The New Silencer Evidence...

[Rob_]

I was talking generally Cc the first word of my post was "If" you do jump the gun sometimes!

[Cambridgecutie]

I was talking generally Cc the first word of my post was "If" you do jump the gun sometimes!

Do you think I didn't know?  I was being facetious    Did you appreciate how it sort of had a world cup football theme to it?

[ILB]

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

There was financial gain at play if Jeremy Bamber was convicted.

[BarefootDanC]

There was financial gain at play if Jeremy Bamber was convicted.

Even if that may have been the case, there would still need to be a reasonable explanation as to how the silencer evidence was fabricated. An explanation which ordinary people could believe.

[Rob_]

Even if that may have been the case, there would still need to be a reasonable explanation as to how the silencer evidence was fabricated. An explanation which ordinary people could believe.

Well if a renowned expert tells me that the silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot, how Sheila's blood got into the silencer is not that important to me anyway.

I can see certain people would have very red faces though.

Most ordinary people would acquit I believe, I don't see how the CCRC has no choice but to now refer.

 

[Jonathan]

Well if a renowned expert tells me that the silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot, how Sheila's blood got into the silencer is not that important to me anyway.

I can see certain people would have very red faces though.

Most ordinary people would acquit I believe, I don't see how the CCRC has no choice but to now refer.

 

it hasn't been submitted to the CCRC

[Cambridgecutie]

Well if a renowned expert tells me that the silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot, how Sheila's blood got into the silencer is not that important to me anyway.

I can see certain people would have very red faces though.

Most ordinary people would acquit I believe, I don't see how the CCRC has no choice but to now refer.

It might not be important to you but it is unlikely the CCRC will share your views.  As far as I can see a precedent has been set in this regard:

"Dr Fowler's report was more substantial but did not address some key trial evidence such as the blood flake and paint marks".

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/640cd161b9c46b56ccb18257

You appear to me to be somewhat naive.  Have you considered what happens if all this is rejected by the CCRC, any judicial review judges or the CoA judges?  Not only is the case back to square 1 but it will undoubtedly result in far more negative mainstream and SM coverage than the case is currently receiving on a positive and neagative basis. 

[Rob_]

It might not be important to you but it is unlikely the CCRC will share your views.  As far as I can see a precedent has been set in this regard:

"Dr Fowler's report was more substantial but did not address some key trial evidence such as the blood flake and paint marks".

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/640cd161b9c46b56ccb18257

You appear to me to be somewhat naive.  Have you considered what happens if all this is rejected by the CCRC, any judicial review judges or the CoA judges?  Not only is the case back to square 1 but it will undoubtedly result in far more negative mainstream and SM coverage than the case is currently receiving on a positive and neagative basis.

I am under no illusions Cc about the CCRC we all know its extremely difficult without something like DNA to overturn a conviction.

I do which you would not keep going on about this though, I am free to express a opinion as we all are.

I was expressing the view that the average person in the street would be quite alarmed that the main piece of evidence to convict a man who has spent over 40 years in jail was fabricated.

[Cambridgecutie]

I am confused!  I started taking an interest in the case during 2010 when the case received some mainstream press coverage and I was reminded of it from 1985, being old enough to remember!  It wasn't until I joined this forum during 2012 when I started looking into the case in any sort of detail.  Around this time 2011/12 there was a lot going on in terms of CCRC submission and then a judicial review.  My understanding at the time was there were 2 main aspects:

- Attempt to support the marks on NB's back/neck inflicted by the barrel of the rifle and not the silencer evidenced by heating the barrel of the rifle and then the silencer and applying both to pig skin in an attempt to discern a difference and match soc images of NB's back/neck wounds

- Attempt to support SC's gunshot wounds inflicted without the silencer by a pathologist looking at images and attempting to discern differences between the abrasion rings and power tattooing.

 The above were rejected by the CCRC and judges at the judicial review.  It seems to me the so-called new evidence is in fact a repeat of 2011/12 unless I have missed something? 

Or is it the two-pronged approach:  Prof Jason Payne-James again looking at images and attempting to discern differences between the abrasion rings and powder tattooing.  And PB also undertaking tests on pig skin with and without silencer in an attempt to discern the difference and show that the pig skin marks without the silencer match soc and autopsy images showing SC's wounds?

[Cambridgecutie]

I am under no illusions Cc about the CCRC we all know its extremely difficult without something like DNA to overturn a conviction.

I do which you would not keep going on about this though, I am free to express a opinion as we all are.

I was expressing the view that the average person in the street would be quite alarmed that the main piece of evidence to convict a man who has spent over 40 years in jail was fabricated.

Its called debating.  If you don't want your posts challenged don't post its simple.

The average person in the street will have no knowledge of JB and even those that do will not be particularly interested.  The fact a dozen or so people here have a fascination with it will not be true for 99.9% of the population. 

[Cambridgecutie]

I am under no illusions Cc about the CCRC we all know its extremely difficult without something like DNA to overturn a conviction.

I do which you would not keep going on about this though, I am free to express a opinion as we all are.

I was expressing the view that the average person in the street would be quite alarmed that the main piece of evidence to convict a man who has spent over 40 years in jail was fabricated.

Was this a typo or a freudian slip and you were thinking of me as a witch?