If JB's Conviction Is Quashed At CoA Would You 'Guilters' Consider Him Innocent?

[Rob_]

Sheila's 2 shots were described as contact & close range. Either can produce back spatter.

The CT will keep paying experts to claim the silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot. Which would mean Jeremy was aware beforehand of back spatter & that the rifle was too long for Sheila with silencer attached. So put it away after killing the other people & before killing Sheila.

It would mean the blood is a mixture of June & Nevill's. Which is possible as they were shot 15 times.

If that is enough for a technicality, not many guilters will change stance.

The shots to June were around 1 foot or more away so extremely unlikely.

 

[Adam]

The shots to June were around 1 foot or more away so extremely unlikely.

Some shots into Nevill & June were close range.

[Rob_]

Some shots into Nevill & June were close range.

Needs to be extremely close, all Junes shots were a foot or more so very very unlikely.

[Cambridgecutie]

Suppose the case was refers to the Court of Appeal based on "the five experts who say Sheila was shot without the silencer on", if the Court of Appeal accepted the evidence, which is a very big if and concluded that the blood in the silencer may have been a mixture of the parents blood (the defence case at trial), I would still think that Jeremy was very probably guilty based on the rest of the evidence.

With 40 years having passed, a re-trial maybe impossible.

Who are the 5 experts?  PB, the two pathologists from Italy and another two from the US?

[Cambridgecutie]

The shots to June were around 1 foot or more away so extremely unlikely.

Of the seven injuries suffered by June Bamber, five were shots from the gun held at
least one foot away from the body. The bullet wound between the eyes was fired from
less than one foot away, and could have been with the gun in contact with the skin,
although he viewed that as unlikely. Mr Fletcher was unable to estimate the range of
the shot which had caused the injury to the right side of Mrs Bamber’s chest.

[Cambridgecutie]

Needs to be extremely close, all Junes shots were a foot or more so very very unlikely.

Of the seven injuries suffered by June Bamber, five were shots from the gun held at
least one foot away from the body. The bullet wound between the eyes was fired from
less than one foot away, and could have been with the gun in contact with the skin,
although he viewed that as unlikely. Mr Fletcher was unable to estimate the range of
the shot which had caused the injury to the right side of Mrs Bamber’s chest.

[Adam]

Jeremy made the effort to take the sights off. Maybe seconds before going upstairs.

So he would spend a few seconds putting a silencer on. It was a silent massacre attempt.

Not impossible he took the silencer off after the kitchen struggle & before shooting Sheila. However the evidence is she received contact/close range shots in areas of high blood flow. Thirteen out of 17 marks of the blood inside the silencer matched Sheila's.

[Cambridgecutie]

Jeremy made the effort to take the sights off. Maybe seconds before going upstairs.

So he would spend a few seconds putting a silencer on. It was a silent massacre attempt.

Not impossible he took the silencer off after the kitchen struggle & before shooting Sheila. However the evidence is she received contact/close range shots in areas of high blood flow. Thirteen our of 17 marks of the blood inside the silencer matched Sheila's.

The CoA concluded:

497. We, therefore, consider the matter on the basis that the conclusions to be drawn from
the DNA evidence are:
i) June Bamber’s DNA was in the sound moderator at the time of the DNA
examination;
ii) Sheila Caffell’s DNA may have been in the sound moderator but it was not
possible to conclude one way or the other whether it was; and
iii) there was evidence of DNA from at least one male.

And in any event the DNA testing was based on LCN (low copy number), meaning it was not possible to identify the biological source(s), and as no preventative measures were put in place to prevent cross-contamination the source of DNA could have been from blood on nightwear or even skin cells.

The CoA concluded:

506. We have no doubt at all that if this evidence had been placed before a jury, they
would have concluded, as we do, that in accordance with the emphasised part of Mr
Webster’s report quoted above, the DNA testing results were rendered completely
“completely meaningless”.

[BarefootDanC]

The shots to June were around 1 foot or more away so extremely unlikely.

This was the defence case at trial and at the appeal, including the 2002 appeal.