Hello from Darren

[David1819]

Hi David I agree with you on the sound moderator which has always seemed to me unreliable but Mr. Justice Drake advised the jury to treat Julie's evidence "with a great deal of caution".

Exactly. In order to believe in guilt or innocence requires a leap of faith somewhat. That's why I have never been convinced of either.

Those convinced of guilt don't question police practices specially from the 1980s. They also don't consider the conflicts of interest and financial interests in obtaining the evidence that has influenced the expert opinions on the case.

Likewise

Those convinced of innocence must take a leap of faith that corruption has taken place.

[guest154]

Exactly. In order to believe in guilt or innocence requires a leap of faith somewhat. That's why I have never been convinced of either.

Those convinced of guilt don't question police practices specially from the 1980s. They also don't consider the conflicts of interest and financial interests in obtaining the evidence that has influenced the expert opinions on the case.

Likewise

Those convinced of innocence must take a leap of faith that corruption has taken place.

Which one do you consider to be the biggest leap, David?

[Adam]

Adam, A sound moderator 'discovered' by his cousins who had a £1,000,000 incentive to convict him is by no means a 'mountain' a forensic evidence.

In the Judge at the trial instructed the Jury that they can find Jeremy Bamber guilty on the evidence of the sound moderator or Mugfords testimony. what ever 'mountain' of forensics your thinking of oviously did not convince the Judge it was conclusive

Please see post 11.

[Adam]

Feel free to ask me to post the 20 forensic reasons why Sheila is innocent.

[David1819]

Feel free to ask me to post the 20 forensic reasons why Sheila is innocent.

Those are not conclusive hence why the Judge did not instruct the Jury that they could find him guilty on those grounds.

There are three reasons why Jeremy could be found guilty as instructed to the jury by the judge

1. The blood in the sound moderator
2. The paint scratches on the cupboard and the paint left on the sound moderator
3. The testimony of Julie Mugford

If one was to debunk all three of these then you have no case what so ever

[David1819]

Which one do you consider to be the biggest leap, David?

can I toss a coin? 

[guest154]

can I toss a coin? 

You can toss whatever you like, but I don't think you should need to! 

[David1819]

You can toss whatever you like, but I don't think you should need to! 

Do you like my Bamber bake off cake?

[guest154]

Looks delicious. I can't read what it says on the side but I m pretty sure it says  "Obviously Jeremy" 

[Steve_uk]

Those are not conclusive hence why the Judge did not instruct the Jury that they could find him guilty on those grounds.

There are three reasons why Jeremy could be found guilty as instructed to the jury by the judge

1. The blood in the sound moderator
2. The paint scratches on the cupboard and the paint left on the sound moderator
3. The testimony of Julie Mugford

If one was to debunk all three of these then you have no case what so ever

It was the telephone call from Nevill to be pedantic which the jury had to consider along with the silencer evidence and Julie's testimony.

[Neil]

Do you like my Bamber bake off cake?

No. I think that it's in appalling bad taste.

[David1819]

Looks delicious. I can't read what it says on the side but I m pretty sure it says  "Obviously Jeremy" 

I made one for both senarios 

[nugnug]

welcome darrwn lookforforawrd to your posts.

[Jane]

Darren, welcome. I hope you won't be put off posting by our in-house wranglings

[Patti]

Welcome to the forum.