Would the trial result in a different verdict if held in 2014 ?

[Adam]

A poster said this week Jeremy would not be convicted if the trial was now. Other supporters have claimed the same thing.

Would a trial now really result in a different outcome ?

The circumstantial evidence would be exactly the same. Julies testimony would be the same about what Jeremy said.

However massive advancements in technology would change the forensic evidence. Since the forensic evidence in 1985 that Sheila did not committ the crime was very convincing, it is likely to be even more damning for Jeremy now.

The silencer today would have DNA testing. This would likely show more conclusivly that it was Sheila's blood. The silencer evidence was accepted in court and at appeals. There is no reason why it should not be accepted as evidence in 2014.

Twenty nine years on, it is likely that there would have been a tightening up of police procedures. Meaning the police would not make the same mistakes in destroying evidence etc. There is still a possibility the police would have intially gone with the murder/suicide theory. However they are perfectly entitled to change their minds in 2014.

So it seems a trial now will result in the same verdict. But the fact is the crime was in 1985, so the trial in 1986.

[lookout]

The police in general have already had their feathers ruffled by Theresa May this week who pointed out her concerns over corruption within the force and " growing public mistrust ".

If it is found that there has been some sort of cover-up regarding the police and this case,,then for sure,it will be in the public domain,,and yes,,without a doubt,,the verdict would be different,as a can of worms would most definitely be opened up.

I can't wait for this day to arrive,,because Mays' speech paves the way for those who've been wrongly arrested/convicted. 

[Bambergate]

A poster said this week Jeremy would not be convicted if the trial was now. Other supporters have claimed the same thing.

Would a trial now really result in a different outcome ?

The circumstantial evidence would be exactly the same. Julies testimony would be the same about what Jeremy said.

However massive advancements in technology would change the forensic evidence. Since the forensic evidence in 1985 that Sheila did not committ the crime was very convincing, it is likely to be even more damning for Jeremy now.

The silencer today would have DNA testing. This would likely show more conclusivly that it was Sheila's blood. The silencer evidence was accepted in court and at appeals. There is no reason why it should not be accepted as evidence in 2014.

Twenty nine years on, it is likely that there would have been a tightening up of police procedures. Meaning the police would not make the same mistakes in destroying evidence etc. There is still a possibility the police would have intially gone with the murder/suicide theory. However they are perfectly entitled to change their minds in 2014.

So it seems a trial now will result in the same verdict. But the fact is the crime was in 1985, so the trial in 1986.

MWT thinks so a senior comminisor from the CRCC thinks so
I have both on Email

[nugnug]

yes i think it would becouse i doubt if any of the family would to face cross examination now.

i doubt if any of those cops would ethere.

[Jane]

I imagine that they would strip away more layers from each witness's testimony eg, Julie might be asked if she'd already signed on a deal with a particularly scummy publication and the family may be asked how much they stood to gain from Jeremy's conviction.

[nugnug]

i cant see them being comfortable answring those sort of questions.

[wilf]

I dont see it getting to court. a proper police investigation using todays methods and standards would come to a completely different conclusion. there would of course be questions to answer about medical care and treatment which would keep the press occupied and some very searching money questions. most importantly the effects of better gun control would proberbly have instilled a mindset that prevented the careless use of firearms causing this tragedy.

wilf

[nugnug]

theres no way the police would want a retrial.

[Jane]

i cant see them being comfortable answring those sort of questions.

They wouldn't be there for the good of their health, Nugs.

[wilf]

A retrial held today using todays attitudes and expectation of professional investigation would I think possibly see the prosecution offer no evidence. as the defence could pick them to pieces.

wilf

[nugnug]

They wouldn't be there for the good of their health, Nugs.

and they would have to anser them truthfully now or face a perjury chardge.

[Alias]

I don´t think the silencer would be allowed into a trial this day and age. There is the (strong) potential of contamination, there is the POSSIBILITY of it having been tampered with, no less by people who stood to gain substantially from a guilty verdict.
I want to stress that I am not saying that happened, just that it could POSSIBLY have been tampered with.
Then there is Julie´s testimony. I have no idea how that would go down now, but also she had a lot to gain by a guilty verdict: The NOTW money and immunity from prosecution for her various crimes.
Then we are left with the phone logs, which are quite unclear. What else is there? Nothing, really, just hearsay and gossip.

I think that Jeremy would have walked if the trial had been in 2014 - remember that it only would have taken one more juror to find him innocent back in 1986.
An unsafe verdict, I´d say.

[nugnug]

also the uncorroborated word of kelvin McKenzie would not be accepted as fact today.

[scipio_usmc]

I dont see it getting to court. a proper police investigation using todays methods and standards would come to a completely different conclusion. there would of course be questions to answer about medical care and treatment which would keep the press occupied and some very searching money questions. most importantly the effects of better gun control would proberbly have instilled a mindset that prevented the careless use of firearms causing this tragedy.

wilf

A police investigation using today's standards would have convicted him even more easily.

Modern blood anaylsis is against Jeremy.  Modern ballistics principles are even more solidly against Jeremy.

There is nothing scientific that exists today to establish the blood was planted, if there were it coudl be used to free him. 

Poepel like you are completely blind to the facts and running on raw emotion.

[nugnug]

there cant be scientfic evedence to say the silencer just basic common sense says it was.

the police searched the cupboard 3 times and dident find it only logical explanation for that is it wasnt there.