What doubts on Jeremy's innocence do supporters have ?

[Holly Goodhead]

No-one on IA posts anymore because all the sane ones who believe him guilty have left, and therefore see it as pointless and fruitless arguing with the blinkered. You still haven't got it into your head that greedy good-for-nothings, life insurance chasers, and spoilt little rich boys will commit heinous crimes to get their paws on wads of money. Only Lundy (another hefty insurance payout seeker) in your list is relevant to the Bamber case - you should read up more on the Menendez brothers, the Newalls, and Stephen Seddon.

Sorry to you too mate... there is no doubt in my mind of Jeremy Bamber's guilt.

Hoots, shoots and leaves.

The Newall bros. were eventually caught by Roderick confessing to his uncle who subsequently reported the matter to the police who then bugged a room and in effect secured a taped confession.  This could very easily have been achieved in the Bamber case with the police securing a taped confession via JM:

- JM claims she parted on amicable terms with JB.
- JM claims JB continued to talk about the murders until they parted
- JM claims JB asked if she wanted anything from the house and she said the bike.  JB was due to drop this off to her but it never happened.
- Why didn't EP set up a meet to hand over the bike with JM raising the murders and EP listen in, record, arrest and charge? 

[adam]

Hmmm why would it be expected that 'supporters' have doubts but not those that believe JB guilty?  When I first looked at the case I had a few doubts but not any longer.  I firmly believe JB nnocent and that his conviction will be quashed.

My thread posts says why all supporters will have doubts. Some supporters such as David believe Bamber is guilty but want to support him.

What were you're doubts when you first looked into the case ?

[adam]

No-one on IA posts anymore because all the sane ones who believe him guilty have left, and therefore see it as pointless and fruitless arguing with the blinkered. You still haven't got it into your head that greedy good-for-nothings, life insurance chasers, and spoilt little rich boys will commit heinous crimes to get their paws on wads of money. Only Lundy (another hefty insurance payout seeker) in your list is relevant to the Bamber case - you should read up more on the Menendez brothers, the Newalls, and Stephen Seddon.

Sorry to you too mate... there is no doubt in my mind of Jeremy Bamber's guilt.

Hoots, shoots and leaves.

I would think people are more likely to post on IA because there are no guilters. The Blue forum was still popular when it was just supporters.

Both TomG & Luminous Wanderer left the Blue forum after I pulled apart their theories. While David has joined IA hopeing people will agree with his theories, knowing no one on the Blue & Red forums does.

I suspect it's quiet because Luminous Wanderers posts are long & other supporters either post on other forums or work for the CT instead.

[Holly Goodhead]

My thread posts says why all supporters will have doubts. Some supporters such as David believe Bamber is guilty but want to support him.

What were you're doubts when you first looked into the case ?

Afaik David genuinely believes JB innocent.

[Holly Goodhead]

My thread posts says why all supporters will have doubts. Some supporters such as David believe Bamber is guilty but want to support him.

What were you're doubts when you first looked into the case ?

When I joined Blue 'supporters' would theorise about the location of SC's clothes believing they must have been blood stained with burning in the Aga a favourite.  This didn't sit comfortably with me as there was no evidence of such.  When I looked into the ballistics and pathology I appreciated the nature of victims' wounds and the type of firearm used would not produce back spatter or medium velocity spatter from the "blunt instrument".

[adam]

When I joined Blue 'supporters' would theorise about the location of SC's clothes believing they must have been blood stained with burning in the Aga a favourite.  This didn't sit comfortably with me as there was no evidence of such.  When I looked into the ballistics and pathology I appreciated the nature of victims' wounds and the type of firearm used would not produce back spatter or medium velocity spatter from the "blunt instrument".

Only Sheila's blood being on her has never been a major thing for guilters. Maybe Nevill's blood may have fallen on Sheila during the kitchen fight. Maybe not.

However Sheila being in her exact sleeping clothes which were undamaged, with no gun shot residue or oil on, confirms Sheila's innocence.

[adam]

Afaik David genuinely believes JB innocent.

I disagree with that.

David posted as a hardcore guilter for a long time. He attempted a quiet stance change as he didn't have an evidence reason for the change.

When exposed he eventually said he changed because he realised the relatives could have fabricated the silencer without police assistance. Not sure how that instantly makes Bamber innocent & negates all his guilty reasons.

Even you said his big 'forensic evidence breakthrough' was nothing.

But he's still entitled to support Bamber & entitled to not say what his doubts are on this thread.

[Samson]

I would think people are more likely to post on IA because there are no guilters. The Blue forum was still popular when it was just supporters.

Both TomG & Luminous Wanderer left the Blue forum after I pulled apart their theories. While David has joined IA hopeing people will agree with his theories, knowing no one on the Blue & Red forums does.

I suspect it's quiet because Luminous Wanderers posts are long & other supporters either post on other forums or work for the CT instead.

Consider an analyst like Charlie Wilkes on IA.
He started just 4 threads in the last couple of years, concerning people in jail. All have been subsequently released because of course it was decided by the authorities they were innocent. This is not a liberal mindless pursuit, it shows intense targeting. He knows perfectly well like Holly and me that JB is innocent , and states why showing his working. If you are tired of me lecturing go read a consummate master. Join the forum and shoot him down, that is how to demonstrate your theory of how JB pulled this off. But you won't and can't.

[Caroline]

Consider an analyst like Charlie Wilkes on IA.
He started just 4 threads in the last couple of years, concerning people in jail. All have been subsequently released because of course it was decided by the authorities they were innocent. This is not a liberal mindless pursuit, it shows intense targeting. He knows perfectly well like Holly and me that JB is innocent , and states why showing his working. If you are tired of me lecturing go read a consummate master. Join the forum and shoot him down, that is how to demonstrate your theory of how JB pulled this off. But you won't and can't.

We did and we errrrr ....... did! Charlie stopped posting while I and a few others were debating over there - and why do you call him an analyst? I found Charlie's video of how Sheila could have shot herself most amusing. Perhaps you could post that here?

[adam]

Charlie Wilkes didn't create the Bamber thread on IA and doesn't post much on it. Suspect Samson is bigging him up as he's a poster there I've never engaged with.

I've already engaged with Luminous Wanderer & TomG. Both crying off to IA as they didn't like me pulling apart their theories. While I engaged with David only yesterday, requesting a source from him on Blue, which I am still waiting for.

[Samson]

Charlie Wilkes didn't create the Bamber thread on IA and doesn't post much on it. Suspect Samson is bigging him up as he's a poster there I've never engaged with.

I've already engaged with Luminous Wanderer & TomG. Both crying off to IA as they didn't like me pulling apart their theories. While I engaged with David only yesterday, requesting a source from him on Blue, which I am still waiting for.

Charlie has a record of starting threads for innocent prisoners.
He would never waste time on Bamber if he was not obviously innocent.
You lot are persecuting an innocent man, and that is disgraceful.

[APRIL]

Charlie has a record of starting threads for innocent prisoners.
He would never waste time on Bamber if he was not obviously innocent.
You lot are persecuting an innocent man, and that is disgraceful.

Good ole' Charlie. Sounds like Charlie decides who's going to be innocent and everyone says "Hail, Charlie" with you, as number one fan, saying it loudest.

[Caroline]

Charlie has a record of starting threads for innocent prisoners.
He would never waste time on Bamber if he was not obviously innocent.
You lot are persecuting an innocent man, and that is disgraceful.

I see, Bamber is innocent because Charlie Wilkes thinks so? They should try submitting THAT to the CCRC. 

[Samson]

Good ole' Charlie. Sounds like Charlie decides who's going to be innocent and everyone says "Hail, Charlie" with you, as number one fan, saying it loudest.

He won't waste his time posting here, but an example of his thinking is this, maybe you can help parse it, explain how to persuade Sheila to lie down beside her mother's bullet ridden body, and be shot.

"Heh. Common sense was not in its infancy in 1986. The crown suppressed its application, because it didn't support their accusation. Instead they composed this absurd litany, which the defense accepted as the terms of the contest. No one seriously addressed the problem of how someone could have faked the suicide found at this crime scene.

I have seen "bloodstain pattern analysis" abused to the point where it has become yet another field of junk science applied by both prosecutors and defense lawyers to mislead courts. That is the progress we have made since 1986.

BUT, bloodstains sometimes have obvious implications, for those who are capable of grasping the obvious. Vanezis is no expert in the field, nor am I, and yet he saw the same thing we do. Which is why the crown had to get him to revise his original findings."

[Caroline]

He won't waste his time posting here, but an example of his thinking is this, maybe you can help parse it, explain how to persuade Sheila to lie down beside her mother's bullet ridden body, and be shot.

"Heh. Common sense was not in its infancy in 1986. The crown suppressed its application, because it didn't support their accusation. Instead they composed this absurd litany, which the defense accepted as the terms of the contest. No one seriously addressed the problem of how someone could have faked the suicide found at this crime scene.

I have seen "bloodstain pattern analysis" abused to the point where it has become yet another field of junk science applied by both prosecutors and defense lawyers to mislead courts. That is the progress we have made since 1986.

BUT, bloodstains sometimes have obvious implications, for those who are capable of grasping the obvious. Vanezis is no expert in the field, nor am I, and yet he saw the same thing we do. Which is why the crown had to get him to revise his original findings."

And we won't waste our time posting there - tried it and it's just full of people who don't know the case, talking about other cases. However, for anyone interested, I found the post made by your hero which contains a link to the  video which is supposed to clear up how Sheila shot herself. Lets see what others think?


http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=2931&start=4100#p180605