Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?

[Adam]

You believe the police told the lab technicians to expertly put the blood into the silencer ?

[scipio_usmc]

i take this as an admission the silencer was planted.

Well you are biased beyond all belief.  A rational person would not take it as such and would require actual proof the blood and paint were planted.

[nugnug]

well one minute you saying the slincer evedence cant be disputed then your saying it doesnt matter anyway.

what other rational conclusion can i come to.

[Adam]

There is no proof the silencer evidence was planted. Jeremy claimed it years later.

There is a lot of other circumstantial evidence and forensic evidence. See previous page.  So there may have been a conviction without the silencer.

So both the points are right.

[nugnug]

but if the silencer is the genuine articale you dont need to prove the case without it.

so i can only conclude it cant be.

[Adam]

We do not know why the two females said 'not guilty'.

Stan Jones says they were taken in by Jeremy's charm, well groomed appearance and presentable manner. The other ten may have still returned a guilty verdict even without the silencer evidence.

[Alias]

One thing about the blood on the rifle has always puzzled me. Ann Eaton says more than once that she saw a match-head size, jam-like "blob" of blood on the end of the silencer. How could it be "jam-like"? It would have dried by the time she saw it and simply fallen off. Dried blood doesn´t have the appearence of jam - half dried, yes, dried, no.

[susan]

Adam think most of the Jury would be put off him by his arrogant stupid attitude people do not like arrogance as how well groomed the person is.

[nugnug]

if the silencer wasnt used then it must of been planted wich discounts any evidence of the people who claimed they found it.

if someone has planted evidence nothing else they say can be considered evedence.

so no silencer no case.

[Adam]

A reporter said he was very polite. Source available upon request.

Doubt he was arrogant in court. He had to do all he could to get a 'not guilty' verdict. The defence knew from the beginning it was going to be a very hard case to win. They would have told Jeremy this.

[nugnug]

We do not know why the two females said 'not guilty'.

Stan Jones says they were taken in by Jeremy's charm, well groomed appearance and presentable manner. The other ten may have still returned a guilty verdict even without the silencer evidence.

i think that comment says more about stan jones than it does the jurors.

[Alias]

i think that comment says more about stan jones than it does the jurors.

I agree. He had no idea why they voted as they did, very disrespectful!

[Adam]

but if the silencer is the genuine articale you dont need to prove the case without it.

so i can only conclude it cant be.

It is a discussion thread Numug.

Jeremy's supporters have often disputed the silencer. Along with Jeremy.

So we are discussing "what if'.

[Adam]

if it was 10 2 with the silencer theres no way he would of been convicted without it.

[Adam]

If no one knows why the 2 female jurors said 'not guilty', how do we know there would not be a guilty verdict without the silencer ?