I disagree he was found guilty by a 10-2 majority if one more juror had sided with him he would be a free man.
Considering the Jury did not know the following
1. Was not aware that the DNA in the Silencer was not Shelia's but Junes and no proof it was blood based DNA.
They were not aware of DNA period let alone DNA in the moderator. Sheila's blood was removed from the moderator and that is what they were told. According to the 2002 COA decision the jury had access to the moderator and could be who contaminated it with DNA.
2. Julie Mugford was given imunity from prosecution of her own crimes if she testified against him.
She wasn't given immunity in exchange for testimony, In fact, the only reason police knew about her minor crimes was because she told them during the course of her statements about Jeremy. She could have failed to disclose such things and police would not have been the wiser. It was not the case of police catching her doing something wrong and then offering her immunity to get a bigger fish. Police already made the decision prior to trial that they would not be able to prosecute her because of a lack of evidence. The only evidence they had came from her and was nonspecific as to her drug offenses with Jeremy. They determined there was no evidence she was a co-conspirator with respect to Jeremy's Caravan robbery. The only evidence against her that could be verified after she told them about it was the check fraud but the bank indicated it would not press charges against her and Battersby because they paid the money back.
The police could not prosecute for the check fraud or the Caravan theft and decided that it would be a waste of time bothering for the drugs because the punishment even if they could convict her solely based on her confession would be a caution because she was a first time offender.
3. Julie Mugford and Jeremy's cousins had financial incentives to push for a guilty verdict
She had no financial incentive their financial incentive was limited and there is no evidence that any of them made up anything to get him convicted. For someone who wants to argue he is innocent and they lied it is necessary to demonstrate they did which of course no supporter can do, it is blind faith in Jeremy or hatred of the authorities that drive his supporters.
4. Police admitted only after the trial that they messed up the crime scene.
The police statements indicate the limited things they messed up and the defense was always aware of such. The allegations by the defense that there was no struggle between the killer and Nevill and that police messed up the entire kitchen- much more than they said in their statements- was not supported by any evidence and in fact refuted by the evidence and thus rejected by the Court of Appeals in 2002 which considered the issue a frivolous claim. The allegation was based upon hearsay not statements from the raid team. The court then quoted from the raid team which is what it said matters because they are the ones who would be in a position to know what the scene was like upon their entry.
From the 2002 decision:
We have considered the potential impact that Action 94 might have had on the jury. We think it is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the jury might have been persuaded by it that there had not been a violent struggle in the kitchen. Even if one discounts the evidence of the overturned stools and chairs and the broken sugar bowl, there was sufficient other evidence to suggest a violent struggle. Mr Bamber's body lay across an overturned chair that can have had nothing to do with the actions of the TFG, the light fitting was broken, there were the injuries apart from the shot wounds to Mr Bamber, there was the piece broken off the rifle stock, there were score marks under the mantelpiece where it had been struck by the sound moderator attached to the rifle, and there was Mr Bamber's watch lying damaged under a rug on the other side of the room.
DI Cook's comments on the Action 94 are unsatisfactory in themselves. The words "There was no sugar on the floor it was all confined to an area under the table and if it was, officers would have been walking in the same. Sugar was later found because the table was moved and sugar swept around" are in themselves potentially contradictory depending upon how they are read. It should not be forgotten that DI Cook was one of the officers who had supported the murder/suicide conclusion and that at the date of Action 94, different officers had taken over responsibility for the inquiry and concluded that the original investigation had missed significant evidence. In such circumstances DI Cook had every motive to seek to support his original view by reading into matters that had been reported to him more than was the reality of the situation.
We find that there is nothing in the hearsay comments recorded in the Action 94 that even if they could have been introduced into evidence could realistically have been thought to lead to a conclusion other than that there had been a violent struggle in the kitchen.
It seems that you do what all Jeremy supporters do you take bogus claims already rejected by the courts and refuted and recycle them anyway.
Now if the Jury was aware of this do you still think the verdict would be 10-2? I seriously doubt it.
Yes, everything you raised was nonsense that was easy to refute because it has already been refuted int he past.
