The relatives framing Jeremy in two days. Possible ?

[Caroline]

According to the trial expert it was virtually certain that there would be back spatter from her fatal wound.   

Virtually certain? So not certain then? Others have since questioned this so as previously stated, there needs to me more investigation and an air of caution when suggesting it is a fact.

[grahameb]

Virtually certain? So not certain then? Others have since questioned this so as previously stated, there needs to me more investigation and an air of caution when suggesting it is a fact.

Unfortunately Caroline the guilter side have an incurable habit of accepting as fact that which is circumstantial or suggested by others. They seem so intent for some reason to put behind bars someone who is already behind bars. Quite paranoid some of them.

[lookout]

Or perhaps the police used the silencer in their "exercise" and then put it in the cupboard?

Its not as far fetched as some theories I have seen on here tbh.

 That's worth a thought,Jansus. Something as simple as that could be the answer instead of long drawn-out theories.

[Caroline]

The silencer was found on the 11th August. It was handed in prior to the 14th August.

Source Roger Wilkes book.

Proof it was used. It had Sheilas blood on. Or was it Neville & June's ? Meaning Sheila took the silencer off and put it neatly away. While in a mad rage and prior to killing herself.

The fact that it is human blood at all is important. How an earth did human blood get so deep into the baffles ? Oh yes the relatives sprayed it there.

Adam, the silencer wasn't found on 11th August, it was Saturday 10th. Robert Boutflour incorrectly quoted Sunday 11th even though he was supposed to have been there and kept a diary about it. David Boutflour quoted the 10th but doesn't seem to remember his father being there even though he supervised the find? Ann remembers everyone being there and does get the correct day but doesn't remember scrutinising it with David - but it was a good thing that Robert Boutflour remembered. Confused? Join the club! 

[Jan]

Adam, the silencer wasn't found on 11th August, it was Saturday 10th. Robert Boutflour incorrectly quoted Sunday 11th even though he was supposed to have been there and kept a diary about it. David Boutflour quoted the 10th but doesn't seem to remember his father being there even though he supervised the find? Ann remembers everyone being there and does get the correct day but doesn't remember scrutinising it with David - but it was a good thing that Robert Boutflour remembered. Confused? Join the club! 

Even the police club! who appear to have a log of a phone call with davidB reporting it on 11th Sept- Sloppy club if you ask me.

[scipio_usmc]

Virtually certain? So not certain then? Others have since questioned this so as previously stated, there needs to me more investigation and an air of caution when suggesting it is a fact.

Virtually certain is scientific expert speak for something will happen.  They do not speak in absolutes. That is why even though the defense expert said his theory of the blood being June and Nevill's mixed was no longer valid the prosecution expert still stated there was a remote possiiblity it was their blood mixed. 

Even with DNA you don't get absolutes you get probabilities that are essentially absolutes but you still don't get someone to say it is an absolute they let others conclude what they want from the probabilities. 

That actually backfried in the OJ Simpson case.  One juror admitted she had no idea of the world's population and didn't understand what the probability meant.  The stupidity of jurors is sometimes amazing.  That is why some want professional juries instead of a jury of peers but that presents other problems including such people becoming biased and not impartially deciding cases.  The chance of abuse by the government or by greedy corporations seems greater there than with a jury of peers.

[lookout]

 I certainly agree about the choice of jurors.

[Caroline]

Virtually certain is scientific expert speak for something will happen.  They do not speak in absolutes. That is why even though the defense expert said his theory of the blood being June and Nevill's mixed was no longer valid the prosecution expert still stated there was a remote possiiblity it was their blood mixed. 

Even with DNA you don't get absolutes you get probabilities that are essentially absolutes but you still don't get someone to say it is an absolute they let others conclude what they want from the probabilities. 

That actually backfried in the OJ Simpson case.  One juror admitted she had no idea of the world's population and didn't understand what the probability meant.  The stupidity of jurors is sometimes amazing.  That is why some want professional juries instead of a jury of peers but that presents other problems including such people becoming biased and not impartially deciding cases.  The chance of abuse by the government or by greedy corporations seems greater there than with a jury of peers.

Of course they do! They say such things because another expert with another slant on the VIRTUAL possibilities of a their subject might have an opposite view. Stick the word 'expert' next to anyone's name and we're supposed to believe everything they tell us? For every statistic, there will be another that is equal to but opposite from what we are trying to prove.  Whether or not a .22 with a silencer would yield ANY drawback is open to debate - it was never tested. Virtually is not a certainty. 

[Jane]

Virtually certain is scientific expert speak for something will happen.  They do not speak in absolutes. That is why even though the defense expert said his theory of the blood being June and Nevill's mixed was no longer valid the prosecution expert still stated there was a remote possiiblity it was their blood mixed. 

Even with DNA you don't get absolutes you get probabilities that are essentially absolutes but you still don't get someone to say it is an absolute they let others conclude what they want from the probabilities. 

That actually backfried in the OJ Simpson case.  One juror admitted she had no idea of the world's population and didn't understand what the probability meant.  The stupidity of jurors is sometimes amazing.  That is why some want professional juries instead of a jury of peers but that presents other problems including such people becoming biased and not impartially deciding cases.  The chance of abuse by the government or by greedy corporations seems greater there than with a jury of peers.

Yes Scipio, my late partner was an expert witness. He gained such a reputation that generally every case he was involved with settled out of court. He clearly knew the art of advocacy.

[scipio_usmc]

Of course they do! They say such things because another expert with another slant on the VIRTUAL possibilities of a their subject might have an opposite view. Stick the word 'expert' next to anyone's name and we're supposed to believe everything they tell us? For every statistic, there will be another that is equal to but opposite from what we are trying to prove.  Whether or not a .22 with a silencer would yield ANY drawback is open to debate - it was never tested. Virtually is not a certainty.

The expert testified that it was a vurtial certainty the location of the wound and fact it was either a contact shot or fired within 1-2mm from the weapon (based on sooting etc such was determined) that if the suppressor were not attached then it would be a virtual certainty there would have been drawback into the muzzle.  So he said in laymen terms that Sheila's blood would have been found in the rifle if the fatal shot was delivered without the suppressor attached. 

Hence why planting the evidence required:

1) knowledge that the wound in question would cause spatter

2) knowledge that it was necessary to eimlinate the spatter from the rifle

3) knowledge of what blood type to plant and securing such blood

4) knowledge of how to plant it so that it would mimick back spatter by spraying it inside with some sort of device as opposed to dripping it in with a dropper or pouring it from a vial. 

Which is why the only person on Bamber's side who ever thought about these points long and hard concluded it had to be the lab that conceived the plan to plant the evidence and carrie dit out and used others to try to help conceal their actions.

Breaking the golden rule and involving a wide array of people in the conspiracy as opposed to keeping it as narrow as possible.

While accurate that is how it would have to go down to be true, he missed the most important thing of all evidence to establish this actually happened. 

[Caroline]

The expert testified that it was a vurtial certainty the location of the wound and fact it was either a contact shot or fired within 1-2mm from the weapon (based on sooting etc such was determined) that if the suppressor were not attached then it would be a virtual certainty there would have been drawback into the muzzle.  So he said in laymen terms that Sheila's blood would have been found in the rifle if the fatal shot was delivered without the suppressor attached. 

Hence why planting the evidence required:

1) knowledge that the wound in question would cause spatter

2) knowledge that it was necessary to eimlinate the spatter from the rifle

3) knowledge of what blood type to plant and securing such blood

4) knowledge of how to plant it so that it would mimick back spatter by spraying it inside with some sort of device as opposed to dripping it in with a dropper or pouring it from a vial. 

Which is why the only person on Bamber's side who ever thought about these points long and hard concluded it had to be the lab that conceived the plan to plant the evidence and carrie dit out and used others to try to help conceal their actions.

Breaking the golden rule and involving a wide array of people in the conspiracy as opposed to keeping it as narrow as possible.

While accurate that is how it would have to go down to be true, he missed the most important thing of all evidence to establish this actually happened.

There wouldn't need to be a wide array - just a few of the main characters and the cooperation of a few civilians.

[scipio_usmc]

There wouldn't need to be a wide array - just a few of the main characters and the cooperation of a few civilians.

The lab, the police who supposedly collected it and any other police who would be aware of it including any supervisors they talked to and the family.  This is not a small undertaking. The usuall frame job requires 1-3 cops.  The more people involved the greater the risk of 1 giving the truth away by accident or if something goes wrong ratting out the whole cast.  The risk must be taken into account.

The safest frame job would involve the least number of participants possible.  There would be no reason at all to involve the family and risk them telling the truth.  Why would the lab go along with it or even engineer it?  The average police and family would not have the expertise to engineer it the lab would have to.

1) They had to recognize the shot was of such a nature it would definitely leave drawback

2) to clean out the back spatter from the rifle and pretend it never existed

3) to  obtain Sheila's blood and devise a device to spray it inside so it would mimick drawback 

The experts each had their own expertise so all the experts used by the prosecution had to join forces.  Then they would need to recruit the police who dropped off the sample and had collected it and any other police they spoke to.  On top of this they would have to have decided to risk the fmaily being outraged at what they did and ratting them out by asking the family to take part though there would be no need at all if they in fact found the suppressor not the family.  Nex they had to pray no one slipped up or talked under pressure.

It is not quite as simple as you make it out to be and there are a lot of risks.     

[Jane]

The lab, the police who supposedly collected it and any other police who would be aware of it including any supervisors they talked to and the family.  This is not a small undertaking. The usuall frame job requires 1-3 cops.  The more people involved the greater the risk of 1 giving the truth away by accident or if something goes wrong ratting out the whole cast.  The risk must be taken into account.

The safest frame job would involve the least number of participants possible.  There would be no reason at all to involve the family and risk them telling the truth.  Why would the lab go along with it or even engineer it?  The average police and family would not have the expertise to engineer it the lab would have to.

1) They had to recognize the shot was of such a nature it would definitely leave drawback

2) to clean out the back spatter from the rifle and pretend it never existed

3) to  obtain Sheila's blood and devise a device to spray it inside so it would mimick drawback 

The experts each had their own expertise so all the experts used by the prosecution had to join forces.  Then they would need to recruit the police who dropped off the sample and had collected it and any other police they spoke to.  On top of this they would have to have decided to risk the fmaily being outraged at what they did and ratting them out by asking the family to take part though there would be no need at all if they in fact found the suppressor not the family.  Nex they had to pray no one slipped up or talked under pressure.

It is not quite as simple as you make it out to be and there are a lot of risks.     

Scipio, I feel sure that it's exactly as your last paragraph states. You say there would have been no reason to involve the family. I rather think the family involved themselves from the off. Having hounded the police with their belief that Jeremy was responsible, it was THEY who "found" the evidence to damn him. How odd then that not only did they NOT phone the police to say that they'd found it -and I feel certain that HAD they, they'd have been told not to handle it but to leave it in situ- they passed it round from person to person -wearing gloves, would you suppose?- they took it home with them, open to the elements, for further examination.


I appreciate that there's no provision in law for emotions, and IMO, this is what was firmly behind what happened. Whilst Jeremy may have been adopted into the family, in certain eyes, it didn't automatically MAKE him family. Not as unusual as it sounds when "family" wealth is in question. What is MORE unusual is to find people who are willing to admit it. I have only known two.

[grahameb]

The expert testified that it was a vurtial certainty the location of the wound and fact it was either a contact shot or fired within 1-2mm from the weapon (based on sooting etc such was determined) that if the suppressor were not attached then it would be a virtual certainty there would have been drawback into the muzzle.  So he said in laymen terms that Sheila's blood would have been found in the rifle if the fatal shot was delivered without the suppressor attached. 

Hence why planting the evidence required:

1) knowledge that the wound in question would cause spatter

2) knowledge that it was necessary to eimlinate the spatter from the rifle

3) knowledge of what blood type to plant and securing such blood

4) knowledge of how to plant it so that it would mimick back spatter by spraying it inside with some sort of device as opposed to dripping it in with a dropper or pouring it from a vial. 

Which is why the only person on Bamber's side who ever thought about these points long and hard concluded it had to be the lab that conceived the plan to plant the evidence and carrie dit out and used others to try to help conceal their actions.

Breaking the golden rule and involving a wide array of people in the conspiracy as opposed to keeping it as narrow as possible.

While accurate that is how it would have to go down to be true, he missed the most important thing of all evidence to establish this actually happened.

I don't agree. You are just inventing this codswallop and you are "assuming" that they would have tested for certain spray patterns within the silencer. I challenge you to show me where in the lab report they said this. I believe you are just trying to blind people with your "supposed" expert knowledge by talikg about "spray patterns". It has not even been proved and was certainly not tested that a rifle of such small calibre would even create such a back spatter. Try it on yourself today and prove me wrong.

[maggie]

I don't agree. You are just inventing this codswallop and you are "assuming" that they would have tested for certain spray patterns within the silencer. I challenge you to show me where in the lab report they said this. I believe you are just trying to blind people with your "supposed" expert knowledge by talikg about "spray patterns". It has not even been proved and was certainly not tested that a rifle of such small calibre would even create such a back spatter. Try it on yourself today and prove me wrong.

Have it on good authority that while back spatter is a possibility in such a situation, it's highly unlikley it would involve that amount of blood so deep into the moderator.