Jeremy's fingerprints on the silencer: Certain guilt ?

[Mr. Gee]

Why would Neville take the silencer off. Then put it in a box. Then put it behind and underneath other boxes, guns and even a dartboard at the back of the gun cupboard ?

The silencer was essential for the rifles main purpose of shooting vermin. So would need to be in constant use and available.

My friend uses a .22 airgun to shoot vermin. But each to his own I suppose. Me I won't allow any weapons in my home at all. One of my friends was manager of the Co-Op funeral directors in Chelmsford and told me a very tragic story of to boys playing with their father's shotgun and it went off blowing his friend's head off. So this is a gun free house. I can't understand the fascination that some Americans have with guns?

[scipio_usmc]

My friend uses a .22 airgun to shoot vermin. But each to his own I suppose. Me I won't allow any weapons in my home at all. One of my friends was manager of the Co-Op funeral directors in Chelmsford and told me a very tragic story of to boys playing with their father's shotgun and it went off blowing his friend's head off. So this is a gun free house. I can't understand the fascination that some Americans have with guns?

1) teaching kids to respect guns and letting them touch them can prevent unauthorized/unsupervised access because then they don't need to sneak around to play with them

2) keeping a gun loaded where children or even adults can access them is just stupid.  Just because some gun owners are stupid doesn't mean all of us are and doesn't mean that I should lose my right just because of idiots who are less responsible.

My weapons have snapcaps in them to prevent damage to the firing pins if they are dry fired.


 

[Mr. Gee]

1) teaching kids to respect guns and letting them touch them can prevent unauthorized/unsupervised access because then they don't need to sneak around to play with them

2) keeping a gun loaded where children or even adults can access them is just stupid.  Just because some gun owners are stupid doesn't mean all of us are and doesn't mean that I should lose my right just because of idiots who are less responsible.

My weapons have snapcaps in them to prevent damage to the firing pins if they are dry fired.

No I'm not saying that all gun users are stupid. I used to play with capguns when I was little and later on I bought a .177 slug gun. Over here because of our strict gun laws you don't normally get kids sneeking off to play with firearms, because they just aren't available. Of course if they get mixed up with gangs they can get hold of firearms. But in most places it isn't an issue. But then again it may just be me. I'm like that with knives as well and make sure they are always in the right place, especially as my grandson is beginning to find his feet now.

[lookout]

 There's no getting away from it.Jeremys' conviction IS unsafe !!

[scipio_usmc]

There's no getting away from it.Jeremys' conviction IS unsafe !!

That is your unsupported opinion merely and you have demonstrated you are woefully ignorant of the facts of this case and too biased to care about them. 

You asserted yesterday that Nevill or June killed Sheila which means one of them then had to commit suicide.  Either of them committing suicide and then while dead marching the gun to Sheila's body is no more possible than a dead Sheila putting the moderator away.

You just don't want to face that Jeremy is guilty and will invent any narrative it takes to pretend that it was someone else.

This doesn't establish his conviction unsafe it just proves that you choose to live in denial.   

[lookout]

I'm telling you,whether he be guilty or not,that his conviction WAS/IS unsafe ! I thought you were a lawyer.
In view of ALL the anomalies,in which we wouldn't be discussing on here if there weren't, a re-trial would be the least that could be offered to this man.

[scipio_usmc]

I'm telling you,whether he be guilty or not,that his conviction WAS/IS unsafe ! I thought you were a lawyer.
In view of ALL the anomalies,in which we wouldn't be discussing on here if there weren't, a re-trial would be the least that could be offered to this man.

There are no anomalies in the trial that would warrant a retrial.  There are no instances of legal error that have been pointed out.  The claims that evidence wa swithheld from the defense such as Bonnett's are all untrue claims.

If we totally set aside the issue of his guilt and just look at the trial procedure I have yet to see anyone  present any errors that warrant a new trial.

If you have evidence of any be my guest to point them out but the ones discussed to date all flopped upon being scrutinized.

The most common grounds for a new trial are that the trial juge committed legal error by admitting evidence that should not have been admitted or gave improper jury instructions.  The direct appeal found no error. 


   

[lookout]

God,you're incorrigible. There were anomalies--------lots of them.

Why do you think that someone is prepared to fight this case ? Would you not have thought that word would get around to steer clear of it if it wasn't worth looking into ?

[scipio_usmc]

God,you're incorrigible. There were anomalies--------lots of them.

Why do you think that someone is prepared to fight this case ? Would you not have thought that word would get around to steer clear of it if it wasn't worth looking into ?

This is a good illustration of how different we operate.

Lookout's thought process- the case had to be unsound because people are willing to try to help him appeal and because people allege it is unsound.  The simple fact people make arguments must mean the arguments are sound.

Scipio- the people making the arguments have to provide evidence to prove their claims and such evidence must survive scrutiny for the arguments to be proven sound.  The mere making of an allegation means nothing at all.

A court requires proof not unsupported allegations so my thought process involves being able to actually support a claim in a court and to get a court to rule for a new trial.  I attack things in a practical fashion. 

[lookout]

Then WHERE is this proof that you keep banging on about ? Was he caught red-handed ? No,he wasn't !

[scipio_usmc]

Then WHERE is this proof that you keep banging on about ? Was he caught red-handed ? No,he wasn't !

I already posted such proof.  The proof I posted that Sheila did not kill herself was sufficient for you to say that Nevill or June killed her which naturally requires whoever did to have subsequently committed suicide. 

Whenever I post it in full you complain it is too long to bother reading. 

On occasion you just shift blame though to the parents in an effort to blame anyone except Jeremy.  You just want Jeremy to be innocent you don't care who in the house is blamed instead.

[lookout]

I already posted such proof.  The proof I posted that Sheila did not kill herself was sufficient for you to say that Nevill or June killed her which naturally requires whoever did to have subsequently committed suicide. 

Whenever I post it in full you complain it is too long to bother reading. 

On occasion you just shift blame though to the parents in an effort to blame anyone except Jeremy.  You just want Jeremy to be innocent you don't care who in the house is blamed instead.

I don't want proof that Sheila didn't kill herself,I want proof that Jeremy did it. Concrete Proof please.