Sheila not fighting back. Why ?

[David1819]

Well it was either found by the relatives with Sheila's blood, paint and hair on. As they testified.

Or it was found by the relatives with nothing on. The police and lab technicians taking a massive risk in planting Sheila's blood and paint on it.

Either way, Bamber can't win by getting it tested. As it's Sheila's blood.

In 1985/6 DNA technology was still primitive. I strongly suggest you read up on prosecution case of the Trial.

They could only establish that what was in the 5th baffle plate contained AK1 enzyme which belongs to Shelias blood group and is not present in Junes or Nevills blood group.

The results using more modern technology conducted in 1999 contradicted the tests done in 1985/6

Webster also found the DNA of an unknown male. It was not Neville or the Boultflours they where ruled out

[Jane]

Thought it would be 100% Sheila's blood if the police were trying to frame him.

And 100% Sheila's blood if the relatives found it as they testified
 Who else's blood could it be ?

Bamber just wanted tests because he 'has nothing better to do' and wanted to keep up his media profile.

I don't think much about the trial -other than that 5 people were dead- can be called 100%.

[Jan]

How did the watch get under a rug? And what was the damage?

It could have been trodden on by the raid team?

[Jane]

How did the watch get under a rug? And what was the damage?

It could have been trodden on by the raid team?

I imagine with that many size 13's stomping through the kitchen, it undoubtedly was :D

[Adam]

In 1985/6 DNA technology was still primitive. I strongly suggest you read up on prosecution case of the Trial.

They could only establish that what was in the 5th baffle plate contained AK1 enzyme which belongs to Shelias blood group and is not present in Junes or Nevills blood group.

The results using more modern technology conducted in 1999 contradicted the tests done in 1985/6

Webster also found the DNA of an unknown male. It was not Neville or the Boultflours they where ruled out

To me the fact that it is human blood has always been good enough for me.

Human blood splatter so deep in the silencer must have occurred on the massacre night.

Why would Sheila kill everyone, then put the silencer away, in a box, underneath lots if items at the back of the gun cupboard, before killing herself ?

The evidence showing it is Sheila's blood just makes it more conclusive.

[scipio_usmc]

So you think he asked for the tests because he is guilty , but knows he did not use the silencer?

Caroline ignores that Jeremy knew all along that his own experts failed to find any blood inside.  That alone made the test worthless, it was always just a propaganda tool which was planned to be used.  Whatever the results were they had hired someone to try spinning the results in the defense's favor. That entailed an expert claiming a partial profile was a male even though there was no scientifically valid basis to make such a claim and to ignore that Sheila's DNA was found based on the statistical match.  Instead of admitting the match was statistically strong enough it was represented as being not a strong enough match to say for sure it was hers.  The chance of the missing markers ruling out Sheila was not statistically significant but she strained anyway because she was being paid by the defense to do so.

The fact the defense knew there was no blood based DNA means that if they did find Sheila's DNA and only Sheila's DNA they would still have a basis to argue it was meaningless because it was not blood based and thus was the result of contamination.  So Jeremy had nothing to lose in requesting the test. 

Caroline's claim that he would not have requested it had he used it is false.  He had nothing to lose in requesting the test.  Indeed convicted people rotting in jail who are guilty routinely request DNA tests.  Countless rapists/murders have requested DNA tests and the DNA ended up matching them.  More than half the time when DNA tests are requested he results substantiate guilt.

Caroline's argument also makes no sense because Jeremy was asserting police or family planted Sheila's blood in the moderator.  If he thought they planted her blood and expected DNA to be found than he would have expected her DNA to be found.

Caroline's sole basis for saying the moderator wasn't used is because if it had then Jeremy would not have wanted the test.  This is a ridiculous argument in light of the points above especially that a majority of the time when convicted felons request DNA tests the DNA confirms their guilt.

A rational person assessing whether it was used would look to the evidence related to the moderator.

1) If the moderator were not used Sheila's blood would have been in the rifle barrel
2) If the moderator was not used the the ceiling lamp would not have been broken and the mantle not scratched
3) If the moderator was not used then it would not have had blood on/in it and not have had paint on it.

These are the things that must be addressed in order to establish the moderator wasn't used and thus enable a rational objective party to believe it wasn't used.

Those who believe it wasn't used for reasons other than this are not looking at the issue logically, rationally or objectively.  Their beliefs are thus meaningless to anyone except themselves and other biased people who take comfort in the fact others share their views.     

A rational person who cares about the facts and evidence and the Courts which care about facts and evidence couldn't care less about the unsupported opinions of people.

[Jan]

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.  

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.  They were not minor crimes . So you don't believe the bank manager about the police arranging her visit to the bank then? What about the alleged drug smuggling - you call that minor? this was mentioned in official documents.

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.  Fraud / Theft and drugs offences ? Not always a caution and the document from DPP shows she was given immunity because of the trial

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.  - There is a reason why the rules state the press should not enter into a contract with someone who is going to be witness in a serious crime - It is not hard to work out why  also I think enough money to buy a flat is an incentive not to waiver when getting into the witness box

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 saidmatters because they are the ones who would be in a position to know what the scene was like upoyn their entry.
Your whole stance in this  case is that the police never lie. This has been shown in many other cases NOT to be a FACT

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.

Yes, everything you raised was nonsense that was easy to refute because it has already been refuted int he past.

[Jan]

To me the fact that it is human blood has always been good enough for me.

Human blood splatter so deep in the silencer must have occurred on the massacre night.

Why would Sheila kill everyone, then put the silencer away, in a box, underneath lots if items at the back of the gun cupboard, before killing herself ?

The evidence showing it is Sheila's blood just makes it more conclusive.

No it does not ever say there was 100% it was Sheilas blood - you know this to be a FACT and still keep repeating this untruth.

[David1819]

Yes, everything you raised was nonsense that was easy to refute because it has already been refuted int he past.

As I have said before it may well be nonsense on planet Scippy but on Earth that is not the situation at all.

What a surprise another essay sized rant! I am still waiting to hear from you why you put so much time and energy into debating this case day in day out when at the same time you claim its solved?

Why bother if you are so convinced? You have put over 4000 posts on this forum and failed to prove anything conclusive. The only thing you have proved beyond all doubt is that your a rude self-righteous obnoxious pseudo-intellectual hypocrite who refuses to capitulate even on the most reasonable discussions.

 
The wise man knows he knows nothing, the fool thinks he knows all

[Adam]

No it does not ever say there was 100% it was Sheilas blood - you know this to be a FACT and still keep repeating this untruth.

I said 'the evidence showing'. Nowhere did I mention 100%.

I trust it is 100% human blood.

My post was about the madness of people thinking Sheila neatly put the silencer away after her 'crazy rage'.  Perhaps that was after she had a shower.

[scipio_usmc]

Because it is not 100% definite that it was Sheila's blood!

It doesn't have to be 100% definite for a conviction.  It merely needs to be hers beyond a reasonable doubt and it is.  No one has produced any evidence that suggests it is reasonably likely it was not her blood.  It is unreasonable to think it wasn't her blood. It is unreasonable to think the moderator was n't used.

You whole position on this issue is an unreasonable one.

Here is your unreasonable position laid out:

You don't care that guilty people routinely request DNA tests, don't care that the fact no blood was found before requesting the DNA test provided a perfect out for Jeremy in the event Sheila's DNA were found, and don't care that if he truly believed police planted Sheila's blood that her DNA would be found if there was still any blood left.  All of these things demolish the reasoning you provide for why you believe it wasn't used.

Your position is further unreasonable because you use this bogus reason to then say it means police must have planted the evidence though you have no way to establish who, when, why or how that could have been done nor deal with the fact it also means they would have to have concealed the finding of blood in the rifle.

To refute the moderator evidence requires establishing it was reasonably likely someone planted the blood, which requires the age old who, when, how and why and reasonably likely the blood was removed from the rifle which again requires who, when, how and why.  Short of such the moderator evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. 

[Jane]

It doesn't have to be 100% definite for a conviction.  It merely needs to be hers beyond a reasonable doubt and it is.  No one has produced any evidence that suggests it is reasonably likely it was not her blood.  It is unreasonable to think it wasn't her blood. It is unreasonable to think the moderator was n't used.

You whole position on this issue is an unreasonable one.

Here is your unreasonable position laid out:

You don't care that guilty people routinely request DNA tests, don't care that the fact no blood was found before requesting the DNA test provided a perfect out for Jeremy in the event Sheila's DNA were found, and don't care that if he truly believed police planted Sheila's blood that her DNA would be found if there was still any blood left.  All of these things demolish the reasoning you provide for why you believe it wasn't used.

Your position is further unreasonable because you use this bogus reason to then say it means police must have planted the evidence though you have no way to establish who, when, why or how that could have been done nor deal with the fact it also means they would have to have concealed the finding of blood in the rifle.

To refute the moderator evidence requires establishing it was reasonably likely someone planted the blood, which requires the age old who, when, how and why and reasonably likely the blood was removed from the rifle which again requires who, when, how and why.  Short of such the moderator evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's also unreasonable to believe that a farmer's son, allegedly good at shooting, at 25, had never previously tried to shoot rabbits, but it doesn't stop you from saying it was so.

[scipio_usmc]

In 1985/6 DNA technology was still primitive. I strongly suggest you read up on prosecution case of the Trial.

They could only establish that what was in the 5th baffle plate contained AK1 enzyme which belongs to Shelias blood group and is not present in Junes or Nevills blood group.

The results using more modern technology conducted in 1999 contradicted the tests done in 1985/6

Webster also found the DNA of an unknown male. It was not Neville or the Boultflours they where ruled out

You are the one who needs to read up on the case not me.  You are wrong factually and scientifically.

1) The enzyme test is not a DNA test.  There was no DNA test done in 1985 or 1986 period let alone any DNA evidence used at trial.

2) The enzyme was found in a flake of blood trapped between baffles 1 and 2 not on baffle 5.  I already corrected you on this issue multiple times.  The fact you mad eit at all demosntrates your ignorance of the facts of the case but when you repeat the same distortions over and over it shows even more how you couldn't care less about the facts.

3) The 1999 tests were for the presence of blood to see if any blood still remained in the moderator and those tests were negative.  These tests didn't have any ability to contradict the 1985-86 tests. 

4) The DNA tests conducted in 2000 likewise had no ability to contradict the 1985-86 tests.  The only way a DNA test could contradict the testing done in 1985 by the lab and in 1986 by defense expert Lincoln would be itf a DNA test were done on the blood removed by the lab and removed by Lincoln and such testing established the blood were someone other than Sheila.  Testing the moderator does nothing, the test would have to have been of the blood that these experts assessed to be Sheila's.

You are wrong from A-Z

 

[lookout]

As I have said before it may well be nonsense on planet Scippy but on Earth that is not the situation at all.

What a surprise another essay sized rant! I am still waiting to hear from you why you put so much time and energy into debating this case day in day out when at the same time you claim its solved?

Why bother if you are so convinced? You have put over 4000 posts on this forum and failed to prove anything conclusive. The only thing you have proved beyond all doubt is that your a rude self-righteous obnoxious pseudo-intellectual hypocrite who refuses to capitulate even on the most reasonable discussions.

 
The wise man knows he knows nothing, the fool thinks he knows all

How I love your little quips  .

Reminds me of the old adage :

He who knows not and knows not he knows not,is a fool,shun him.
He who knows not and knows he knows not,is simple,teach him.
He who knows and knows not he knows,is asleep,wake him.
He who knows and knows he knows,is wise,follow him.

[Caroline]

Caroline ignores that Jeremy knew all along that his own experts failed to find any blood inside.  That alone made the test worthless, it was always just a propaganda tool which was planned to be used.  Whatever the results were they had hired someone to try spinning the results in the defense's favor. That entailed an expert claiming a partial profile was a male even though there was no scientifically valid basis to make such a claim and to ignore that Sheila's DNA was found based on the statistical match.  Instead of admitting the match was statistically strong enough it was represented as being not a strong enough match to say for sure it was hers.  The chance of the missing markers ruling out Sheila was not statistically significant but she strained anyway because she was being paid by the defense to do so.

The fact the defense knew there was no blood based DNA means that if they did find Sheila's DNA and only Sheila's DNA they would still have a basis to argue it was meaningless because it was not blood based and thus was the result of contamination.  So Jeremy had nothing to lose in requesting the test. 

Caroline's claim that he would not have requested it had he used it is false.  He had nothing to lose in requesting the test.  Indeed convicted people rotting in jail who are guilty routinely request DNA tests.  Countless rapists/murders have requested DNA tests and the DNA ended up matching them.  More than half the time when DNA tests are requested he results substantiate guilt.

Caroline's argument also makes no sense because Jeremy was asserting police or family planted Sheila's blood in the moderator.  If he thought they planted her blood and expected DNA to be found than he would have expected her DNA to be found.

Caroline's sole basis for saying the moderator wasn't used is because if it had then Jeremy would not have wanted the test.  This is a ridiculous argument in light of the points above especially that a majority of the time when convicted felons request DNA tests the DNA confirms their guilt.

A rational person assessing whether it was used would look to the evidence related to the moderator.

1) If the moderator were not used Sheila's blood would have been in the rifle barrel
2) If the moderator was not used the the ceiling lamp would not have been broken and the mantle not scratched
3) If the moderator was not used then it would not have had blood on/in it and not have had paint on it.

These are the things that must be addressed in order to establish the moderator wasn't used and thus enable a rational objective party to believe it wasn't used.

Those who believe it wasn't used for reasons other than this are not looking at the issue logically, rationally or objectively.  Their beliefs are thus meaningless to anyone except themselves and other biased people who take comfort in the fact others share their views.     

A rational person who cares about the facts and evidence and the Courts which care about facts and evidence couldn't care less about the unsupported opinions of people.

I think you have over used the word 'rational' and there are more people here that are 'rational; other than you. In fact, you're obsession with suggesting that other people are 'irrational' because they don't agree with you - is in fact - irrational!!

The points you highlighted are important points to YOU!! It does NOT naturally follow that the barrel would have blood inside, it is NOT impossible that it wouldn't - the light may have been broken as part of the staging and I have still yet to see you post evidence to suggest the blood inside the silencer was 'a fine mist' - blood and paint could easily have been put there.

You can call me irrational a million times if it makes you feel better but I will NOT believe that the silencer evidence is sound!