For Those That Believe JB Guilty...

[Holly Goodhead]

I'm certain that you know it isn't possible for me to reveal that but I can vouch for them having legitimate access to Jeremy. I don't know what evidence you require, but I'm very certain that neither of the persons I refer to were asked to provide evidence above and beyond what was their remit. This in no way invalidates their opinions.

With respect APRIL I am sure you will appreciate from where I am sitting these are simply unsubstantiated claims.

[APRIL]

With respect APRIL I am sure you will appreciate from where I am sitting these are simply unsubstantiated claims.

Of course. The findings of those I mentioned, because they're, presumably, locked away in Jeremy's file, remain only their opinion.................but it doesn't make them wrong.

[Holly Goodhead]

Of course. The findings of those I mentioned, because they're, presumably, locked away in Jeremy's file, remain only their opinion.................but it doesn't make them wrong.

How do you expect me to comment when:

a) I have no idea who you are
b) I have no idea who your associates are who it is claimed assessd JB
c) What relevant experience and qualifications b) might possess for such an assessment to hold up to scrutiny
d) When, where and how any assessment took place

[APRIL]

How do you expect me to comment when:

a) I have no idea who you are
b) I have no idea who your associates are who it is claimed assessd JB
c) What relevant experience and qualifications b) might possess for such an assessment to hold up to scrutiny
d) When, where and how any assessment took place

Holly, I hadn't given any thought to possible comment. I was simply passing on the information that I and a blue friend both know of professionals who, having had access to Jeremy, believe him to be a psychopath. I believe there are also those professionals who don't agree with their findings.

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly, I hadn't given any thought to possible comment. I was simply passing on the information that I and a blue friend both know of professionals who, having had access to Jeremy, believe him to be a psychopath. I believe there are also those professionals who don't agree with their findings.

Hmmm Blue and Red are debating forums April  £4%4%  Most contributors to these forums aren't passive recipients of information especially given the contentious nature of the subject matter.

You and your blue friend both believe JB guilty and both claim to know of professionals who believe JB is a psychopath?  I am sure you will forgive any cynicism on my part.

I have had email contact with various forensic scientists.  One in connection with fingerprints and another in connection with blood testing (flake).  I made mention of the emails on the forum and sent copies to Myster (in the guilty camp) for verification.  I absolutely would not expect anyone to take what I say at face value.   

I don't know why posters go down this road:

- Bill's claims that he knows members of EP etc, etc
- David's claims of a forensic evidence breakthrough
- Roch's claims that he now knows SC is 100% responsible but can't say why. 
- You and your Blue friend (Justice) know professionals who have assessed JB as a psychopath

I'm sorry but I say to the lot of you if you can't substantiate your claims don't bother making them.  I do not have the time or inclination for any of this.  A complete waste of time. 

[david1819]

Hmmm Blue and Red are debating forums April  £4%4%  Most contributors to these forums aren't passive recipients of information especially given the contentious nature of the subject matter.

You and your blue friend both believe JB guilty and both claim to know of professionals who believe JB is a psychopath?  I am sure you will forgive any cynicism on my part.

I have had email contact with various forensic scientists.  One in connection with fingerprints and another in connection with blood testing (flake).  I made mention of the emails on the forum and sent copies to Myster (in the guilty camp) for verification.  I absolutely would not expect anyone to take what I say at face value.   

I don't know why posters go down this road:

- Bill's claims that he knows members of EP etc, etc
- David's claims of a forensic evidence breakthrough
- Roch's claims that he now knows SC is 100% responsible but can't say why. 
- You and your Blue friend (Justice) know professionals who have assessed JB as a psychopath

I'm sorry but I say to the lot of you if you can't substantiate your claims don't bother making them.  I do not have the time or inclination for any of this.  A complete waste of time.

Except I didn't go down that road. I have verified this on the forums via three people JB, AH and NGB. Several people have seen it. I would have posted it on the forums had NGB and AH not persuaded me otherwise. This I can also substantiate via PMs and e-mails.

You know this.

[Holly Goodhead]

Except I didn't go down that road. I have verified this on the forums via three people JB, AH and NGB. Several people have seen it. I would have posted it on the forums had NGB and AH not persuaded me otherwise. This I can also substantiate via PMs and e-mails.

You know this.

Not really no.  If you have what you consider is a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' why not just keep it to yourself and relevant others eg NBG and AH?  Why the need to announce it on the forum when you are unable and/or unwilling to provide further info.  I thought you or someone said the announcement was intended to 'stimulate debate'!

[APRIL]

Hmmm Blue and Red are debating forums April  £4%4%  Most contributors to these forums aren't passive recipients of information especially given the contentious nature of the subject matter.

You and your blue friend both believe JB guilty and both claim to know of professionals who believe JB is a psychopath?  I am sure you will forgive any cynicism on my part.

I have had email contact with various forensic scientists.  One in connection with fingerprints and another in connection with blood testing (flake).  I made mention of the emails on the forum and sent copies to Myster (in the guilty camp) for verification.  I absolutely would not expect anyone to take what I say at face value.   

I don't know why posters go down this road:

- Bill's claims that he knows members of EP etc, etc
- David's claims of a forensic evidence breakthrough
- Roch's claims that he now knows SC is 100% responsible but can't say why. 
- You and your Blue friend (Justice) know professionals who have assessed JB as a psychopath

I'm sorry but I say to the lot of you if you can't substantiate your claims don't bother making them.  I do not have the time or inclination for any of this.  A complete waste of time.

Holly, I don't actually mind that you find it a waste of time. In fact, I would urge you not to waste your time reading/responding to my unsubstantiated posts. It will save me the bother of reading/responding to your replies. Not everyone here has, like you, put their heart and soul into trying to uncover something which will prove Jeremy innocent. Back in the days when I believed him innocent, I never believed he be released. I still believe it to be the case, however, because of my proximity to D'Arcy and my friendship with those -now all in their late 80's/early 90's- who were friends with Nevill and June, my interest is maintained. You do sterling work on Jeremy's behalf. I hope there's a positive pay off.

[Caroline]

Holly, I don't actually mind that you find it a waste of time. In fact, I would urge you not to waste your time reading/responding to my unsubstantiated posts. It will save me the bother of reading/responding to your replies. Not everyone here has, like you, put their heart and soul into trying to uncover something which will prove Jeremy innocent. Back in the days when I believed him innocent, I never believed he be released. I still believe it to be the case, however, because of my proximity to D'Arcy and my friendship with those -now all in their late 80's/early 90's- who were friends with Nevill and June, my interest is maintained. You do sterling work on Jeremy's behalf. I hope there's a positive pay off.

For that matter what's the point in trying to prove he's innocent? Waste of time really - he isn't 

[APRIL]

For that matter what's the point in trying to prove he's innocent? Waste of time really - he isn't 

Indeed. But there's still something compellingly addictive about it

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly, I don't actually mind that you find it a waste of time. In fact, I would urge you not to waste your time reading/responding to my unsubstantiated posts. It will save me the bother of reading/responding to your replies. Not everyone here has, like you, put their heart and soul into trying to uncover something which will prove Jeremy innocent. Back in the days when I believed him innocent, I never believed he be released. I still believe it to be the case, however, because of my proximity to D'Arcy and my friendship with those -now all in their late 80's/early 90's- who were friends with Nevill and June, my interest is maintained. You do sterling work on Jeremy's behalf. I hope there's a positive pay off.

Thanks but there are many who do "sterling work" including those who claim to believe JB guilty eg Caroline, Myster and Scipio.  It is only through good quality debate that I have learned so much about the case. 

[david1819]

Not really no.  If you have what you consider is a 'forensic evidence breakthrough' why not just keep it to yourself and relevant others eg NBG and AH?  Why the need to announce it on the forum when you are unable and/or unwilling to provide further info.  I thought you or someone said the announcement was intended to 'stimulate debate'!

It has stimulated debate. Compare the forum's monthly visits for May of each year.

May 2015 - 27,727 visits
May 2016 - 55,789 visits
May 2017 - 68,498 visits

I believe all the suspicion about making claims is a culture that formed as a result of Mike's many claims in the past etc.

[adam]

Hmmm Blue and Red are debating forums April  £4%4%  Most contributors to these forums aren't passive recipients of information especially given the contentious nature of the subject matter.

You and your blue friend both believe JB guilty and both claim to know of professionals who believe JB is a psychopath?  I am sure you will forgive any cynicism on my part.

I have had email contact with various forensic scientists.  One in connection with fingerprints and another in connection with blood testing (flake).  I made mention of the emails on the forum and sent copies to Myster (in the guilty camp) for verification.  I absolutely would not expect anyone to take what I say at face value.   

I don't know why posters go down this road:

- Bill's claims that he knows members of EP etc, etc
- David's claims of a forensic evidence breakthrough
- Roch's claims that he now knows SC is 100% responsible but can't say why. 
- You and your Blue friend (Justice) know professionals who have assessed JB as a psychopath

I'm sorry but I say to the lot of you if you can't substantiate your claims don't bother making them.  I do not have the time or inclination for any of this.  A complete waste of time.

I posted this week about Sheila not having any oil, blood or gun shot residue on her or her nightdress.  Meaning she either changed & had a vigourous shower after killing herself, or someone else killed her.

This is an important point & was put into the library. However had no response from supporters.

I've realised supporters like to support Bamber on the basis of possible hidden evidence from EP, claimed withheld knowledge from fellow supporters, or Julie's actions of identifying the twins & staying fairly loyal for 20 days.

The only forensic evidence really brought up by supporters is the silencer, most accusing the relatives of fabricating this. But they don't elaborate and refuse to answer questions on how the relatives expertly achieved this big, risky and complicated frame.

The exceptions are Holly & Mike although Mike rarely interacts with other posters.

[Holly Goodhead]

It has stimulated debate. Compare the forum's monthly visits for May of each year.

May 2015 - 27,727 visits
May 2016 - 55,789 visits
May 2017 - 68,498 visits

I believe all the suspicion about making claims is a culture that formed as a result of Mike's many claims in the past etc.

I admire your self-belief David, really I do!

1.  What is the definition of a 'visit'?
2.  Are the viewing numbers quoted above for the JB board only?
3.  Given that your 'forensic evidence breakthrough' has to remain under wraps as 'it would give the Crown more time to prepare' how has this 'stimulated debate'?   
4.  How do you know the upward trajectory of viewing numbers above is down to your 'forensic evidence breakthrough' and not one or more other factors eg the 30th anniversary in Aug 2015 and the two book launches both of which attracted media attention in the tabloids:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3166636/Bamber-slaughtered-family-25-bullets-told-girlfriend-s-going-years-investigation-leading-author-tell-exactly-happened-night-White-House-Farm-massacre.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/524489/Mass-killer-Jeremy-Bamber-s-threat-to-Scots-author-Harrison

The Simon Hall case also attracted a lot of publicity which spilled over onto the Bamber board: confession, suicide and inquest. 

[Holly Goodhead]

I posted this week about Sheila not having any oil, blood or gun shot residue on her or her nightdress.  Meaning she either changed & had a vigourous shower after killing herself, or someone else killed her.

This is an important point & was put into the library. However had no response from supporters.

I've realised supporters like to support Bamber on the basis of possible hidden evidence from EP, claimed withheld knowledge from other posters or Julie's actions such as identifying the twins or staying fairly loyal for 20 days.

The only forensic evidence really brought up by supporters is the silencer, most accusing the relatives of fabricating this. But they don't elaborate and refuse to answer questions on how the relatives expertly achieved this big, risky and complicated frame.

The exceptions are Holly & Mike although Mike rarely interacts with other posters.

A mention in the same sentence as Mike  &%+((£