David's claimed forensic breakthrough?

[david1819]

It hasn't David because you couldn't help but plaster it on the forum(s).

Now you have an assumption based on an assumption. even worse

You did make that claim - you made it to me recently.

No I didn't, I put forward a hypothetical circumstance. I never said anything of certainty, and I am open to alternatives as you know

[Caroline]

Now you have an assumption based on an assumption. even worse

No I didn't, I put forward a hypothetical circumstance. I never said anything of certainty, and I am open to alternatives as you know

So you didn't say this "You know as well as I do that if Jeremy cannot have planted the blood stains he cannot have done the crime."?

[Caroline]

Now you have an assumption based on an assumption. even worse

I think this describes your whole way of thinking - except you call them facts.

[adam]

I don't know why a palm print on the bible is a 'forensic evidence breakthrough'.

If it was Sheila's, Bamber may have just ensured Sheila touched the bible after he killed her. She was supposed to have read it after killing everyone else.

[adam]

There is a thread on the bible. It badly incriminates Bamber.

Reading the bible would have been the last thing Sheila did before shooting herself. The bedroom light would have been on for her to read this. Why would she then bother turning the bedroom light off before shooting herself ?

[Holly Goodhead]

NGB will entertain anything no matter how ludicrous he won't even call mike on his lie of stealing a photo on the bed.  I don't think his judgment is worth anything.  The only time he actually had the guts to debate me was on the offtopic board when he said he was so happy when the North Vietnamese took over South Vietnam because it put the US in its place.  He is so delusional he did't even realize the US stopped fighting in 1973 when the Peace Accords were signed and that the fighting in 1975 only harmed those in South Vietnam.

Since I know the law on appeals and about the facts of the conviction I KNOW what would be required to get a new trial and articulated such.  I can tell that what you think you have doesn't approach it.

I spend all day evaluating what legal implication facts can have. You told me that what you have proves Jeremy can't have staged the scene. As I told you there is only one thing that could establish Jeremy didn't stage the scene and that would be evidence that proves he was somewhere else so could not have been there.   I can tell you don't purport to have evidence proving such so I will not give it a second thought.

People spend all day lying to me, clients, adversaries...I believe things when I see it.  Talk is cheap and promises rarely kept.  I will stick with my gut it is uncanny.

We'll see at 8pm GMT how Russia fare on the footy pitch against England to see how NGB's favoured political system fares    They're ok when they can cheat eg Maria Sharapova.

Bread queuing numpties  *&*%£

[scipio_usmc]

We'll see at 8pm GMT how Russia fare on the footy pitch against England to see how NGB's favoured political system fares    They're ok when they can cheat eg Maria Sharapova.

Bread queuing numpties  *&*%£

It sounds like something out of a novel:

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/the-russian-olympic-doping-scandal-explained-5-things-to-know-w206469

Is there any doubt their wonderful feats at prior Olympics were the result of doping?