Awwww I think you are feeling protective towards me 
Thank you.
Please be assured I will not be marrying JB. In fact I often feel quite guilty as I go months before replying to his letters. Any poster will tell you I'm not big into pm'ing.
Big difference between Bamber and Hall is that Hall had previous for violent conduct not so for JB.
I don't believe there's any reliable evidence at all which is why we have so much mud slinging. It is simply down to how individuals interpret the information.
Every criminal has a first time. Some have a violent history before that others do not. Some have a violenet history that everyone is unaware of because they were never caught. So trying to rely on the fact he hadn't been proven to be violent previously doesn't really establish anything.
Your excuses for why the evidence against JB is unreliable were all were torn to shreds on this board.
For instance you insist that nothing was suspicious about the bedroom phone being rlocated to the kitchen prior to the murders because the farm secretary said the phone bedroom was moved there routinely when the kitchen phone broke. You then claimed the kitchen cordless phone was in the shop so the bedroom phone simply replaced it. But the bedroom phone didn't replace the cordless phone you lied. The were normally 2 phones in the kitchen, a corded phone and a cordless. The corded phone was replaced by the bedroom phone. The corded phone was properly working it wasn't broken. Yet it was unplugged and hidden and the bedroom phone was plugged in the jack where it was normally plugged. The kitchen phone that wa sunplugged and hidden was touch tone. The bedroom phone that replaced it was rotary. Why would someone take a touch tone phone, replace it with a rotary phone and hide the touch tone phone so it could not be used at all? You coudl not answer that question. Instead you repeated the bogus claim that the bedroom phone replaced the cordless phone and that such was customary. You ignored the fact the touch one phone was hidden so that it had to be replaced by the bedroom phone and that there would be no valid reason for doing so. It is quite obvious the killer did this in advance because the killer intended to kill the victims in the bedroom and didn't want the victims to be able to call anyone to disclose what was transpiring or worse disclose who was perpetrating it.
This is not an example of disagreement over interpretation of the evidence. This is an example of you ignoring evidence and intentionally twisting the facts to suit your purposes. Your claim the cordless phone was replaced by the rotary bedroom phone is absolutely false. It replaced a perfectly working touch tone phone that was unplugged and hidden for no valid reason.
What about the blood and paint on/in the suppressor? You created a number of bogus assertions to justify your claim the blood was planted. You invented the fiction that tissue would have to be present in the blood in order for it to be back spatter even though that is far from the truth and tissue often doesn't acocmpany blood. Whether it is likely to or not is a function of the location of the wound among other variables. You also invented the fiction that the location of the wound in question would be unlikely to result in back spatter though the expert in the case testified to the contrary. The expert testified the location was virtually certain to result in back spatter and that there would be blood in the rifle if it had been used without the suppressor. The expert in the case also determined the fatal wound was either a contact wound or within 2mm of the throat. You ignored that and keep asserting the fiction that the fatal shot was fired from a distance and there would not be any back spatte rint he suppressor or muzzle. You have no evidentiary basis for any of these asserions you just make up things to suit your agenda. That is not a disagreement over interpretation of evidence. It is an example of you ignoring evidence and facts and simply making up bogus facts that suit you.
The bottom line is that you have no valid basis to assert the blood evidence and paint were planted. You don't believe it was planted because you interpret the evidence differently. You simply decided to blindly believe he is innocent and that means it must have been planted and try to make up bogus excuses to prove it was planted.
You don't even have a specific person in mind for the planting though. You were reapetedly asked who you believe planted the blood, where the blood came from, whose blood it is and how it was planted. You have no theory as to any of these. You just blindly say someone planted it because he is innocent.
That is not a disagreement over interpretation of evidence it is you ignoring evidence because it refutes what you want to believe.
What evidence do you have that supports your assertion that:
1) Sheila knew how to lock and load the gun and how to operate it.
2) Even though there was a full box of bullets right next to the gun when she retreived it, she went to the gun closet and took 5-8 bullets into the kitchen to leave with the other bullets.
3) Though Sheila was on her medication and docile before going to bed, Sheila went into a rage and woke up her parents between 2 and 3AM screaming at them while waiving a gun in her hands
4) Instead of disarming her Nevill went to the kitchen and phoned Jeremy to ask him to come disarm her whicke would take at least 5 minutes for him to arrive if not longer becaus ehe would need to dress before leaving to drive there.
5) She took the phone from Nevill's hand and hung it up then ordered him upstairs back to the bedroom because she wanted to shoot him there instead of the kitchen
6) Though she was extremely close to him and he could have tried to take the gun away, instead of disarming her like he wanted Jeremy to come do, he simply marched up the bedroom
7) Sheila doesn't stand int he doorway of the bedroom but rather goes all the way inside so that her parents have open access to the bedroom door. They race to the door and she opens fire. June is disabeled but Nevill escapes and runs back to the kitchen.
8) Nevill passes out in the kitchen and knocks a chair over as he collapses but instead of shooting him she then beats his limp body even bashing his arm so that it looks like he has defensive wounds and tried to defend himself. She breaks the rifle stock she hits him so hard but the stock doesn't leave a scratch on her hand.
9) She then shoots him several more times in the head killing him.
10) She goes back upstairs to finish off June and kill her boys.
11) She washes and changes her clothes
12) She kills herself
What evidence is there to support your account?
Note how you ignore the phone preplanning completely.
If this were true the gun was used without the suppressor and she was running around screaming first then why didn't the boys wake?
If they were shot first then Nevill would have noted such on the phone.
If she were out of control why would she take the phone and hang it up instead of shooting him?
If she were out of control why would she march him to the bedroom instead of shooting him in the kitchen?
Why would she march him to the bedroom then go all the way inside so his parents had access to the door while she was on the other side of the room facing them?
Why would Nevill never try to disarm her but expect Jeremy to come do it? Especially with the doors locked so Jeremy could not evne get in. Why wait 5-10 minutes or even longer for someone to try to disarm her?
The evidence proves the phone was never hung up as Jeremy claimed.
The evidence proves the killer planned in advance and was carried out in cold and calculated manner, not by someone out of control.
What would set her off while everyone was sleeping anyway?
The evidence proves the killer started shooting in the master bedroom while the parents were still in bed. Nevill only ran down to the kitchen a single time and had already been wounded and unable to speak by that time.
The evidence proves the gun had a suppressor attached when Sheila's fatal shot was delivered because there was no matter of any kind in the muzzle and there would have been.
The evidence proves the particualar suppressor used is the one with the blood/paint.
There is no evidence that Sheila changed her clothing and took a bath nor is there any reason she would do so. You had to misrepresent the facts of another case falsely claiming a killer washed his car after murdering his family but prior to committing suicide to try to pretend there was a way. The only clothing soaking was underwear and leggings not any blouses or nightgowns. There is nothing to suggest Sheila changed her clothing and that clothing had no evidence at all of any gunshot residue. She allegedly hugged the rifle to kill herself and still not a shred of GSR. There would have to be some if she fired 2 shots in such manner and certainly if she fired 25 total.
The evidence proves there was in fact a struggle in the kitchen and that the light was broken by the rifle having the suppressor attached because it would have been too short otherwise.
There is a whole lot more evidence including Julie's claims and Jeremy's actions which make no sense.
You simply ignore it all and make up excuses, you are not interpreting the evidence differently you choose not to believe any of the evidence though you have no valid reason for not believing it and instead make up your own facts that have no evidentiary basis at all.
So at the end of the day you are guilty as charged. You have blind faith in Jeremy for no reason you can justify on the basis of evidence and known facts. The lack of any basis for your beliefs is why it is called blind faith.
