The silencer, hand swab, and scratch marks on the aga, Conspiracy...

[Patti]

Paragraph 69 of the appeal:

The rifle was a German made Anschutz model 525 .22 self-loading rifle in good working order. Cartridges are loaded into a magazine, which has a capacity of 10. It is, as the jury found when they conducted the exercise themselves, progressively harder to load as the number of cartridges increases. Loading the tenth is exceptionally hard.

By that time the rifle was damaged. It is not that difficult to load a magazine...just a but more fiddler. It does not alter the fact that she might have washed her hands after she had loaded the magazine....this possibility seems to have been dismissed as highly unlikely....which is wrong to dismiss anything.   

[Bridget]

By that time the rifle was damaged. It is not that difficult to load a magazine...just a but more fiddler. It does not alter the fact that she might have washed her hands after she had loaded the magazine....this possibility seems to have been dismissed as highly unlikely....which is wrong to dismiss anything.   

What difference does it make that the rifle was damaged? The magazine wasn't.

The defence addressed the issue of Sheila washing her hands with their ritualistic cleansing theory. We will never know what weight the jury placed on that theory, but if they dismissed it that was their perogative.

[JackiePreece]

Bridget it's time you started looking for the truth instead of keep slapping down every argument Patti ever makes.

You were not there that night and you have no idea what happened but YOU choose to make every negative argument possible.

Your arguments are not strong because they are assumptions and theories.
Wake up and smell the coffee Bridget there is NO EVIDENCE available to proof Jeremy Bamber is guilty.
If you changed your attitude to your laughy jokey side you use on other forums you might be taken seriously instead of your aggressive approach it is very uncomfortable reading.

So proud of you Patti your arguments are very strong for an impartial person in this case

[Patti]

What difference does it make that the rifle was damaged? The magazine wasn't.

The defence addressed the issue of Sheila washing her hands with their ritualistic cleansing theory. We will never know what weight the jury placed on that theory, but if they dismissed it that was their perogative.

Who is to say she did load 10 bullets, she may have loaded several at any one time....8 in fact or 7....which is not harder...is it? There is no evidence to say she loaded 10 bullets, like there is no evidence she may have loaded 8....The fact is she may have washed after loading them...both of these suggestions have been dismissed....but both are equally possible...It all boils down to who wins the argument....and what the jury considered...

[Bridget]

Who is to say she did load 10 bullets, she may have loaded several at any one time....8 in fact or 7....which is not harder...is it? There is no evidence to say she loaded 10 bullets, like there is no evidence she may have loaded 8....The fact is she may have washed after loading them...both of these suggestions have been dismissed....but both are equally possible...It all boils down to who wins the argument....and what the jury considered...

The fact is Patti, that these arguments were considered by the jury, and if they dismissed them they were within their rights to do so.

[Patti]

Bridget it's time you started looking for the truth instead of keep slapping down every argument Patti ever makes.

You were not there that night and you have no idea what happened but YOU choose to make every negative argument possible.

Your arguments are not strong because they are assumptions and theories.
Wake up and smell the coffee Bridget there is NO EVIDENCE available to proof Jeremy Bamber is guilty.
If you changed your attitude to your laughy jokey side you use on other forums you might be taken seriously instead of your aggressive approach it is very uncomfortable reading.

So proud of you Patti your arguments are very strong for an impartial person in this case

It's OK Jackie, we like a good old argument.....lol X

[Patti]

The fact is Patti, that these arguments were considered by the jury, and if they dismissed them they were within their rights to do so.

We don't know if they dismissed them do we? We have no trial transcripts. We can't go on what the 2002 appeal alone says....The original transcripts, we are not privy too.  So you can't say they were considered by the jury....

[ngb1066]

Paragraph 69 of the appeal:

The rifle was a German made Anschutz model 525 .22 self-loading rifle in good working order. Cartridges are loaded into a magazine, which has a capacity of 10. It is, as the jury found when they conducted the exercise themselves, progressively harder to load as the number of cartridges increases. Loading the tenth is exceptionally hard.

Although I accept that this was in the Court of Appeal judgement, I am afraid it is simply incorrect.  It is not "exceptionally hard" to load the 10th bullet, it is in fact easy.  It is true that beyond about the sixth bullet increased pressure from the finger or thumb is required as the spring inside the magazine is depressed.  However it is still easy to do - the rifle is designed to be simple to manage and operate.

A further point I have mentioned before is that the magazine does not need to be loaded to full capacity.  It is possible that it was reloaded more than twice with 5 or 6 bullets each time.  It is also possible to load a single bullet directly into the breach of the rifle, not handling the magazine at all.

   

[JackiePreece]

The fact is Patti, that these arguments were considered by the jury, and if they dismissed them they were within their rights to do so.

What a great opening to bring the jury in,  there is not a chance that the jury would have convicted Jeremy Bamber if they had access to all the evidence available

Evidence witheld that Ngb, Simon McKay and Mark Williams-Thomas (experts in their fields) believe prevented Jeremy Bamber getting a fair trial and led to him being wrongly convicted

That poor jury

[Bridget]

We don't know if they dismissed them do we? We have no trial transcripts. We can't go on what the 2002 appeal alone says....The original transcripts, we are not privy too.  So you can't say they were considered by the jury....

Of course they were considered - unless you are suggesting they were all asleep? 

As I said before, we cannot know what the jury thought of any particular given argument, all we know is that they considered them all and came to a verdict.

[Bridget]

Although I accept that this was in the Court of Appeal judgement, I am afraid it is simply incorrect.  It is not "exceptionally hard" to load the 10th bullet, it is in fact easy.  It is true that beyond about the sixth bullet increased pressure from the finger or thumb is required as the spring inside the magazine is depressed.  However it is still easy to do - the rifle is designed to be simple to manage and operate.

A further point I have mentioned before is that the magazine does not need to be loaded to full capacity.  It is possible that it was reloaded more than twice with 5 or 6 bullets each time.  It is also possible to load a single bullet directly into the breach of the rifle, not handling the magazine at all.

   

Whether you consider it "exceptionally hard" or not, the jury tried it for themselves and so could rely on their own perceptions of how hard it was. They did not have to rely on anyone else's opinion.

[ngb1066]

Whether you consider it "exceptionally hard" or not, the jury tried it for themselves and so could rely on their own perceptions of how hard it was. They did not have to rely on anyone else's opinion.

I accept that, but it is important to recognise that the Court of Appeal's approach to this appeal was unusual in the hostile manner in which they approached the defence case.  This in my view is a major factor influencing the CCRC now.

[Bridget]

I accept that, but it is important to recognise that the Court of Appeal's approach to this appeal was unusual in the hostile manner in which they approached the defence case.  This in my view is a major factor influencing the CCRC now.

I'm not sure I would describe it as hostile, but they did seem to be more than a little irritated at the fact that the appellant could introduce grounds of appeal which, in their words, had little merit without those matters having been either referred by the CCRC or with the leave of the court. I agree that that is probably having an affect on the CCRC's decision on referral.

[lookout]

Sheila had observed the Anschutz having been reloaded.  Indeed,,she had watched Jeremy load the rifle on the eve of her death.
It is inconceivable to believe that Sheila was unable to use a rifle at short range.    It must be accepted that Sheila was competent with firearms and was capable of carrying out the murders.

[Patti]

Of course they were considered - unless you are suggesting they were all asleep? 

As I said before, we cannot know what the jury thought of any particular given argument, all we know is that they considered them all and came to a verdict.

The jury aren't scientists, they are not fully trained in forensics, I doubt half the time, the jury understood what was presented to them.

It is just not a case of whether they considered or dismissed the fact the the 10th bullet was hard to load or not....The argument is from my point of view is that they might have also considered that the magazine would have not necessarily been loaded with 10 bullets and she might have washed her hands after loading....it is as simple as that, and anyone would have to consider it....for it is possible....There are two sides here...I can see both......and, to me it is possible, therefore it all becomes meaningless.