Scipio hi 
Again we will have to agree to disagree hun. I really do appreciate your views and the views of others who happen to be the polar opposite of my own. The only bit of the missing jigsaw for me was the blood 'found' in the silencer but I now see from the pathologist's report that the blood samples taken from the victims did not go to FSS direct but EP first and this raises many ???? for me. I am not alone in this regard. Please see COLP interview with DS Davidson:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=178.msg1787#msg1787
I think it is a commonly held perception amongst the so-called "guilters" that JB supporters are all cranks and weirdoes (perhaps not surprising given the posts by some on Blue) or that others are in it for financial gain or some other reason of personal interest. I disagree I think there are some very principled people who believe JB is the victim of a MoJ. One such person is Michael Turner QC. Does he believe Jeremy Bamber innocent? "Passionately". I know some will say the reason for this is that he failed to defend JB at his CoA hearing but I beg to differ:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9716069/Devils-advocate-Michael-Turner-prepares-for-his-toughest-case.html
Scipio by all means respond but without wishing to sound rude it's unlikely I will reply as I am simply bored going round in circles. Not just with your good self but any so called "guilter".
Until anything changes by way of JB's CCRC submissions, book launches or whatever I shall stick to defending my character from attack on Blue and having some fun and interesting debates in off-topics. x 
I am well aware the blood was given to the police who in turn sent it to the lab.
How was it packaged? In asealed container and then all 3 samples in a sealed bad. So the lab would be aware if the bag had been opened let alone any of the samples touched.
Is there any evidence that any of the samples were in fact touched? No
I had this very debate last week on blue.
Moreover, the blood itself was sprayed into the barrel of the suppressor not merely dripped in using a dropepr or poured out of a vial. This requires skill to accomplish if it can in fact be done. The lab would have needed to orchestrate any doctoring of evidence. The same thing you rely on makes clear Davidson and other police had no clue as to why the suppressor would be siginficant let alone what that significance was.
The lab kew the significance only because they understood 1) there was a contact wound, 2) that such contact wound would result in drawnback and 3) that such drawback would be in the weapon if it had been used without a suppressor or in the suppressor if the suppressor had been used. So only the lab understood the significance and thus only the lab would have had the understanding and opportunity to doctor the rifle itself by eliminating blood found inside and then planting blood in the suppressor. Only they would knwo to plant it let alone know how and again no one has demonstrated the ability to spray it inside to be distributed in the manner found. There are no documented cases of this ever.
The other piece of evidence she cna't have killed herself is that her body was moved after she died. She was seated when shot, bled for a short while and then was moved flat.
When you factor all the other problems with Jeremy's claims in from staging the box of bullets to Nevill having no reason to call to his reactions not being how someone in his place would act after receiving such a call it becomes even more apparent his claims were a farce and he framed Sheila.
The leap of faith involves insisting that this evidence that proves she didn't shoot herself was doctored by police and the claims of the family and Julie were all lies and that while his claims make no sense and actions make no sense he is nonetheless innocent.
People on the other side ar enot taking aleap of faith but being guided my evidence.
The problem with the police planting claim is tha tthere is no evidence at all to support it and it would require a grand conspiracy including a planting of blood never documented ever before.
There has to be some evidence to establish such or it simply is a leap of faith of major proportions.
The wacky claims involve things like June shooting them, police shooting her and other things of that nature.
The pro-jeremy camp is actively looking for evidence to exonerate Jeremy not trying to look objectively at the evidence to make an objective assessment. The Davidson statement is a perfect example. Peopel who insisted Jeremy wa sinnocent were not relying on the Davidson statement originally. They did not come to their consclusion he was innocent in part because of it. They simply encountered it and said aha look here is someplace the blood that we assert was planted could have come from. They didn't know about it all along and say this is why they think the blood was planted. So what this illustrates is the bias that is driving pro-bamber supporters. They are not being driven by evidence but rather trying to cherry pick what they can to support what they decided ahead of time they want to believe.
Someone objective on the other hand requires evidence that the seals on the samples had been broken and blood thus could have been missing. There needs to be more than that the police were among the chain of custody of the evidence.
You criticize me for being objective and requiring proof of things.
For instance, yes an anti-Jeremy author claimed Jeremy won a marksman badge while at boarding school. He claimed the scool records prove it. These school records were not published though to prove it. School transcripts do not usually include badges that are won. There might be a document provided to the student anouncing it but it would not be on a transcript. So one has to wonder what records he saw and how he had access to records that would be private and need some special disclosure. Authors claim lots of things, I have studied hisotry since a child and read countless books full of claims outright false or that can't be confimred one way or another. An author making a claim doesn't make it true we have to be careful about what is a sourced claim and not. Some people will rely only on an author making a claim. I will not. Unless a claim is footnoted and I can check the footnote to make sure it is right I will not trust it. Part of my job working at school on a history journal and late rin law school on a law journal was ot check footnotes for accuracy. Peoplr submit articles and we had to verify the claims they made were actually backed up by their footnotes. We had to go locate and read the cited source to see if the proposition asserted is ruly there. Half the time it wasn't. Sometimes they cited the wrong case and meant to cite another. Other times they grossly twisted what their source actually was saying. Just because I believe Jeremy is guilty doesn't mean I will toss in evidence that might be bogus to pile on. I don't need to pile on.
People are not accustomed to dealing with a stickler like me but I am this way for a reason. To many untrue things end up clouding the actual facts if one is not like that.
The Amityville horror murder case has had some books published lately with incredibly false claims and a 4 part documentary is being made based on the worst book (2 parts were released so far). The book and documentary asserts the convicted killer was married at the time of the murders and presents her account of the family, trial and various other events. She didn't meet him until 1985 and marry him until 1989. The murders were in 1974 and his conviction 1975. She never med the victims her whole tale is a lie. The author and publisher/producers intentioanlly presented the story of a liar. Countless people have been taken in my their snake pil who are unaware that her claims are all bunk. The convicted killer drastically revised what happened the night of the murders in an attempt to get his conviction vacated. It was exposed as lies in court. The book took these disproved claims and published them along with others. There are people conviced DeFeo's sister killed the parents and siblings because of a book claiming such which in part quoted fake legal documents.
I didn't come to my position on Jeremy's guilt through blind faith it was after careful consideration of the relevant facts that could be satisfactorily established based on evidence.
