What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?

[No-Bits]

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.

Has the evidence suggesting the silencer was not attached during the shooting of Sheila been released?

I'm not sure I have seen that.

If that were the case, what was the point of the burn tests? The evidence claiming to show the silencer was not used in the shooting of Sheila, if 'robust', would be sufficient.   

[ngb1066]

Has the evidence suggesting the silencer was not attached during the shooting of Sheila been released?

I'm not sure I have seen that.

If that were the case, what was the point of the burn tests? The evidence claiming to show the silencer was not used in the shooting of Sheila, if 'robust', would be sufficient.   

The evidence was submitted to the CCRC but further work was required.  Both reports assisted the defence in tending to show that the silencer was unlikely to have been fitted at any stage.

[No-Bits]

The evidence was submitted to the CCRC but further work was required.  Both reports assisted the defence in tending to show that the silencer was unlikely to have been fitted at any stage.

So that's what I'm missing.

The evidence claiming to show that the silencer was not attached during the shooting of Sheila.

Are you able to indicate what that evidence consists of?

[Alias]

EH, ADAM! Leave ME out of this! I have been undecided from the second I heard about this case some years ago and have ALWAYS said so.
You are incredible! Trying to take credit for something you have not a thing to do with! I have you ignore and only read a small fraction of your posts.
The other people must fend for themselves, but I doubt you had anything to do with them changing their minds! 

Quote from: Adam on September 13, 2014, 10:12:PM

    It's taken a lot of hard work getting Grahame to give up, Alias to say she is undecided and April, Caroline & Susan to change their stance.

[lookout]

EH, ADAM! Leave ME out of this! I have been undecided from the second I heard about this case some years ago and have ALWAYS said so.
You are incredible! Trying to take credit for something you have not a thing to do with! I have you ignore and only read a small fraction of your posts.
The other people must fend for themselves, but I doubt you had anything to do with them changing their minds! 

Hahahaha,Alias.He's already had the length of my tongue over his post. You didn't think I'd let that one slip through without noticing did you ? 

[ngb1066]

So that's what I'm missing.

The evidence claiming to show that the silencer was not attached during the shooting of Sheila.

Are you able to indicate what that evidence consists of?

Yes.  A  New York pathologist, an leading expert in gunshot injuries, exhamined the photographs of the two  wounds to Sheila's neck.

[No-Bits]

Yes.  A  New York pathologist, an leading expert in gunshot injuries, exhamined the photographs of the two  wounds to Sheila's neck.

Okay, so the long and short of it, is that the defence has obtained an expert opinion that the wounds to Sheila indicate that they were caused by being shot with the rifle without a silencer attached.

I recall in the past, you have said that if an expert acting for the prosecution gives a different opinion, to a defence instructed expert, then the defence expert should be given the benefit of doubt, although that hasn't been what has happened in this case in the past.

The CCRC have dismissed experts evidence in the past, indicating that they do not agree with their findings and methodology.

[lookout]

 I'll be interested in that result,ngb,with what I've had in mind,to see if it tallies. I'm keeping " mum ".

[ngb1066]

Okay, so the long and short of it, is that the defence has obtained an expert opinion that the wounds to Sheila indicate that they were caused by being shot with the rifle without a silencer attached.

I recall in the past, you have said that if an expert acting for the prosecution gives a different opinion, then the defences expert should be given the benefit of doubt, although that hasn't been what has happened in this case in the past.

The CCRC have dismissed experts evidence in the past, indicating that they do not agree with their findings and methodology.

That is true.  They have only done that however when they have commissioned their own expert to evaluate the first expert's report.  That did not happen in the case of the US experts.

 

[Alias]

How many PMs Jackie, seriously?  We know that Graham has deleted his profile so he is not able to PM you (I hope he decides to return soon).  As far as I can see all other active members here are still posting.  Who are you suggesting is now afraid to post?

I am not afraid to post, but I don´t like it here anymore, so I have stayed away for quite a bit. I don´t see any reason to stick around a place where you are called nasty names whenever you open your mouth. That´s one, ngb.

For the record, I have not PMd jackie about this.

[No-Bits]

That is true.  They have only done that however when they have commissioned their own expert to evaluate the first expert's report.  That did not happen in the case of the US experts.

Okay, but that could and likely will take place, even if the result was that an expert supports the first experts findings.

I'm trying not to sound dismissive towards the evidence, which I know you have had a role in obtaining, but it doesn't sound very impressive (from what little I know of it).

I guess time will tell. 

[Alias]

No, he stopped writing when I asked him about the wallet.

I thought he wrote you after you asked about the wallet. Didn´t you say you received (at least one) letter a while after where he seemed to have forgotten you had asked - he wrote something about the wallet and AE?

[ngb1066]

I am not afraid to post, but I don´t like it here anymore, so I have stayed away for quite a bit. I don´t see any reason to stick around a place where you are called nasty names whenever you open your mouth. That´s one, ngb.

For the record, I have not PMd jackie about this.

So you are not afraid to post and you have not PMd Jackie.  Therefore that's not one is it Alias?

Do you prefer the mild mannered tone of a group of regular posters on the red forum?

I have tried to moderate this forum fairly.  Frankly there is no pleasing some people.

You have full moderator privileges on every board here.  If you wanted you could take an active role in moderating the forum and could address any problems you see here.

 



 

[ngb1066]

Okay, but that could and likely will take place, even if the result was that an expert supports the first experts findings.

I'm trying not to sound dismissive towards the evidence, which I know you have had a role in obtaining, but it doesn't sound very impressive (from what little I know of it).

I guess time will tell. 

The problem is that time ran out and it was not possible for further tests to be carried out before the final deadline for submissions.

 

[lookout]

Do you think that any attempt to have Jeremy released will have any bearing on the connections that his biological father has ? Would that in any way become a stumbling block ?