For Those That Believe JB Guilty...

[puglove]

John:
I always invoke the duck/rabbit illusion to further these discussions.

I see duck you see rabbit, only one creature exists.

I just see twonk.     &%&£(+


"Hey, Mike!! You're so AWWWWWSOMMMME!!"

 

[puglove]

I just see twonk.     &%&£(+


"Hey, Mike!! You're so AWWWWWSOMMMME!!"

 

Samson. According to you, the Ramseys are innocent. And Pistorius is innocent. And OJ Simpson is innocent. And D...... and Harold Shipman. And Rose West and Hitler.

Massive twonkery.

 

[Samson]

Samson. According to you, the Ramseys are innocent. And Pistorius is innocent. And OJ Simpson is innocent. And D...... and Harold Shipman. And Rose West and Hitler.

Massive twonkery.

 

Not OJ Simpson,  Harold Shipman Rose West or Hitler.
But the Ramseys and Oscar Pistorius told the whole truth. Interestingly the courts agree with some finality.

[adam]

Samson. According to you, the Ramseys are innocent. And Pistorius is innocent. And OJ Simpson is innocent. And D..... and Harold Shipman. And Rose West and Hitler.

Massive twonkery.

 

OJ is innocent. Similar to Bamber he was at home sleeping. Alone.

[steve_trousers]

Okay I understand your position. You have invoked simple modal logic.
One of your premises appears to be that Sheila could not do this crime and remain unsullied. This premise is false, so you should use hard science as requested to prove Nevill did not phone Jeremy.

Obviously this crime can be replicated using actors to show how Sheila could pick up a loaded gun, go upstairs and shoot her mother, shoot her father in the mouth as he came upstairs to investigate, then when he is incapacitated swing the gun by the barrel to bludgeon him, reload the cartridge with her fingernails remote from the cartridge, and shoot again.
Then we can have her lying down and shooting herself twice, after realising the first shot missed her brain.

If necessary she can wash herself before her suicide.

Samson, you asked me to apply 'hard science' to prove the telephone call never took place. Refer to my earlier post, I agree you can't because it was not possible in 1985.
 
This is the point I am repeatedly trying to make to you sir, and for the final time. The significance of the telephone call is that even if he told the truth about the call, it excluded any possibility of 3rd party involvement and so painted himself into a corner.
Thus by his own admission the killer could only be Jeremy or Sheila. Now recall the mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence that confirms that Sheila could not possibly have done it. Case closed.

As the gentleman above mentioned the rest of your post is not worth a sensible response.

[david1819]

Samson, you asked me to apply 'hard science' to prove the telephone call never took place. Refer to my earlier post, I agree you can't because it was not possible in 1985.
 
This is the point I am repeatedly trying to make to you sir, and for the final time. The significance of the telephone call is that even if he told the truth about the call, it excluded any possibility of 3rd party involvement and so painted himself into a corner.
Thus by his own admission the killer could only be Jeremy or Sheila. Now recall the mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence that confirms that Sheila could not possibly have done it. Case closed.

As the gentleman above mentioned the rest of your post is not worth a sensible response.

Such as?

[steve_trousers]

David, I'm not providing yet another list it has all been discussed to death on the pages of this fine forum. You don't need to look very far, It is all here but even a scholar such as yourself refuses to see it.
Another such list would only go over old arguments which have been held up in the light of day and then comprehensively discredited. Some of these arguments beggar belief, please refer to recent posts on this thread alone.
 
There is a veritable mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence on clear view in the public domain proving that Sheila could not possibly have been the protagonist, and that person could only be Jeremy by virtue of his insistence on the s.o.s. call on the night.

[adam]

David, I'm not providing yet another list it has all been discussed to death on the pages of this fine forum. You don't need to look very far, It is all here but even a scholar such as yourself refuses to see it.
Another such list would only go over old arguments which have been held up in the light of day and then comprehensively discredited. Some of these arguments beggar belief, please refer to recent posts on this thread alone.
 
There is a veritable mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence on clear view in the public domain proving that Sheila could not possibly have been the protagonist, and that person could only be Jeremy by virtue of his insistence on the s.o.s. call on the night.

I've already provided a forensic evidence library on the Blue forum. Which has 43 threads on the different forensic evidence which incriminates Bamber.

David's response was to create a thread called 'Forensic Evidence Breakthrough' & then refuse to say what the breakthrough was.

[Holly Goodhead]

Adam/Steve

In 2001/02 the CCRC referrred the case to the CoA based on the blood flake/silencer alone.  If other aspects of the case were strong ie showed in no uncertain terms SC could not be responsible then the CCRC would not have referred. 

If the blood/silencer evidence can be undermined then the case against JB falls.

[steve_trousers]

Adam/Steve

In 2001/02 the CCRC referrred the case to the CoA based on the blood flake/silencer alone.  If other aspects of the case were strong ie showed in no uncertain terms SC could not be responsible then the CCRC would not have referred. 

If the blood/silencer evidence can be undermined then the case against JB falls.

Holly, the blood/silencer evidence is not going to be undermined. I read the 522 point judgment from his 2002 appeal in it's entirety again this evening.
So lets be clear in relation to your above statement in bold, Lord justice Kaye summed up that while the CCRC were right in referring to the court of appeal the original blood evidence stood.

"We do not doubt the safety of the verdicts and we have recorded in our judgment the fact that the more we examined the detail of the case the more likely we thought it to be that the jury were right"

[david1819]

David, I'm not providing yet another list it has all been discussed to death on the pages of this fine forum. You don't need to look very far, It is all here but even a scholar such as yourself refuses to see it.
Another such list would only go over old arguments which have been held up in the light of day and then comprehensively discredited. Some of these arguments beggar belief, please refer to recent posts on this thread alone.
 
There is a veritable mountain of physical, forensic and circumstantial evidence on clear view in the public domain proving that Sheila could not possibly have been the protagonist, and that person could only be Jeremy by virtue of his insistence on the s.o.s. call on the night.

In other words. You have no evidence. Just saying it exists is a hollow argument.

Guiltards often try to make it sound like a mountain of evidence exists. If one insists they see the 'mountain'. Half a dozen very flimsy anecdotal pieces of evidence are put forward as this damning mountain, when careful consideration of it will establish that it really amounts to nothing at all.

[adam]

In other words. You have no evidence. Just saying it exists is a hollow argument.

Guiltards often try to make it sound like a mountain of evidence exists. If one insists they see the 'mountain'. Half a dozen very flimsy anecdotal pieces of evidence are put forward as this damning mountain, when careful consideration of it will establish that it really amounts to nothing at all.

Didn't you create a thread saying 'forensic evidence breakthrough' then refuse to say what the breakthrough was ?

You know the 'forensic evidence library' has 43 threads. Each thread highlighting at least one incriminating piece of forensic evidence against Bamber. Supporters have bravely argued against each thread, but all the 43+ pieces of evidence can't be wrong. There is probably twice as much if I bothered looking.

The library was created because Lookout would ask me every week what forensic evidence there was against Bamber & it would save me having to repeat myself. Nugs would also focus on trying to undermine the silencer on his vision it was the only piece of forensic evidence against Bamber. To be honest, he still does & won't acknowledge the library when I mention it. 

[Samson]

Holly, the blood/silencer evidence is not going to be undermined. I read the 522 point judgment from his 2002 appeal in it's entirety again this evening.
So lets be clear in relation to your above statement in bold, Lord justice Kaye summed up that while the CCRC were right in referring to the court of appeal the original blood evidence stood.

"We do not doubt the safety of the verdicts and we have recorded in our judgment the fact that the more we examined the detail of the case the more likely we thought it to be that the jury were right"

Lord Kaye is a typical judge who sees what he wants.
Science is for scientists, and I have seen judges repeatedly take from expert opinions what they want.

STUDY the David Dougherty appeal in New Zealand, where appeal court judges proved a man screwed his pubescent neighbour, except he did not! They totally butchered the dna evidence.

(the best part was seeing minister of justice Doug Graham suffer the same fate many years on, as director of a failed finance company being found guilty of fraud, he refused to compensate Dougherty because he was god back then)

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly, the blood/silencer evidence is not going to be undermined. I read the 522 point judgment from his 2002 appeal in it's entirety again this evening.
So lets be clear in relation to your above statement in bold, Lord justice Kaye summed up that while the CCRC were right in referring to the court of appeal the original blood evidence stood.

"We do not doubt the safety of the verdicts and we have recorded in our judgment the fact that the more we examined the detail of the case the more likely we thought it to be that the jury were right"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8094.msg403462#msg403462

[Samson]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8094.msg403462#msg403462

Oh yes indeed dear Holly, you are engaging in the craft of pattern observing.
No one of sound mind should ever take any comfort from these direct appeals. They magnify the problem, and the abject fear the common citizenry should have of these evil b........s at the appellate level.
I can't say it more kindly, but I do hope to be repudiated.