Hi Lookout who is she bet she is a lovely woman who has the gift of "second sight" hehehe that is one thing Adam don't have in his Library :)) :)) :))
Mrs Malaprop----incorrect words with similar sounds but different meanings.Short for Malapropism.
Example-----A very " extinguished " gentleman. ( should be distinguished ) :)) :)) :)) :))
Makes me laugh. Hylda Baker used to use them in her sketches.
-
David Sheila didn't fire a weapon. She did, and police believed she did, and had!
To be fair I don't believe you've ever tried to negate the evidence by claiming Sheila had a shower & changed. Unlike Susan you probably knew that wouldn't work.
I've no idea whose undamaged, clean & unbloodied foot that is. it's Sheila's foot! Although it is a lot brighter than the other one you posted. difference is down to settings at the exposure stage of the negatives..