Why Jeremy would not choose a wetsuit

[Alias]

you are the one who is lashing out with insults .Not us   We have all said we will discuss points - one at a time if you stop insulting us. And when I did that before you said my answers were not valid because I was not looking at the "bigger picture" ? 

So if you want a proper discussion - stop ranting and raving and address the points . Otherwise don't bother.

His posts normally begin with nasty insults - and that is where I stop reading.
I know from the ones I have read through that they also end with insults.
Almost always the same pattern. 

[scipio_usmc]

you are the one who is lashing out with insults .Not us   We have all said we will discuss points - one at a time if you stop insulting us. And when I did that before you said my answers were not valid because I was not looking at the "bigger picture" ? 

So if you want a proper discussion - stop ranting and raving and address the points . Otherwise don't bother.

What points didn't I address?  I sometimes wonder about the reading comprehension skills of Jeremy supports. It appears you all lack same and tha tit is necessary in porder to pretend he is innocent.

The most comprehensive dis of the notion he wore a wetsuit has been put forth by me. How was that not substantive?   

Alias has somewhat of an excuse since English is not her primary language what is yours?

[Jane]

His posts normally begin with nasty insults - and that is where I stop reading.
I know from the ones I have read through that they also end with insults.
Almost always the same pattern. 

He uses the accepted way of putting ones opponents down by first telling them how stupid THEY are, followed by bigging up ones own theories and ending with a reminder of how stupid are opponents. I'm sure there's a book on it somewhere

[Mr. Gee]

The situation is the complete opposite of a known MOJ constantly plugged here where the defendant didn't have time to change his clothing or wash before being taken by police and the clothign he wore at the time of the murder WAS actually taken and tested as was his body tested so that means the lack of physical evidence found on his body and clothing helped estabish his innocence.

In contrast Jeremy's body was not tested, the clothing he wore while talking to police wa snot tested nor did they search for clothing he would have worn prior to meeting police. That is why no evidence was found it is hard to find evidence when no testing occurs. 

The hilarious thing is that you and your brethren don't care about the lack of evidence on Sheila who
had no reason to wash and change her clothes let alone hide her clothes and had she killed everyone else could not have changed and hid the clothing she wore when she did so without such clothing being found and certainly could not have changed the clothing she was wearing while shot.

The evidence that he did it is ironclad which is why he still rots in jail and will till he dies.  It is also why none of his supporters here such as yourself can refute the evidence.  You don't even try refuting the evidence you just lash out then tell me how you are not a Jeremy supporter despite stumping for him so hard that it demonstrates you lack candor and integrity.  Then your fellow Jeremy supporters come to your aid which just shows birds of a feather...

On the contrary you yourself said that blood spatter would not necessarily go backwards and therefore that Jeremy would not get backspatter. You also said that Bamber would not necessarily get blood on him if he fought with Nevill. So that means that the same could include Sheila. You in fat deny any evidence of a phone call from Nevill to Jeremy and site loads of silly reasons as to why not. You state that Jeremy lied about that. And said that he had no way of proving it.
Yet you will not accept the possibility of Mugford lying when she gave her testimony of that which Jeremy told her in private. Bit of lop sided logic there in my opinion.

[Alias]

What points didn't I address?  I sometimes wonder about the reading comprehension skills of Jeremy supports. It appears you all lack same and tha tit is necessary in porder to pretend he is innocent.

The most comprehensive dis of the notion he wore a wetsuit has been put forth by me. How was that not substantive?   

Alias has somewhat of an excuse since English is not her primary language what is yours?

My excuse is that I rarely read your posts beyond the initial insults.

Don´t throw stones when you live in a glass house. You constantly mix people up and claim this said this or that when that was not the case. You lack reading (and writing) skills yourself.

[scipio_usmc]

On the contrary you yourself said that blood spatter would not necessarily go backwards and therefore that Jeremy would not get backspatter. You also said that Bamber would not necessarily get blood on him if he fought with Nevill. So that means that the same could include Sheila. You in fat deny any evidence of a phone call from Nevill to Jeremy and site loads of silly reasons as to why not. You state that Jeremy lied about that. And said that he had no way of proving it.
Yet you will not accept the possibility of Mugford lying when she gave her testimony of that which Jeremy told her in private. Bit of lop sided logic there in my opinion.

I never said that Bamber would not have gotten spatter on him. I have consistently stated the killer would have spatter based on not only the testimony of the experts but also the fact the gun had spatter which proves the killer was in range of the back spatter.   

Post where I stated the killer would not have gotten spatter based on the injuries in question.  This is another situation where you are misconstruing the words of someone either intentionally or unintelionally just like how you misconstrued NGB's words to suggest he stated the police refused to provide evidence requested by the CCRC.  I see little excuse for misconstruing his words but people said since I am in the legal fiield that was why I understood him and others didn't.  My comments are not ambiguous I provide more detail then required (which everyone complains about) so there is no way to honestly suggest I have bene unclear.

As for the "possibility" of Julie Mugford lying the mere theoretical possibility is meaningless.  The issue is whether there is evidence to establish she lied and there was a reasonable likelihook she was lying.  Of course there is no such evidence and her claims are quite credible and supported by other evidence.

The funny thing is how you and the rest ignore the elephant in the room always (exepct Mike).  The elephant in the room is the moderator and it is dealth with extremely incompetently.  there are wild allegations someone planted evidence but no evidence and nothing at all that suggests such was reasonably likely to have occurred.

Mike is the only one that routinely deals with it but does so with disinformation merely so his efforts don't acocmplish anything.

Objective, rational people decided someone who was convicted was wrongly convicted when there is proof that they were wrongfully convicted.  Not based on speculation that a series of wild things theoretically could have happened.  That really defines the difference between both camps. Since such wild speculation is not enough to establish innocence it is insufficient to free Jeremy.

At the end of the day though that is all Jeremy supporters have to raise.

[Mr. Gee]

I never said that Bamber would not have gotten spatter on him. I have consistently stated the killer would have spatter based on not only the testimony of the experts but also the fact the gun had spatter which proves the killer was in range of the back spatter.   

Post where I stated the killer would not have gotten spatter based on the injuries in question.  This is another situation where you are misconstruing the words of someone either intentionally or unintelionally just like how you misconstrued NGB's words to suggest he stated the police refused to provide evidence requested by the CCRC.  I see little excuse for misconstruing his words but people said since I am in the legal fiield that was why I understood him and others didn't.  My comments are not ambiguous I provide more detail then required (which everyone complains about) so there is no way to honestly suggest I have bene unclear.

As for the "possibility" of Julie Mugford lying the mere theoretical possibility is meaningless.  The issue is whether there is evidence to establish she lied and there was a reasonable likelihook she was lying.  Of course there is no such evidence and her claims are quite credible and supported by other evidence.

The funny thing is how you and the rest ignore the elephant in the room always (exepct Mike).  The elephant in the room is the moderator and it is dealth with extremely incompetently.  there are wild allegations someone planted evidence but no evidence and nothing at all that suggests such was reasonably likely to have occurred.

Mike is the only one that routinely deals with it but does so with disinformation merely so his efforts don't acocmplish anything.

Objective, rational people decided someone who was convicted was wrongly convicted when there is proof that they were wrongfully convicted.  Not based on speculation that a series of wild things theoretically could have happened.  That really defines the difference between both camps. Since such wild speculation is not enough to establish innocence it is insufficient to free Jeremy.

At the end of the day though that is all Jeremy supporters have to raise.

If you don't mind me saying so that is a very silly assumption. Because it all boils down to a guess as to whether she lied or not. I am quite confident that the way she broke down in order to force an adjournment in court is evidence enough for me to say that most of her testimony was a tissue of lies. The other evidence that she probably lied is the fact that she was a woman scorned. Evidence further by the fact that she never said anything good about Jeremy, although she had been with him two years and even tried to smother him out of jealousy. Personally although the jury may have been trying to act rationally, the prosecution counsel knew how to dupe them into believing a very accomplished liar... In my opinion that is.