Author Topic: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?  (Read 14864 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44432
Jeremy has accused the relatives of framing him. Source available upon request.

The relatives have denied this. Saying there was enough evidence anyway. Source available upon request.

The forum has worked out the relatives could not and would not have attempted to frame Jeremy. Link available upon request. Infact Anythony Pargeter said he was looking for something else when he found the silencer.

It is correct that there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence against Jeremy. Circumstantial evidence is still vitally important and even more so in the days before DNA. Even the judge said there were a number of curious coincidences & called Neville's phone call 'mysterious' / 'difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.

There was also a motive, opportunity and no alibi. The phone call to the police had rounded the suspects down to two. Similar to this forum, the jury may have determined that making up the phone call was the best option.

The prosecution also had lots of witnesses. The most important being Julie Mugford.

The 2002 appeal also highlighted that there was still a lot of forensic evidence showing Sheila did not commit the massacre.

The jury asked for clarification of the silencer evidence before quickly reaching a 'guilty' verdict. It is obvious the silencer highlights Jeremy's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Without the silencer the prosecution could still ask why there was no blood on the rifle end. Experts had said the shots were contact or close range shots. The prosecution could claim a silencer was used and then disposed of. But then how could it have been Sheila ?

Do people believe Jeremy would have been charged and convicted without the silencer evidence ?
« Last Edit: June 22, 2014, 09:42:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2014, 10:19:AM »
 NO,,there was NO evidence,NOT even with the silencer !!

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44432
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2014, 10:34:AM »
NO,,there was NO evidence,NOT even with the silencer !!
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44432
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2014, 11:44:AM »
A Red Herring,because there was now't else to come up with.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2014, 11:53:AM »
Jeremy has accused the relatives of framing him. Source available upon request.

The relatives have denied this. Saying there was enough evidence anyway. Source available upon request.

The forum has worked out the relatives could not and would not have attempted to frame Jeremy. Link available upon request. Infact Anythony Pargeter said he was looking for something else when he found the silencer.

It is correct that there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence against Jeremy. Circumstantial evidence is still vitally important and even more so in the days before DNA. Even the judge said there were a number of curious coincidences & called Neville's phone call 'mysterious' / 'difficult or impossible to understand or explain'.

There was also a motive, opportunity and no alibi. The phone call to the police had rounded the suspects down to two. Similar to this forum, the jury may have determined that making up the phone call was the best option.

The prosecution also had lots of witnesses. The most important being Julie Mugford.

The 2002 appeal also highlighted that there was still a lot of forensic evidence showing Sheila did not commit the massacre.

The jury asked for clarification of the silencer evidence before quickly reaching a 'guilty' verdict. It is obvious the silencer highlights Jeremy's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Without the silencer the prosecution could still ask why there was no blood on the rifle end. Experts had said the shots were contact or close range shots. The prosecution could claim a silencer was used and then disposed of. But then how could it have been Sheila ?

Do people believe Jeremy would have been charged and convicted without the silencer evidence ?

Adam, Anthony Pargeter didn't 'claim' to find the silencer, that would be David Boutflour  ::)
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44432
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2014, 12:03:PM »
You are right. He says he checked the cupboard for safety purposes.

If they did check the gun cupboard looking for evidence, that is not a crime. AE says in her WS that she did not believe Sheila was able to commit the crime. So no secret.

Anyway, the thread question.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2014, 12:04:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2014, 12:49:PM »
Answer - No

A man should never be convicted of murder on hearsay and character assassination  and your favourite saying "curious co-incidences "alone.

The lack of forensics against SC?  considering they did not even do thorough forensic tests on her clothes and other evidence was destroyed because they assumed she did it - then I think this is a non starter.



Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2014, 02:01:PM »
well it was 10 2 with silencer and say without it there would of been no chance.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2014, 06:59:PM »
There is sufficient evidence even without the suppressor to know he is guilty.  Sheila's was shot seated propped against something but then moved flat after her death but while she was still bleeding.  The bible was opened and closed in her blood after her deaht but while it was still wet.

Julie's claims would still be as strong and corroborated by this.

Sheila still could not have beaten Nevill without getting his spatte ron her, damaging her hand and breaking a nail or several in the process.

She still would not have been able to load the gun and fire it without eleveated lead levels and GSR.

Without the suppressor he is still guilty but a retrial would be necessary if they could prove the suppressor evidence should be discounted.

That is why they are desperate to try to do so but keep resorting to lies and deception to try to discount it.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #10 on: June 22, 2014, 07:09:PM »
if it was 10 2 with the silencer theres no way he would of been convicted without it.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #11 on: June 22, 2014, 07:23:PM »
if it was 10 2 with the silencer theres no way he would of been convicted without it.

The same Jury would not hear a retrial and the evidence I mentioned was not stressed to the Jury that voted 10/2.

I discussed whether there is enough evidence to know he is guilty without the suppressor and the naswer is yes there is still enough to know he is guilty.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #12 on: June 22, 2014, 07:31:PM »
the relatives said there was enough evidence without the silencer wich i view as an admission of guilt on there part.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44432
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #13 on: June 22, 2014, 07:51:PM »
This is some of the other evidence used at trial.


i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;

ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;

iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;

iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window. His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;

v) Because on the facts of the case it could only have been the appellant or Sheila Caffell who carried out the killings, the factors below proved they were not the responsibility of the appellant's sister:

a) Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;

b) Save for the appellant nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so;

c) She would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6' 4" tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen;

d) Her hands and feet were clean. They were not blood stained and neither was there any sugar upon them;

e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and

f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.

vi) The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself. The following aspects of the evidence established it was still in place on the gun when the appellant's sister was murdered:

a) The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and

b) Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.

vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:

a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;

b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;

c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;

d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and

e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.

viii) He stood to inherit considerable sums of money.


'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #14 on: June 22, 2014, 07:53:PM »
i take this as an admission the silencer was planted.