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

[Bridget]

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.

I think what has been said is that it's unlikely, clearly it's not impossible.

Why must it be accepted that she was competent? No one ever saw her use one. I saw a John Wayne movie once, does that make me competent? 

[Bridget]

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 becomes meaningless. 

And possibly the jury agreed with you, and convicted him on other evidence.

[JackiePreece]

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.

Bridget Ngb believes the approach was hostile HE IS A VERY EXPERIANCED CRIMINAL BARRISTER if you have more knowledge than him on these matters please feel free to share this knowledge with the forum it would make your OPINIONS sound much stronger

[Patti]

And possibly the jury agreed with you, and convicted him on other evidence.

And the other point arising from that, is that if she had washed her hands after loading, then there would be no lead trace on her hand swabs...Think about it! It is possible, with what we have read about residue and that it can be washed off....It bears a good argument in court. I depends how it is put across. I would fight tooth and nail in my corner, to project to them that it is possible and they would have to consider it....sod the judge! lol 

[Bridget]

And the other point arising from that, is that if she had washed her hands after loading, then there would be no lead trace on her hand swabs...Think about it! It is possible, with what we have read about residue and that it can be washed off....It bears a good argument in court. I depends how it is put across. I would fight tooth and nail in my corner, to project to them that it is possible and they would have to consider it....sod the judge! lol 

It was argued in court 

[Roch]

Yes of course, which is why the defence brought up the issue of ritual cleansing.

Given the gap in time between the first rejected swabs having been dismissed, to the second submission of swabs and given what occurred during that time-frame in respect of the case turning, how do we know that the same swabs were indeed submitted?  It seems remarkable, that in a case were EP fully expected the results to show significant levels of GSR, the swabs were conveniently returned without testing, so as to fit perfectly with EP later having to prove the exact opposite of what they hoped to prove with the initial submission?

[Patti]

It was argued in court 

Not by me it wasn't Were all possibilities argued? No......

Right must attack the hoover and throw the duster around...Hahaha 

[Patti]

Given the gap in time between the first rejected swabs having been dismissed, to the second submission of swabs and given what occurred during that time-frame in respect of the case turning, how do we know that the same swabs were indeed submitted?  It seems remarkable, that in a case were EP fully expected the results to show significant levels of GSR, the swabs were conveniently returned without testing, so as to fit perfectly with EP later having to prove the exact opposite of what they hoped to prove with the initial submission?

Good point Roch...

The hand swabs were a farce, they become meaningless, because it can't be proved that they were retaken or that the same swabs were used.......

[maggie]

Being brought up on a farm doesn't make you experienced with guns, and neither does beating.

Read paragraph 224 onwards in the appeal re the loading of the magazine.

Hi Patti, I'm pretty sure I have read that shortly before the deaths, Sheila used to sometimes accompany Jeremy when he was shooting on the farm. 

[lookout]

I think what has been said is that it's unlikely, clearly it's not impossible.

Why must it be accepted that she was competent? No one ever saw her use one. I saw a John Wayne movie once, does that make me competent? 

Bridget,,,you may have seen a movie,,,but Sheila was physically shown there and then by Jeremy,,,and doubtless,,once shown how to reload,,would have been competent after a few goes. Let's say,that she felt that she had to get it right.?

[Bridget]

Given the gap in time between the first rejected swabs having been dismissed, to the second submission of swabs and given what occurred during that time-frame in respect of the case turning, how do we know that the same swabs were indeed submitted?  It seems remarkable, that in a case were EP fully expected the results to show significant levels of GSR, the swabs were conveniently returned without testing, so as to fit perfectly with EP later having to prove the exact opposite of what they hoped to prove with the initial submission?

I responded to this but the post seems to have disappeared, or not arrived..

We know that the same swabs were resubmitted because the police said so. Until someone offers a plausible explanation as to why all these police officers and scientists would put their careers, and possibly their freedom on the line in order to convict JB, when they had the perfect suspect in Sheila, I'm not buying any conspiracy theories.

[Bridget]

Bridget,,,you may have seen a movie,,,but Sheila was physically shown there and then by Jeremy,,,and doubtless,,once shown how to reload,,would have been competent after a few goes. Let's say,that she felt that she had to get it right.?

Says who?

[Roch]

If you're counting me as a counterpart that's not my argument. There seem to be perfectly reasonable explanations for all of the issues presented.

I wasn't counting you as a counterpart.  Your stance on the case is to place defence arguments under exhaustive rigorous scrutiny.  In my opinion, this scrutiny is virtually always targeted in one direction only, toward defence arguments.  Your stance is similar to that of Hartley, were EP are given enormous room to maneover and every anomaly relating to the prosecution's case is merely (yet another) benign mistake or product of miscommunication.  While I am glad you are on this forum, I feel that if you were carry out an experiment and reverse your rigorous examination towards the prosecution's case, I'd be more satisfied that you were genuinely taking matters seriously, in respect of finding the truth of what took place in the entire episode.

The poster I most had in mind was Nick, followed by Curious Essex.

[Bridget]

I wasn't counting you as a counterpart.  Your stance on the case is to place defence arguments under exhaustive rigorous scrutiny.  In my opinion, this scrutiny is virtually always targeted in one direction only, toward defence arguments.  Your stance is similar to that of Hartley, were EP are given enormous room to maneover and every anomaly relating to the prosecution's case is merely (yet another) benign mistake or product of miscommunication.  While I am glad you are on this forum, I feel that if you were carry out an experiment and reverse your rigorous examination towards the prosecution's case, I'd be more satisfied that you were genuinely taking matters seriously, in respect of finding the truth of what took place in the entire episode.

The poster I most had in mind was Nick, followed by Curious Essex.

In other words, you will not be happy that I am 'genuinely taking matters seriously' until I agree with you.

I have always agreed that the investigation was flawed in many many ways. I have also said that the silencer evidence is unlikely to be admissable now because of the chance of innocent contamination. But the more I look into the various defence claims the more I see mountains made out of molehills, baseless theorising and never ending spin. I do not include the Arizona tests in this because I don't yet know enough about them to be able to decide.

[Roch]

I responded to this but the post seems to have disappeared, or not arrived..

We know that the same swabs were resubmitted because the police said so. Until someone offers a plausible explanation as to why all these police officers and scientists would put their careers, and possibly their freedom on the line in order to convict JB, when they had the perfect suspect in Sheila, I'm not buying any conspiracy theories.

Your use of the generic term 'conspiracy theories' denigrates what is actually being argued by your fellow forum members on the opposite side of the fence to you.  Sorry Bridget but I feel it is disrespectful of you.  You've also just confirmed the mould I have set for you with your comment about the police above.  Do you not think you are undermining the credibility of your own rigorous approach, by effectively only applying it to one side in this case?  You cant swallow what the police say like mother's milk, simply because it's the police who have said it?  Furthermore, how would the scientists know whether the same swabs had been submitted anyway?