"Murder, Mystery And My Family"

[lookout]

A logical explanation!

I've already given one,how about you ?

[Caroline]

I've already given one,how about you ?

How about me what?

[lookout]

How about me what?

Giving an explanation. About tracking down a criminal/murderer. How would you go about it ?

[Caroline]

Giving an explanation. About tracking down a criminal/murderer. How would you go about it ?

Evidence, physical or circumstantial.

[Jane]

No,I'm sure you can't. It happens with many who are faced with logical explanations !

I can't find where you given anything other than sentimentality.

[lookout]

I can't find where you given anything other than sentimentality.

Well that's par for the course isn't it as you'll only look for what YOU WANT to see won't you ??
Sentimentality ? Don't be so ridiculous.

[Jane]

Well that's par for the course isn't it as you'll only look for what YOU WANT to see won't you ??
Sentimentality ? Don't be so ridiculous.

Ridiculous? How can sentimentality -ie a gut feeling- stand up against physical or circumstantial evidence?

[lookout]

Ridiculous? How can sentimentality -ie a gut feeling- stand up against physical or circumstantial evidence?

Of course it can when you now look at what's happening with your circumstantial evidence re.JB particularly. Where does the physical come in when it's not proven ?

[Jane]

Of course it can when you now look at what's happening with your circumstantial evidence re.JB particularly. Where does the physical come in when it's not proven ?

He wasn't the first and he won't be the last to be convicted on circumstantial evidence. Remember, the only evidence there'd have been against Sheila, had they gone along with what Jeremy told them, would have been circumstantial. I bet you wouldn't be complaining about that....................and you have the gall to talk about double standards!

[lookout]

He wasn't the first and he won't be the last to be convicted on circumstantial evidence. Remember, the only evidence there'd have been against Sheila, had they gone along with what Jeremy told them, would have been circumstantial. I bet you wouldn't be complaining about that....................and you have the gall to talk about double standards!

On the contrary,I'd have been quite satisfied if someone would have bothered their arse going into the background of Sheila too---------but they didn't did they ? It was ALL about Jeremy !
No double standards with me at all.

[lookout]

Because JB told EP about Sheila's health,would you not have thought that someone would have sat down and studied her background and lifestyle,etc. They probably didn't know the half of it and just took JB's word for it------------even though it wasn't believed so they all put it down to the fact that he was trying to put the blame on her.

[Jane]

On the contrary,I'd have been quite satisfied if someone would have bothered their arse going into the background of Sheila too---------but they didn't did they ? It was ALL about Jeremy !
No double standards with me at all.

If I believed that, I'd believe anything. ANY evidence regarding Sheila would have been circumstantial. Why should her past illness have any bearing on what happened? It certainly WAS all about Jeremy. Why would it not have been? He was on trial for murder. There was no reason to go through the personal history of one of his victims.

[Jane]

Because JB told EP about Sheila's health,would you not have thought that someone would have sat down and studied her background and lifestyle,etc. They probably didn't know the half of it and just took JB's word for it------------even though it wasn't believed so they all put it down to the fact that he was trying to put the blame on her.

But they did, didn't they? Not that there were that many who had known her. Still, they spoke to her ex husband and her doctors and her friends. I don't know why you think her lifestyle should be bought into it. You don't seem to think that Jeremy's chosen lifestyle had any bearing on it. They only knew of her -in the beginning- what Jeremy had told them. Why would they have known more of her?

[Jane]

Although it hadn't been my intention to link this series with the Bamber case, it has so happened. Thus, an interesting fact has arisen. According to Basil Purdue, a'modern day' pathologist, it isn't safely possible to determine TOD by the undigested stomach contents of a victim. There is a window of up to 5 and a half hours. It seems that it's no longer safe to assume that Sheila died much later than the rest of the family.

Also of interest is the number of times it's acknowledged that the jury were in the best position to evaluate evidence because they could make judgement calls on how the evidence was delivered and witnesses demeanour and body language.

'Today's' Judge, whilst saying that one of the original experiments which used a weapon slightly different from the one used in the crime, and may have led the jury down a certain path, saw no reason for the conviction not to stand.

[lookout]

The stomach contents seemed to refer to tomato skins which do remain in the system for longer than other easier digestible substances. I understood there was a ceiling time of 2 hours regarding undigested food in the gut ?
 However the unacceptable experiment involving the hammer and because it had been carried out by the pathologist would have gone a long way to convicting the man because of its acceptance by the jury who saw the experiment befitting to the crime.

People will listen to what a pathologist has to say rather than the accused spouting his innocence. Well they did back in those days,but thankfully with people more educated today and much more likely to work things out for themselves such experiments wouldn't pass muster.