I’d like to know why you have aligned yourself with Jeremy’s supoorters and never direct you “funny guy” schtick in their direction, or slap them down. Any particular reason? But yes, of course I would rather you were here, you have a good way with words, even if I’m often the target of the put down.
I think you may be on to something - let's put it this way, you have to respect the sheer bloody mindedness and fortitude of someone who's willing to defend someone like Bamber so vociferously, to the point where they have researched the subject for several years, maybe becoming an 'expert' (if we use the 10,000 hour premise).
That's where Holly's at. I admire that because they're displaying a level of commitment I can only aspire to. I'm a lazy get. I soak information up, rather than have a ready reference, so it makes my argument unreliable, so I don't try. Whereas G-Unit, Holly, et al will give you chapter and verse because they've put the work in.
Do I need to agree? No.
My point yesterday was more about the general concept of beyond reasonable doubt - we've done it to death, but my motives are purely conceptual, they usually are as my lack of knowledge in the finer detail will find me out.
I've said it before, there's no mystery here, but there's a bit of interest for us laymen in the investigation and the court proceedings.
