What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?

[No-Bits]

Or the silencer could have been removed (or came off in the fight), burns made to Nevill, silencer replaced, then the killer went back upstairs to murder the twins, an extra shot to June and 2 shots to Sheila. The silencer is then removed and hidden in the cupboard.

It's possible, isn't it? 

So, if the burn marks were found to have been caused by the rifle without the sound moderator attached, then how does that assist the defence? 

Am I missing something?

[ngb1066]

So, if the burn marks were found to have been caused by the rifle without the sound moderator attached, then how does that assist the defence? 

Am I missing something?

Well, err... yes!

[No-Bits]

Well, err... yes!

Okay? 

[lookout]

Aren't there different aspects of firing with/without a silencer ? Certain tell-tale marks on the bullets or anything ?

[Caroline]

It does not prove innocence but a central plank of the prosecution case would be removed and the conviction could then not be regarded as safe.

Yes, I understand that - I assume that it wouldn't necessarily end up in a free Jeremy though and a retrial would be almost impossible given that blood evidence has long gone and key witness's are no longer here.

[No-Bits]

Well, err... yes!

What then?

The prosecution indicated that they hadn't identified the causes of the burn marks, but let's just say it was the rifle barrel without the moderator attached for now.

If the moderator can be put on and taken off with ease, then surely that doesn't indicate that the silencer was not used at any stage. So it can be off to cause the burns and on to murder the twins, shoot June between the eyes and shoot Sheila once or twice.

[lookout]

Sheilas' aim with a silencer fitted would have been more skewed than what the already frenzied shooting was.By not knowing where to aim for a direct result ( instant death ) bullets were fired after each word was spoken by the two adult victims,in the most sporadic fashion. Like torture,almost in a Karma sort of way.

I'm not even focussing on Jeremy at all,just the two women !

[ngb1066]

Aren't there different aspects of firing with/without a silencer ? Certain tell-tale marks on the bullets or anything ?

No, I do not believe it is possible to tell from a bullet whether it was fired through a silencer.

[nugnug]

if they could the case be ethere proved beyound doubt or jeremy would be a free man.

[lookout]

No, I do not believe it is possible to tell from a bullet whether it was fired through a silencer.

Pity. How strange. Thankyou all the same.

[No-Bits]

What then?

The prosecution indicated that they hadn't identified the causes of the burn marks, but let's just say it was the rifle barrel without the moderator attached for now.

If the moderator can be put on and taken off with ease, then surely that doesn't indicate that the silencer was not used at any stage. So it can be off to cause the burns and on to murder the twins, shoot June between the eyes and shoot Sheila once or twice.

NGB? What am I missing?

I'm genuinely confused as to why the tests would eliminate the silencer evidence. 

[ngb1066]

NGB? What am I missing?

I'm genuinely confused as to why the tests would eliminate the silencer evidence. 

I think you are not looking at this from the viewpoint of the evidence at trial.  It was a central part of the prosecution case that the silencer was fitted when Sheila was shot, based upon the fact that what was said to be almost certainly her blood was found inside the silencer.  If that was the case Sheila cannot have shot herself as it would obviously be impossible for her to do that, then remove the silencer and put in in the box in the cupboard.  If evidence had been available that the silencer was not fitted to the rifle when Sheila was shot it  would have been clear that it was possible that Sheila did shoot herself.  That does not prove that JB is innocent, but without that central plank the prosecution case is seriously weakened, to the extent that an appeal would succeeed.

   

[No-Bits]

I think you are not looking at this from the viewpoint of the evidence at trial.  It was a central part of the prosecution case that the silencer was fitted when Sheila was shot, based upon the fact that what was said to be almost certainly her blood was found inside the silencer.  If that was the case Sheila cannot have shot herself as it would obviously be impossible for her to do that, then remove the silencer and put in in the box in the cupboard.  If evidence had been available that the silencer was not fitted to the rifle when Sheila was shot it  would have been clear that it was possible that Sheila did shoot herself.  That does not prove that JB is innocent, but without that central plank the prosecution case is seriously weakened, to the extent that an appeal would succeeed.

Well yes, I understand that of course.

But the new tests, which are claiming to show that the silencer was not fitted when used to burn Nevill, doesn't automatically show that the silencer was not used during the shooting of Sheila.

In fact the blood evidence in the silencer, shows that it was used.

So if the conclusions drawn from the tests are accurate, and the blood in the silencer remains as previously accepted, then it just shows that the silencer was not attached when causing the burns, but it was attached when shooting Sheila.

It's a bit of a leap to say it wasn't attached at one stage, so it couldn't have been attached at any stage, despite the blood evidence indicating that it was.

That doesn't make sense to me. 

[lookout]

It makes sense to me,that Sheila took the damned thing off when she was in the kitchen struggling with her father while it was making squiggles on the fireplace because it was too long and cumbersome.There was obviously blood on her hand which would have transferred itself down the silencer as she put it back in the cupboard.Even her father may have put it back and was trying to claim the rifle off her in order to put that back as well.

[ngb1066]

Well yes, I understand that of course.

But the new tests, which is claiming to show that the silencer was not fitted when used to burn Nevill, doesn't automatically show that the silencer was not used during the shooting of Sheila.

In fact the blood evidence in the silencer, shows that it was used.

So if the conclusions drawn from the tests are accurate, and the blood in the silencer remains as previously accepted, then it just shows that the silencer was not attached when causing the burns, but it was attached when shooting Sheila.

It's a bit of a leap to say it wasn't attached at one stage, so it couldn't have been attached at any stage, despite the blood evidence indicating that it was.

That doesn't make sense to me. 

I think you are missing the key point.  The evidence that the silencer was not fitted when the burns wrre caused to Nevill does not prove that it was not fitted when Sheila was shot.  Completely separate evidence was obtained showing that it was not fitted when Sheila was shot.  Taken together it is suggestive of the silencer not being fitted at all, although it remains possible that it was fitted when some or all of the other victims were shot.  If this is the case the evidence of the blood in the silencer comes under renewed scrutiny.  Either it was, as accepted to be just possible although unlikely, a mixture of blood from June and Nevill, or it came to be there through contamination, whether accidental or deliberate.