Pros & cons of the defence scenario

[Adam]

The prosecution bring the case against the defendant.

The defence present their case, they're case was the crown hadn't proven the case against Jeremy beyond reasonable doubt.

Need to see evidence of Rivlins shelia scenario you are purporting. Accept that it was an agreed fact between pro and def that it was either Jeremy or Shelia.

The defence are not going to suggest a kitchen conversation with 20 'maybe's'. That is for supporters on forums. The evidence does not support this.

Both sides at court start from the opening evidence -

The rifle was picked up.

June and Nevill were shot from close range in/by there bed.

Nevill got downstairs.

----------

Once in the kitchen both sides differ.

The prosecution saying Bamber instantly attacked Nevill.

The defence saying Nevill started ringing Bamber's AM & managed to speak to him.

[ILB]

The defence are not going to suggest a kitchen conversation with 20 'maybe's'. That is for supporters on forums. The evidence does not support this.

Both sides at court start from the opening evidence -

The rifle was picked up.

June and Nevill were shot from close range in/by there bed.

Nevill got downstairs.

----------

Once in the kitchen both sides differ.

The prosecution saying Bamber instantly attacked Nevill.

The defence saying Nevill started ringing Bamber's AM & managed to speak to him.

The defence are not going to suggest anything except poke holes in the case and try to make sure the charges are not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

You kept saying the defence Shelia scenario, what is it?

I know Rivlin didnt have a Shelia scenario. You suggested he did do.

[Adam]

Believe CAL's Bamber scenario was also EP's. Agree with some of it.

The prosecution had several transport options & routes for Bamber. They had to choose & stick on one - cycling The Sea Wall.

Similar for the defence & a Sheila scenario. They had to choose and  stick on one.

It had to match the crime scene evidence of Sheila being able to pick up a rifle and then shoot June/Nevill 9 times in/by the bed from close range. Without being disarmed.

[Adam]

The defence are not going to suggest anything except poke holes in the case and try to make sure the charges are not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

You kept saying the defence Shelia scenario, what is it?

I know Rivlin didnt have a Shelia scenario. You suggested he did do.

My thread post has the defence Sheila scenario. Together with the pros and cons.

The defence can't invent a kitchen conversation with a fully fit 6.4 man & fully fit sleeping woman. It would put too much doubt in the jury as it does not match the crime scene evidence. 

[Steve_uk]

The defence are not going to suggest anything except poke holes in the case and try to make sure the charges are not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

You kept saying the defence Shelia scenario, what is it?

I know Rivlin didnt have a Shelia scenario. You suggested he did do.

From the Blood Relations book (Chapter 11) Rivlin quoted Bernard Knight, that the bible lying by Sheila's side was typical of a suicide scenario. He also felt that he would have expected the two shots to the chin to be different if inflicted by a third party, commenting also that it would have been difficult for someone to inflict the shots without Sheila objecting.

[Adam]

If the defence did not submit a Sheila scenario, that gave the prosecution the iniative.

They could create a Sheila scenario matching the crime scene evidence. Then oppose it - no blood on phone, Nevill unable to speak.

The jury are not going to believe Nevill would start ringing Bamber's AM after being shot 4 times in/by the bed.

[Adam]

The defence at trial together with the CT & Bamber not supplying a Sheila scenario is very incriminating.

Supporters on forums have supplied a Sheila scenario, but it always has a fully fit bare footed Nevill in the kitchen & 20-30 'maybe's'. So is instantly dismissed.

Forty years on and still much work to do.

[ILB]

The defence at trial together with the CT & Bamber not supplying a Sheila scenario is very incriminating.

Your idiocy knows no bounds.

From a neutral perspective, an innocent man would be none the wiser to what went on. He would be essentially in the same position as me and you. He can have an opinion. It seems his is simply " i dont know what happened"

( source David James Smith interview of Jeremy Bamber HMP Full Sutton 2010)



Secondly his counsels job at trial is raise reasonable doubt. I dont have the transcripts of the closing speech made by Rivlin so  I cant be exact but apart from " Shelia Caffell killed the family" I highly doubt he went into an indepth shelia scenario. Its not his job to, as you say it makes good forum fodder.

[ILB]

Seems the defence though rode heavily on Shelias mental health problems.

Back in the 80s attitudes were very different. And of course to all extent and purposes the defendant was a well spoken, reasonably handsome guy. Privately educated etc

They probably thought common sense would win the day. They painted a picture of this unfortunate man suffering two double whammys

[ILB]

From the Blood Relations book (Chapter 11) Rivlin quoted Bernard Knight, that the bible lying by Sheila's side was typical of a suicide scenario. He also felt that he would have expected the two shots to the chin to be different if inflicted by a third party, commenting also that it would have been difficult for someone to inflict the shots without Sheila objecting.

That's a view I share.

Apart from that though he didn't to my knowledge submit a scenario of what Adam suggests, starting point to end.

[ILB]

I think people forget how different the time era is.

Only two years earlier a cheif constable was videoed saying it was perfectly acceptable to use racial language.

Mental health was heavily stigmatised. Rivlin used this to his advantage ( and of course if you believe the main man in the case is gulity, so did he)

[Adam]

Your idiocy knows no bounds.

From a neutral perspective, an innocent man would be none the wiser to what went on. He would be essentially in the same position as me and you. He can have an opinion. It seems his is simply " i dont know what happened"



Secondly his counsels job at trial is raise reasonable doubt. I dont have the transcripts of the closing speech made by Rivlin so  I cant be exact but apart from " Shelia Caffell killed the family" I highly doubt he went into an indepth shelia scenario. Its not his job to, as you say it makes good forum fodder.

No wonder you were banned from FB. Being rude again.

You said yourself the defence did not say when Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM. This together with Bamber & the CT refusing to give a scenario after 40 years & supporters scenarios being dismissed is very incriminating. 

Seems it was up to the prosecution to say when Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM.  Then dismiss it! - no blood on phone, unable to speak. My thread post also has several other cons.

Smart move by them.

[Adam]

Either the defence said Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM after he had been shot 4 times in/by his bed. Or the prosecution did.

Either way, the prosecution opposed it.

The defence couldn't then give an alternative scenario as none match the crime scene evidence.

A big problem for the defence at trial. The jury were never going to believe Nevill would start phoning Bamber's AM after being shot 4 times.

[Steve_uk]

Your idiocy knows no bounds.

From a neutral perspective, an innocent man would be none the wiser to what went on. He would be essentially in the same position as me and you. He can have an opinion. It seems his is simply " i dont know what happened"

( source David James Smith interview of Jeremy Bamber HMP Full Sutton 2010)



Secondly his counsels job at trial is raise reasonable doubt. I dont have the transcripts of the closing speech made by Rivlin so  I cant be exact but apart from " Shelia Caffell killed the family" I highly doubt he went into an indepth shelia scenario. Its not his job to, as you say it makes good forum fodder.

I had said on the way in that I feared I would find him repulsive, but in the event I found him all too human and understandable. Except for the part of him that I felt was hidden. The corner of his soul that carried the knowledge of what had really happened that night 25 years ago, and who really had killed his family.

He knows the truth. And he is the only person in the world who does.

Was it Sheila? Was it Jeremy?

Reader, I have no idea.

He's contradicting himself several times in this extract, though it makes good copy. https://davidjamessmith.net/pdf_articles/DJS_bamber.pdf

[ILB]

No wonder you were banned from FB. Being rude again.

You said yourself the defence did not say when Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM. This together with Bamber & the CT refusing to give a scenario after 40 years & supporters scenarios being dismissed is very incriminating. 

Seems it was up to the prosecution to say when Nevill started phoning Bamber's AM.  Then dismiss it! - no blood on phone, unable to speak. My thread post also has several other cons.

Smart move by them.

It is not rudeness, I asked you numerous times to source Rivlins scenario.

You are as per usual attempting to goad.