Time to agree with Jeremy regarding the silencer ? But...

[nugnug]

as far as i can see theres no evedence the police tampered with silencer but plenty of evedence the relatives did.

[Adam]

Why was this not brought up at trial ? Or at the appeals ?

Jeremy only accused the relatives of framing him in 2010.

[scipio_usmc]

as far as i can see theres no evedence the police tampered with silencer but plenty of evedence the relatives did.

What evidence?  You suggest they had the chance to tamper with it but no evidence they actually did so.  The family would have no way to know drawback would have occurred, no way to know where to obtain Sheila's blood from, no way to know how to spray it inside to mimick drawback and no way to eliminate the blood that was in the barrel of the rifle.  If the rifle was used sans suppressor then the rifle would have had blood in it.

Only the lab would be in a position to make the blood evidence in the rifle vanish and to be able to simulate drawback in the manner it was found.

       

[nugnug]

What evidence?  You suggest they had the chance to tamper with it but no evidence they actually did so.  The family would have no way to know drawback would have occurred, no way to know where to obtain Sheila's blood from, no way to know how to spray it inside to mimick drawback and no way to eliminate the blood that was in the barrel of the rifle.  If the rifle was used sans suppressor then the rifle would have had blood in it.

Only the lab would be in a position to make the blood evidence in the rifle vanish and to be able to simulate drawback in the manner it was found.

     

arnt you even vaguely curious as to why they took the silencer apart.

[Caroline]

What evidence?  You suggest they had the chance to tamper with it but no evidence they actually did so.  The family would have no way to know drawback would have occurred, no way to know where to obtain Sheila's blood from, no way to know how to spray it inside to mimick drawback and no way to eliminate the blood that was in the barrel of the rifle.  If the rifle was used sans suppressor then the rifle would have had blood in it.

Only the lab would be in a position to make the blood evidence in the rifle vanish and to be able to simulate drawback in the manner it was found.

     

EP had their own lab and their own SOCO's

[grahameb]

REALLY ??- 10 /2

Thank you Jan. That report was very revealing as to the misleading and underhanded approach that the prosecution made at trial. Much vital evidence and non evidence was clearly and consciously witheld from the defence counsel at the trial. A truly discusting state of affairs.
It also clearly shows a definite manipulation of times and facts by Ann Eaton and Julie Mugford. Why this man has not had a successful appeal is beyond me? It appears to be perfectly plain that this gross miscarriage of justice has been perpetuated by several judges who were clearly in the wrong at the appeal courts. This coupled with the refusal to the defence by the judge to re-examine Julie Mugford at one of the appeals represents a gross misconduct by those judges and thus prevented the defence counsel from cross examination of this witness that made quite an impression on the original jury. This too I find truly damnable.

[grahameb]

That doesn't show any unfairness.  It shows allegations made with upon scrutiny fell apart completely and totally and were thorougly rejected by the courts.

For instance, the defense already had access to statements where one roomate  stated the call could have been made as late at 3:30 but she was pretty sure it was at 3:15.  The other witnesses insist it was aorund 3 and they were more definite.  The defense was thus aware all along of the witness who suggested it could have been as late as 3:30AM. The defense wa sunabel to get the witnesses to chance their estimate and the claim that Ann Eaton's notes could have been used to get them to change their claims is frankly asburd.

Some of the claims made don't even relate to evidence presented at trial such as the claim Anthony saw injuries to Jeremy's hands.  That was never presented at trial so it is a straw man to attack it.

The claims made neither establish that Jeremy got a fair trial nor that he was innocent.

If you claim otherwise then post  precise evidence and explain how such evidence proves he didn't get a fair trial and why.

Oh I think that paper is precise enough and quite damning in places. The only problem is that you refuse to believe it, nothing else. Just take off those blinkers of yours and maybe you will see past all that drivell that you've been pumping out. The trouble is you're only prepared to accept your own take on things to the exclusion of all else.

[scipio_usmc]

arnt you even vaguely curious as to why they took the silencer apart.

There is no evidence that the family took it apart.

[nugnug]

they admited doing it i belive.

[scipio_usmc]

Oh I think that paper is precise enough and quite damning in places. The only problem is that you refuse to believe it, nothing else. Just take off those blinkers of yours and maybe you will see past all that drivell that you've been pumping out. The trouble is you're only prepared to accept your own take on things to the exclusion of all else.

It's not damning at all it is a joke.  But go ahead and post with precision the claims that you think are so damning and explain how the claims either 1) prove Jeremy is innocent or 2) that he got an unfair trial.

Don't cop out (punn intended) try explaining and justifying your claims.

[grahameb]

What evidence?  You suggest they had the chance to tamper with it but no evidence they actually did so.  The family would have no way to know drawback would have occurred, no way to know where to obtain Sheila's blood from, no way to know how to spray it inside to mimick drawback and no way to eliminate the blood that was in the barrel of the rifle.  If the rifle was used sans suppressor then the rifle would have had blood in it.

Only the lab would be in a position to make the blood evidence in the rifle vanish and to be able to simulate drawback in the manner it was found.

     

So you can categorically say that can you? That this family most of which were/are experts in the use of guns would not know about what you term "drawback"? Why should they not know what apparently only you know? Are you suddenly the fount of all wisdom and the pinnacle of all knowledge and the rest of the world ignorant of these things? I don't know much about the illegal peddling of elephant tusks. But who an I to judge from my ivory tower?

[grahameb]

It's not damning at all it is a joke.  But go ahead and post with precision the claims that you think are so damning and explain how the claims either 1) prove Jeremy is innocent or 2) that he got an unfair trial.

Don't cop out (punn intended) try explaining and justifying your claims.

Two words, "non disclosure".

[lookout]

 The family/relatives know far more about guns than Jeremy ever will ! What's more,they were/are pastmasters,especially the late RWB, at " pulling the wool " !

[scipio_usmc]

Two words, "non disclosure".

Non-disclosure of what?  You need to establish that there was a legal duty to disclose and that such disclosure would have likely made a difference in the outcome of the case for it to amount to an unfair trial which just so happens to be a valid legal appeal ground for that VERY reason.

[lookout]

 All this is utter nonsense and the only purpose it served was to " play for time ".In other words,stretching out a " case " that wasn't there in the first place.