The New Silencer Evidence...

[ILB]

Not sure how it could vary. "Actually on reflection I don't think my father did phone me".

Forty years on we can't prove a phone call never took place.

The beauty of 1985 eh.

[Adam]

Forty years on we can't prove a phone call never took place.

The beauty of 1985 eh.

All the forensic and circumstantial evidence does make Jeremy guilty.

So no phone call.

[Jonathan]

Forty years on we can't prove a phone call never took place.

The beauty of 1985 eh.

the court heard that Nevill was too badly injured to have made such a call

[ILB]

All the forensic and circumstantial evidence does make Jeremy guilty.

So no phone call.

Could have made a, call prior to injury.

[ILB]

the court heard that Nevill was too badly injured to have made such a call

Could have made a, phone call before the injury.

[Adam]

Could have made a, call prior to injury.

All the forensic and circumstantial evidence confirms Jeremy is guilty.

No call was made by Nevill.

[ILB]

All the forensic and circumstantial evidence confirms Jeremy is guilty.

No call was made by Nevill.

What circumstantial evidence ?

[Adam]

What circumstantial evidence ?

Only alive suspect.

No alibi.

Motives.

Giving Julie updates.

Available route & bike.

[David1819]

Barristers have the knack for knowing what a jury of ordinary is likely to believe. Many theories which Bamber supporters are prepared to entertain are unlikely to be believe by ordinary people.

This was back in 1986 and Jeremy knew Ann Eaton personally. It has nothing to do with supporters coming up with theories on the internet.

[ILB]

Only alive suspect.

No alibi.

Motives.

Giving Julie updates.

Available route & bike.

Well he was a bereaved relative until he dumped a girl.

[BarefootDanC]

This was back in 1986 and Jeremy knew Ann Eaton personally. It has nothing to do with supporters coming up with theories on the internet.

The polnt remains that ordinary people would not believe that Ann Eaton had planted Sheila's blood in the sound moderator.

There was also a lot of evidence that the silencer was on the gun, so the judge would have directed the jury to ignore the defence theory that it was fabricated.

[Rob_]

The polnt remains that ordinary people would not believe that Ann Eaton had planted Sheila's blood in the sound moderator.

There was also a lot of evidence that the silencer was on the gun, so the judge would have directed the jury to ignore the defence theory that it was fabricated.

If ordinary people on a jury are told by four or five renowned world experts there was no silencer on the rifle when Sheila was shot how can the judge instruct the jury to ignore this?

It is the corner stone of the prosecution's case.         

[David1819]

The polnt remains that ordinary people would not believe that Ann Eaton had planted Sheila's blood in the sound moderator.

There was also a lot of evidence that the silencer was on the gun, so the judge would have directed the jury to ignore the defence theory that it was fabricated.

Yet ordinary people do suspect and believe just that. Despite the trial defence effectively confined the entire cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses to the prosecution's benefit. Nor can a judge  issue binding instructions to ignore the entirety of a defense's narrative.

[Cambridgecutie]

If ordinary people on a jury are told by four or five renowned world experts there was no silencer on the rifle when Sheila was shot how can the judge instruct the jury to ignore this?

It is the corner stone of the prosecution's case.       

Oridinary people on a jury were not told by four or five renowned world experts there was no silencer on the rifle when Sheila was shot. 

Orrdinary people on a jury were told that SC used the silencer, removed it, returned it to the downstairs gun cupboard and then went upstairs to shoot herself.  The judge, perhaps understandably based on the defence argument, told the jury the sound moderator could, however, “on its own” lead them to conclude that Jeremy was guilty.

Are the 4 or 5 experts you refer to world renowned?  Top of their game?  Best of breed?  The equivalent of Lionel Messi to the beautiful game?  I have no idea because I have not seen the evidence to support your claim.  In any event the 4 or 5 experts are no longer required to persuade ordinary people on a jury.  They are now required to pursuade the CCRC and 3 appeal court judges and this is a very different ball game!

I would suggest the 4 or 5 experts have fallen short because there are a number of aspects to the silencer evidence:

- Blood
- Paint
- Scratches

The 4 or 5 experts need to completely demolish the above before its game over! 

[Adam]

The defence at trial did not dispute the blood, paint and scratches on the silencer.

Jeremy from the mid 90's & then with the help of supporters has been using the silencer to try to get a technicality. Partly because the relatives found it.