Gun tests in Arizona

[grahameb]

Roch I strongly believe it has been certain parties desire to actively strive to find ways or reasons to keep JB in the frame for these killings since he was found guilty (without the silencer evidence - which I believe was tampered with - I believe JB would have been found NOT guilty)!

In fact the striving by certain parties started before JB was found guilty!

If I didn't believe that Sheila was responsible for the killings I would dare to suggest that the relatives were all too early to come up with the claim that Jeremy was responsible for the crime? As if they know something that no one else did? The were too eager in their accusations to put Jeremy in the frame that it almost throws suspicion upon themselves?

[Newbury1]

Nick , the other day , you was saying ' what JB need's is evidence to get the CCRC to refer the case back to the COA ' now he as that , you seem to want more , it appear's to me if JM said ' she was lying ' you would try and say that is irrelevant also !! JB said all along ' the gun he left had no moderator fitted ' , EP went to court and never accepted this , if it is now found that JB told the truth at the start and EP never you can hardly expect the conviction's not to be overturned !!

Hi Jon,

I quoted - "On the flip side; there is not one piece of hard evidence (yet!) that proves JB did not kill his family!"

I still do not think JB has the hard evidence to prove he did not kill them.

I believe what is being discussed on here, and presented to the CCRC, is simply counter circumstantial evidence, and I do not think that is enough - we will see and I am prepared to stand (or sit) corrected if the case is referred!

[Roch]

Hi Jon,

I quoted - "On the flip side; there is not one piece of hard evidence (yet!) that proves JB did not kill his family!"

I still do not think JB has the hard evidence to prove he did not kill them.

I believe what is being discussed on here, and presented to the CCRC, is simply counter circumstantial evidence, and I do not think that is enough - we will see and I am prepared to stand (or sit) corrected if the case is referred!

Nick, was the silencer evidence not the 'central plank' in Jeremy Bamber's conviction?  Are you not stretching it a bit to portray these new findings as 'circumstantial'?

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

I still do not think JB has the hard evidence to prove he did not kill them.

Does JB need to produce hard evidence to prove he did not kill his family? Is it not simply sufficient that he disprove evidence that was relied on by the prosecution at his trial?

[jon]

Hi Jon,

I quoted - "On the flip side; there is not one piece of hard evidence (yet!) that proves JB did not kill his family!"

I still do not think JB has the hard evidence to prove he did not kill them.

I believe what is being discussed on here, and presented to the CCRC, is simply counter circumstantial evidence, and I do not think that is enough - we will see and I am prepared to stand (or sit) corrected if the case is referred!

When will the camel break the straw's back for you ? You want to keep a man in prison when you can not even put him at the scene of the crime at the relevant time !! What evidence keep's him convicted in your mind Nick ?

[JackiePreece]

Ngb the court of appeal could rule unsafe conviction couldn't they?

[JackiePreece]

Nick I am struggling with your 80%?

Curiousessex could I ask your % I bet it's way lower!!!

[Newbury1]

Nick, was the silencer evidence not the 'central plank' in Jeremy Bamber's conviction?  Are you not stretching it a bit to portray these new findings as 'circumstantial'?

Roch the silencer evidence as presented by the prosecution was still circumstantial; even though it convinced the Jury to find guilty.

The defence had counter circumstantial points at the time (mix of two bloods, a rabbits etc) but this failed to impress the Jury!

The new counter circumstantial evidence (the non use of a silencer) may be strong, but will it convince the CCRC? - a totally different beast to a Jury!




If the CCRC believe no silencer was used they simply have to admit the possibility that the silencer as presented by the prosecution was tampered with - bloody dynamite!!

[ngb1066]

Ngb the court of appeal could rule unsafe conviction couldn't they?

Yes they could.  If new evidence is presented which undermines a central plank of the prosecution case the Court of Appeal can quash the convictions.

 

[grahameb]

I believe what is being discussed on here, and presented to the CCRC, is simply counter circumstantial evidence, and I do not think that is enough - we will see and I am prepared to stand (or sit) corrected if the case is referred!

I beg to differ. What is being discussed here is hard evidence that demonstrates that a silencer was not used. And as Jamber (even Bamber  )was convicted on circumstancial evidence this hard evidence disproves that circumstancial evidence. It is not meant to "prove" that Bamber did not commit murder. But it does demonstrate that his conviction was unsafe. That is all it is meant to do. Indeed that is all it is meant to do.

[Newbury1]

Nick I am struggling with your 80%?

Curiousessex could I ask your % I bet it's way lower!!!

Jackie my % doesn't really matter. My opinion is not that impoartant in the scheme of things!

My 80% simply represents that fact that I more inclined to believe in JB's guilt than innocence; although I accept there are certain areas that could point to JB not being involved.

If I am proved wrong then so be it.

[Newbury1]

When will the camel break the straw's back for you ? You want to keep a man in prison when you can not even put him at the scene of the crime at the relevant time !! What evidence keeps him convicted in your mind Nick ?

This is not the case.

I want to see an innocent man released.

But personally I am not convinced that JB is innocent.

I actually believe potentally fabricted evidence keeps JB in prison, but as I have said before  -Fabricated / tampered evidence does not = innocence.

I am simply reserving my judgement (which is just my opinion) that JB maybe innocent.

My stance on this case is all over the forum, and on my members profile. See my posts should you wish to read them!

[JackiePreece]

 
Simon McKay is I think at the moment fast tracking another case at CCRC of someone he is representing that new DNA evidence has been found that the murder his client is in prison for  was carried out by two people not one.

It makes me wonder with the way DNA evidence keeps exposing moj how can the  ccrc keep up with these breakthroughs in forensic science and  really say they can cope

Colin Norris case is another one that could be unsafe

They could be in chaos at Birmingham

[mertol22]

It seems to me several points are becoming clear, there does seem to be cast belief that a silencer was not used, given the silencer is in effect the reason for convicting Jeremy along with other parts i do believe the conviction is looking unsafe as far as i see my question to the guilty camp is just for a moment cross into the neutral line and ask yourself is Jeremy telling the truth all along , one last thought where is the great i am hartley to eliminate this new turn in the case where is he ?

[campion]

       What happens if this new finding from America proves that a sound moderator wasn't used on
  Shelia and that two rimfire marks were on her neck wounds. Then they have to deal with Z's photo
  of Shelia on the bed with a single wound ? Isn't that enough to quash the conviction as not unsafe
  but impossible for Bamber to have committed as he was outside. This would then bring into question
  Essex police's claim of noble cause corruption, as that comes next to admonish themselves of a
  miscarriage of justice ?