Emma Morris

[ILB]

The gun is simple to use.

A child could have used it

This is not a pro Bamber point in any shape or form. It's simple fact

Regardless of interest.

[Adam]

If it's a straightforward case why was it a majority verdict? The truth is there was severe doubt in the jury and they only convicted after being misdirected by the judge.

The judge was right about the silencer. The jury giving a quick verdict afterwards.

There is also a mountain of other forensic evidence. The  COA judges and head of the Stokechurch 16 month investigation saying there is no doubt of Bamber's guilt.

[Jane]

The gun is simple to use.

A child could have used it

This is not a pro Bamber point in any shape or form. It's simple fact

Regardless of interest.

But could a child have loaded it?

[ILB]

But could a child have loaded it?

Shelia could.

[ILB]

The judge was right about the silencer. The jury giving a quick verdict afterwards.

There is also a mountain of other forensic evidence. The  COA judges and head of the Stokechurch 16 month investigation saying there is no doubt of Bamber's guilt.

Stokenchurch is not evidence against Bamber. It was undertaken to look into potential police wrong doing.In fairness it vindicated Ainsley et al against Bamber and his legal teams allegations.

[Rob_]

But could a child have loaded it?

I think so but not the whole magazine maybe the first 7 or 8 bullets as the last few bullets get quite stiff to insert.

I think this may explain why Nevil was shot 8 times, June 7 times and the twins 8 times between them.

[ILB]

Doubt they have the funds.  It would just be interesting to know MDF's findings would be backed up by other scientists.
The defence already has unchallenged, peer reviewed papers from burns and ballistics experts regarding Sheila's gunshots.  I'm just interested in finding out whether any scientists would back Fletcher.

Someone has been throwing money at it in the past though Arizona tests et al.

I can remember some legal challenges from many years ago. I don't think it was all legal aid related.

[Cambridgecutie]

If it's a straightforward case why was it a majority verdict? The truth is there was severe doubt in the jury and they only convicted after being misdirected by the judge.

The jury returned majority verdicts on Huntely 11-1.  Does anyone dispute its a straighforward case?

Bit disrespectful towards the learned judge. 

[Cambridgecutie]

If it's a straightforward case why was it a majority verdict? The truth is there was severe doubt in the jury and they only convicted after being misdirected by the judge.

It was dealt with at Bamber's first appeal:

The application for leave to appeal 155. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his convictions on grounds drawn by those who represented him at trial. The grounds upon which leave was sought related to the judge's summing up, alleging (a) that he had inaccurately assessed significant aspects of the prosecution case and omitted to refer to crucial aspects of the defence case, and (b) that he had with persistence and strength expressed opinions adverse to the defence.

156. Following rejection of the grounds by the single judge, the matter was heard by the full court. The Court rejected the criticisms of the summing up and refused leave. Lord Lane, LCJ giving the judgment observed:

"What is sometimes overlooked is that a direction to the jury reflects the sort of case with which the Judge was dealing. A strong prosecution case will inevitably result in what may be strong comments. Exactly the same with a strong defence case, that may justify strong comments."

157. It seems clear from the judgment as a whole, that the Court were of the opinion that this was a strong prosecution case that merited the comments about which complaint was made. The court, therefore, rejected the proposed grounds and concluded that there was "nothing unsafe or unsatisfactory about this conviction",

[Roch]

Bit disrespectful towards the learned judge.

Especially one who already had numerous wrongful convictions chalked up in his legal career.

[Zoso]

Sheila would have used the gun how she found it, if there was no silencer on the gun she would not have gone looking for one.

She lived on a farm and would have had a good idea of how guns worked, and I have seen videos saying a child could have operated the .22

She would have found it 'without' the magazine! Did any of these video's claim that a delusional psychotic could use it? Did they say that these children operated the weapon without being shown? I have a good idea od how they work, there's a trigger and you pull it. However, until I got interested in the Bamber case, I'd have had no idea how a semi-automatic rifle works. Its rifle was a new addition so it would have been as familiar to Sheila as it was to me and that's without the added complication of psychosis.

[Adam]

Both Nevill and June were still awake and out of bed after Bamber left from supper.

So likely they were both in the area where the rifle, cartridge and bullets were apparently left. Either together or seperately. One of them would have put everything away.

Surprised Bamber didn't put everything away himself. Bit rude not clearing up after himself in someone else's house.

[Jane]

Shelia could.

That's a very sweeping statement. It could only have been more so had you claimed her to have been taking lessons!

[Cambridgecutie]

Especially one who already had numerous wrongful convictions chalked up in his legal career.

How many trials did he preside over/how many convictions overturned?

[Cambridgecutie]

Shelia could.

The forensic evidence and witness testimony suggest otherwise.  The jury agreed.