UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Other Forums and Organisations => Jeremy Bamber forum => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on November 08, 2015, 03:32:21 PM
-
For disrespecting him by saying most people don't trust him by writing "unlike most here you actually trust Mike so why don't you ask him about it."
-
Oh Dear!... better join IA then and see if you can work your wily magic on Charlie W. et al. Loads of other cases to delve into there as well.
But go easy on your keyboard though! (http://i.imgur.com/mW3e48o.gif)
-
For disrespecting him by saying most people don't trust him by writing "unlike most here you actually trust Mike so why don't you ask him about it."
There won't be much of a blue forum without you. 8(8-))
I read the other night that Mike was "possessed by the devil and his minions." It seemed to involve Mike just saying "f*ck off" a lot. I'm sure you'll miss the sparkling repartee.
-
There won't be much of a blue forum without you. 8(8-))
I read the other night that Mike was "possessed by the devil and his minions." It seemed to involve Mike just saying "f*ck off" a lot. I'm sure you'll miss the sparkling repartee.
lol that thread didn't last more than 8 hours before being pulled- probably by the moderators as opposed to him waking up and saying uh oh this doesn't make me look very good.
-
For disrespecting him by saying most people don't trust him by writing "unlike most here you actually trust Mike so why don't you ask him about it."
Scipio you haven't posted on here for months and now you've been banned from Blue you descend on us/me and expect us/me to come out and play? No pleasantries eg how you guys doing blah, blah instead you launch into telling me my posts are BS, biased and ridiculous; my reading comprehension skills are quite lacking; I live in la la land etc, etc. Please can you explain why all this is necessary? You obviously disagree with my posts, fair enough, but why the need to get personal? Why can't you just stick to the case?
We are both atheists? Agreed? Would you go around telling Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims their beliefs are BS, ridiculous, they live in la la land etc, etc? You might think it. I might think it but I wouldnt be so rude as to disrespect other peoples' views. Especially when I can't prove that their God doesn't exist. I accept JB has been found guilty in a court of law but we all know the system does get it wrong and miscarriages of justice do happen. You're unable to provide concrete evidence of JB's guilt. And I'm unable to provide concrete evidence of JB's innocence.
If you want me to debate with you on the main board I'm happy to do so but firstly I require an apology for the personal comments outlined above. Secondly I want your assurance that the personal comments will be kept out of posts.
A copy of this post has been copied to all mods incl John.
-
For disrespecting him by saying most people don't trust him by writing "unlike most here you actually trust Mike so why don't you ask him about it."
Awww. I'm sorry about that. Despite that there were a few occasions when you were as pain in the xrsx, I think you'll be missed.
-
Scipio you haven't posted on here for months and now you've been banned from Blue you descend on us/me and expect us/me to come out and play? No pleasantries eg how you guys doing blah, blah instead you launch into telling me my posts are BS, biased and ridiculous; my reading comprehension skills are quite lacking; I live in la la land etc, etc. Please can you explain why all this is necessary? You obviously disagree with my posts, fair enough, but why the need to get personal? Why can't you just stick to the case?
We are both atheists? Agreed? Would you go around telling Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims their beliefs are BS, ridiculous, they live in la la land etc, etc? You might think it. I might think it but I wouldnt be so rude as to disrespect other peoples' views. Especially when I can't prove that their God doesn't exist. I accept JB has been found guilty in a court of law but we all know the system does get it wrong and miscarriages of justice do happen. You're unable to provide concrete evidence of JB's guilt. And I'm unable to provide concrete evidence of JB's innocence.
If you want me to debate with you on the main board I'm happy to do so but firstly I require an apology for the personal comments outlined above. Secondly I want your assurance that the personal comments will be kept out of posts.
A copy of this post has been copied to all mods incl John.
I'm Catholic not an atheist. Arguing about religion and this case are quite different things. While it is true that you have faith in Jeremy akin to the way someone believes in God that doesn't mean one should treat such beliefs in the same manner.
I do stick to the case. You said you believe the COA is going to quash his conviction. I challenged you to post on what basis he could even get the CCRC to refer the matter to the COA let alone the COA to actually rule in his favor on such issue.
I didn't see any answer though.
He expended all his best arguments already and they were totally insufficient. One has to be living in lala land to believe a new one of epic proportions is just going to magically appear.
-
I'm Catholic not an atheist. Arguing about religion and this case are quite different things. While it is true that you have faith in Jeremy akin to the way someone believes in God that doesn't mean one should treat such beliefs in the same manner.
I do stick to the case. You said you believe the COA is going to quash his conviction. I challenged you to post on what basis he could even get the CCRC to refer the matter to the COA let alone the COA to actually rule in his favor on such issue.
I didn't see any answer though.
He expended all his best arguments already and they were totally insufficient. One has to be living in lala land to believe a new one of epic proportions is just going to magically appear.
Bit economical with the truth...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6704.msg285977#msg285977
-
I'm Catholic not an atheist. Arguing about religion and this case are quite different things. While it is true that you have faith in Jeremy akin to the way someone believes in God that doesn't mean one should treat such beliefs in the same manner.
I do stick to the case. You said you believe the COA is going to quash his conviction. I challenged you to post on what basis he could even get the CCRC to refer the matter to the COA let alone the COA to actually rule in his favor on such issue.
I didn't see any answer though.
He expended all his best arguments already and they were totally insufficient. One has to be living in lala land to believe a new one of epic proportions is just going to magically appear.
I very rarely argue with anyone by referring to their comments/views/beliefs etc BS, la la land, irrational, struggle comprehending etc, etc. Discussing/debating JB's case is no different to discussing/debating any other topic: religion, politics, sports teams, child rearing, music, fashion etc, etc. I've no need to force my beliefs etc on others. Others are entitled to think and believe what they want. I couldn't give a flying fig.
I dont know JB personally to know whether or not I should have faith in him. I have a lack of faith in the process that found him guilty in a court of law based on the info available to me and my own research.
You dont believe JB's conviction will ever be quashed fine. You think he's guilty as charged. He's currently a Cat A prisoner on a whole life tarrif. Why bother yourself with what I believe? I said I believe his conviction will be quashed and I'm not prepared to comment further. If you think I'm BSing, living in la la land, irrational, not telling the truth etc, etc that's fine by me but please just keep your personal comments to yourself.
-
I very rarely argue with anyone by referring to their comments/views/beliefs etc BS, la la land, irrational, struggle comprehending etc, etc. Discussing/debating JB's case is no different to discussing/debating any other topic: religion, politics, sports teams, child rearing, music, fashion etc, etc. I've no need to force my beliefs etc on others. Others are entitled to think and believe what they want. I couldn't give a flying fig.
I dont know JB personally to know whether or not I should have faith in him. I have a lack of faith in the process that found him guilty in a court of law based on the info available to me and my own research.
You dont believe JB's conviction will ever be quashed fine. You think he's guilty as charged. He's currently a Cat A prisoner on a whole life tarrif. Why bother yourself with what I believe? I said I believe his conviction will be quashed and I'm not prepared to comment further. If you think I'm BSing, living in la la land, irrational, not telling the truth etc, etc that's fine by me but please just keep your personal comments to yourself.
I don't care what you believe anymore than what Mike believes.
But like him you spread countless falsehoods about the facts of the case and rather than allow them to go unchallenged where someone unaware of all the evidence and facts might be misinformed I correct the record.
-
I don't care what you believe anymore than what Mike believes.
But like him you spread countless falsehoods about the facts of the case and rather than allow them to go unchallenged where someone unaware of all the evidence and facts might be misinformed I correct the record.
I havent met anyone on any forum I've ever posted on that isnt at least of average intelligence. No one needs to be spoon fed info by anyone. Forum members and guests are more than capable of forming their own opinions.
-
For disrespecting him by saying most people don't trust him by writing "unlike most here you actually trust Mike so why don't you ask him about it."
I'm sure you will be allowed back. Haven't you been permanently banned before only to be allowed back on?
-
I'm sure you will be allowed back. Haven't you been permanently banned before only to be allowed back on?
That was when Harters and I were both banned and the site criticized mike for doing so for such a stupid reason so he changed his mind to stop the outcry against him. This time he only banned me and is spouting all the lies I always challenge him on so will not let me back. He wants to just post away with his lies unchallenged evne if no one else bothers to read them.
-
That was when Harters and I were both banned and the site criticized mike for doing so for such a stupid reason so he changed his mind to stop the outcry against him. This time he only banned me and is spouting all the lies I always challenge him on so will not let me back. He wants to just post away with his lies unchallenged evne if no one else bothers to read them.
Why do you want to waste your time/energy responding to MT's posts if no one else bothers to read them? If no one reads MT's posts do you think they are likely to read your responses?
-
I'm sure you will be allowed back. Haven't you been permanently banned before only to be allowed back on?
Why are you sure Scipio will be allowed back? I find him a most unpleasant poster. He's intolerant of anyone that doesn't share his views often resorting to verbal aggression and/or attempts to intimidate. He doesn't debate just gets all shouty. When losing the debate, which he often does, he lies, cheats and refuses to provide any documentary evidence to support his assertions. Instead he resorts to 'find it yourself' or 'the burden of proof is with you' or 'I dont have to prove a negative'.
I wouldn't mind betting there are a few paid internet shills on these forums and Scipio might well be one of them.
-
Why are you sure Scipio will be allowed back? I find him a most unpleasant poster. He's intolerant of anyone that doesn't share his views often resorting to verbal aggression and/or attempts to intimidate. He doesn't debate just gets all shouty. When losing the debate, which he often does, he lies, cheats and refuses to provide any documentary evidence to support his assertions. Instead he resorts to 'find it yourself' or 'the burden of proof is with you' or 'I dont have to prove a negative'.
I wouldn't mind betting there are a few paid internet shills on these forums and Scipio might well be one of them.
Paid by whom Holly?
-
Paid by whom Holly?
I've no idea John. Never even heard of a paid internet shill until by chance I noticed a comment on the McCann board. I've often thought when reading product reviews it would be easy for those who have a vested interested in selling the product to talk products up and competitors products down but never really thought about paid shills attempting to influence opinion on forums such as this one. It seems to go on though and is of course all very shadowy.
I just struggle to understand the likes of Scipio who appear to spend hours and hours trying to convince everyone JB is guilty as charged and become verbally aggressive with others who don't share their views. I appreciate over the years a number of posters from the innocent camp have acted strangely to say the least ie Mike with his ridiculous claims and theories and others who I understand snooped into the private lives of various others and "stalked" family members (if true). I would never condone this but I can see how some could get carried away if they believe JB is the victim of a MoJ. I dont understand the likes of Scipio when JB has been behind bars for 30 years and without very compelling new evidence is extremely unlikely to have his conviction overturned.
-
I've no idea John. Never even heard of a paid internet shill until by chance I noticed a comment on the McCann board. I've often thought when reading product reviews it would be easy for those who have a vested interested in selling the product to talk products up and competitors products down but never really thought about paid shills attempting to influence opinion on forums such as this one. It seems to go on though and is of course all very shadowy.
I just struggle to understand the likes of Scipio who appear to spend hours and hours trying to convince everyone JB is guilty as charged and become verbally aggressive with others who don't share their views. I appreciate over the years a number of posters from the innocent camp have acted strangely to say the least ie Mike with his ridiculous claims and theories and others who I understand snooped into the private lives of various others and "stalked" family members (if true). I would never condone this but I can see how some could get carried away if they believe JB is the victim of a MoJ. I dont understand the likes of Scipio when JB has been behind bars for 30 years and without very compelling new evidence is extremely unlikely to have his conviction overturned.
As long as Mike writes his offensive, disingenuous crap, I'm guessing that Scipio will feel the need to disprove it. Ironically, Mike's forum (isn't it time that it was retitled?) has been responsible for Bamber losing almost all of the supporters he had. The one who's left (Hitler in knickers) manages to make Bamber look like a complete cock.
8((()*/
-
As long as Mike writes his offensive, disingenuous crap, I'm guessing that Scipio will feel the need to disprove it. Ironically, Mike's forum (isn't it time that it was retitled?) has been responsible for Bamber losing almost all of the supporters he had. The one who's left (Hitler in knickers) manages to make Bamber look like a complete cock.
8((()*/
You're right about the snooping and stalking though, Holl. Old Colly Cropper (ooh-er, Robert Halfon!) googled me so much, she knew more about me than I do.
-
The only good thing about "The Jeremy Bamber Forum" is that it keeps Mike busy, so his neighbours don't have to worry about their lawn mowers getting nicked by "Spring Heeled Jack". And Mike makes Bamber look more guilty by the day when he changes his story. And, when he's backed into a corner, Mike says "f*ck off, pigshit breath." Always a winner.
Actually, I blame Admin. Lurking about. With strange agenda. &%+((£
-
Why do you want to waste your time/energy responding to MT's posts if no one else bothers to read them? If no one reads MT's posts do you think they are likely to read your responses?
It annoys him having his lies pointed out and that is why I did it as well as why I was banned even though he used the pretext of saying it was because I was rude to him which just shows what anut he is that he wants peopel to bow to him.
-
Why are you sure Scipio will be allowed back? I find him a most unpleasant poster. He's intolerant of anyone that doesn't share his views often resorting to verbal aggression and/or attempts to intimidate. He doesn't debate just gets all shouty. When losing the debate, which he often does, he lies, cheats and refuses to provide any documentary evidence to support his assertions. Instead he resorts to 'find it yourself' or 'the burden of proof is with you' or 'I dont have to prove a negative'.
I wouldn't mind betting there are a few paid internet shills on these forums and Scipio might well be one of them.
When people post false claims and lies I call them on it. When people make allegations I challenge them to prove their claims because the burden of proof rests with the proponent. At the end of the day you grossly distort every aspect of the ballistic issues in this case. You take a broad conceptual claim made by someone not addressing this specific case and then distort claiming that it disproves specific science that applies to this case.
Jeremy's lawyers already raised nonsense of the sort that was rejected but you go further and make up nonsense they didn't even try because they had no scientists willing to spout such tripe. If you can't stand the heat of having your nonsense challenged then don' go into the kitchen...
-
Why are you sure Scipio will be allowed back? I find him a most unpleasant poster. He's intolerant of anyone that doesn't share his views often resorting to verbal aggression and/or attempts to intimidate. He doesn't debate just gets all shouty. When losing the debate, which he often does, he lies, cheats and refuses to provide any documentary evidence to support his assertions.
You get used to it after a while. American Lawyers are stereotyped for being the kind of people that just want to win arguments and cases at any cost without any regard for the truth of the matter.
-
When people post false claims and lies I call them on it. When people make allegations I challenge them to prove their claims because the burden of proof rests with the proponent. At the end of the day you grossly distort every aspect of the ballistic issues in this case. You take a broad conceptual claim made by someone not addressing this specific case and then distort claiming that it disproves specific science that applies to this case.
Jeremy's lawyers already raised nonsense of the sort that was rejected but you go further and make up nonsense they didn't even try because they had no scientists willing to spout such tripe. If you can't stand the heat of having your nonsense challenged then don' go into the kitchen...
And you conveniently forget SIZEmatters!
The bullets used at WHF .22 are the least likely to cause draw-back aka blow-back, high impact back spatter and an abundance of GSR. Look at the size compared with a range of other ammo. I'm not an expert but I know enough to highlight your cranky ill informed theories. It's a hugely complex subject involving different branches of science. Bullet size is a determining factor; anatomical location another; anything that might impede flight of blood such as hair and clothes; surrounding objects such as floors, ceilings and furniture; angle and distance of shot. It is way beyond the likes of us and Malcolm Fletcher a general scientific officer.
If JB was the perp and fired 25 shots, with the last two fired at SC, said to be contact or near contact, and staged a sucide with the rifle remaining on her body and her hand resting against it then why wasn't any GSR found on her hand and nightie, if as you claim an abundance of GSR is discharged with every shot and remains for several hours after discharge and doesn't transfer with movement? You would have us believe a .22 is akin to a cannon being fired!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You get used to it after a while. American Lawyers are stereotyped for being the kind of people that just want to win arguments and cases at any cost without any regard for the truth of the matter.
Funny coming from someone who cited an allegation by Jeremy's lawyer that Julie was granted immunity as proof she was. You have no idea what truth or evidence are.
The 2002 Appeal fully explored the allegations and totally rejected the notion she was granted immunity. BUt reality is something Jeremy supporters ignore because if they faced relaity they would not support him and would admit his guilt.