Jeremy Bamber believes Sheila did not kill herself?

[Jonathan]

Interesting to read the recent article in the Sun. One of the grounds with the CCRC contends that Sheila was shot at a distance - so clearly could not have killed herself. I wonder who Jeremy believes killed Sheila?

[Adam]

Interesting to read the recent article in the Sun. One of the grounds with the CCRC contends that Sheila was shot at a distance - so clearly could not have killed herself. I wonder who Jeremy believes killed Sheila?

They must be accusing the police of shooting Sheila. From a distance.

[Adam]

https://youtu.be/_i2CjYDJGTo?si=2Y-TqEFdpObIXo4L

They have changed there tune on the burn marks.

[Adam]

'Inconsistencies in police logs'. How does that make him innocent?

What exhibits were contaminated? Contamination has become more popular from the defence at trials since DNA.

[Cambridgecutie]

Interesting to read the recent article in the Sun. One of the grounds with the CCRC contends that Sheila was shot at a distance - so clearly could not have killed herself. I wonder who Jeremy believes killed Sheila?

I'm unable to access the article as its behind a paywall and no way am I paying to join/read The Sun! 

[Adam]

I'm unable to access the article as its behind a paywall and no way am I paying to join/read The Sun!

Please confirm that you are now a guilter. Otherwise I will assume you are.

You have no new evidence to support your proposed grounds to the CCRC.

[ngb1066]

Interesting to read the recent article in the Sun. One of the grounds with the CCRC contends that Sheila was shot at a distance - so clearly could not have killed herself. I wonder who Jeremy believes killed Sheila?

I think the Sun have misunderstood this part of the evidence.  I suspect "at a distance" really means not a contact shot.  Remember, the Sun have not directly investigated the case, they are picking up on other reports.

 

[Cambridgecutie]

Please confirm that you are now a guilter.  Otherwise I will assume you are.

You have no new evidence to support your proposed grounds to the CCRC.

I rather think others can make up their own minds on whether or not I am a 'guilter' as you put it!

You have no idea what evidence I have to submit to the CCRC.  Why on earth would any right thinking person upload such to the internet?

[Jonathan]

I think the Sun have misunderstood this part of the evidence.  I suspect "at a distance" really means not a contact shot.  Remember, the Sun have not directly investigated the case, they are picking up on other reports.

Presumably their source is Bamber or his team. If "at a distance" actually means not a contact shot still means they believe Sheila didn't kill herself.

[Adam]

I rather think others can make up their own minds on whether or not I am a 'guilter' as you put it!

You have no idea what evidence I have to submit to the CCRC.  Why on earth would any right thinking person upload such to the internet?

Lol.

You are a guilter with no new evidence.

[Cambridgecutie]

Lol.

You are a guilter with no new evidence.

Lol

You are someone with too much time on your hands.

[ngb1066]

Presumably their source is Bamber or his team. If "at a distance" actually means not a contact shot still means they believe Sheila didn't kill herself.

I do not think you are right on either point.

[Jonathan]

I do not think you are right on either point.

How does the Sun know his grounds of appeal?

If the wounds are not contact wounds how did Sheila kill herself?

[Cambridgecutie]

How does the Sun know his grounds of appeal?

If the wounds are not contact wounds how did Sheila kill herself?

The wounds could be 'hard contact', 'contact' or 'near contact'.  Hard is with the barrel pressed firmly against the skin.  Contact is with the barrel loosely pressed against the skin and near contact is a distance of 1mm to 3mm from the skin.

[Jonathan]

The wounds could be 'hard contact', 'contact' or 'near contact'.  Hard is with the barrel pressed firmly against the skin.  Contact is with the barrel loosely pressed against the skin and near contact is a distance of 1mm to 3mm from the skin.

How might this show the convictions are unsafe?