Sheila not fighting back. Why ?

[scipio_usmc]

June also had the same " soot " marks on one of her hands that Sheila also had.

Sheila didn't have any soot on her hands, apart from the blood on the side of her hand running to her wrist her hands were clean.

June's hands were never tested and that failure was exploited by Mike to suggest June loaded the gun and may have fired it.

 

[lookout]

Sheila didn't have any soot on her hands, apart from the blood on the side of her hand running to her wrist her hands were clean.

June's hands were never tested and that failure was exploited by Mike to suggest June loaded the gun and may have fired it.

 

Sheila DID have soot on her right hand,as did June,most likely through grappling for control of the rifle.
Also deep grip marks were visible on arms of all three adults.

Sheilas' right hand was NOT clean.

[Jane]

1) Far from being rubbish my point about the key issue being whether Julie had a need and reason to make up the story about Jeremy doing wrong to save herself is accurate.  When one is alleging a witness made up a story of knowing about wrongdoing committed by someone else just because they were in trouble and wanted to save their own skin one needs to demonstrate they wer ein trouble and needed to save their own skin and then made up a story.

She had no need for immunity prior to telling her story.  Police were unaware of the crimes she committed.  Moreover, she could have told police everything she said about Jeremy without admitting her crimes.  She admitted them willingly and but for that fact they would not have been aware of them. 

Her admissions were the only evidence of the crimes the police ever developed. They had no witnesses to establish Julie and Susan passed the checks themselves other than Julie and Susan. They had no independent witnesses or physical evidence regarding any drug offenses or the Caravan break-in.

Telling police about Jeremy exposed her to liability it didn't save her from harm. Thus the attempt to frame it as her lying in order to save herself fails miserably.

2) Your claim that she got immunity is rubbish.  The legal bar to prosecuting her for bank fraud was that the bank accepted restitution and would not press charges.  It didn't matter whether she testified or not after that point.  Police could not charge her or Susan with fraud because the bank would not press charges. Even if she refused to testify police could do nothing.

The alleged drug offenses relied entirely on her confession and if she decided to fight it her admission would be the sole evidence police had. The Caravan break-in featured her say she tried to get a key so he could enter so she unsuccessfully attempted to help him get inside. As a lawyer you know a defense attorney would say she had no idea he wanted to do anything illegal and that she thought he had a legal right to be there since he was a part owner. 

Post for everyone what legal bar to attempt to prosecute Julie for the drug offenses and the break-in if the authorities decided they wanted to do so, was created by her testifying in the case.  There was no legal bar created by her testifying, she wasn't granted immunity. If the authorities wanted to try to charge her after she testified they could have done so there was no legal bar to charging her with them only a legal bar to charging her for the bank fraud and that bar predated the testimony and hinged on the bank's decision.

3) If you posted evidence of the likely sentences for the crimes in question then please point out where and your source.  I have researched the issue and even today the penalties are small for the alleged drug offenses and fraud.  The prosecutor wrote that in Essex it was standard to issue a cation for a first time drug offender in those circumstances.  What evidence do you have to the contrary>

Explain in detail what unsuccessfully attempting to get the key to commit a burglary would enable a prosecutor to charge someone with.  Then explain the defense her lawyers could make and the chance of a successful prosecution.

The failure to file a criminal complaint means no bank fraud charges could be pursued but what was the typical punishment for a first time offender for a sum of 800 pounds and what was the maximum punishment?  How much did someone need to steal in order to get jailtime?  Even today only people who steal a great deal get jailtime.  Minor fraud results in fines. 

 

 

I think you must allow that it is more likely that we would take the word of someone who, because it's been his career, has vast knowledge of British law and its' nuances, over someone like yourself who is involved in American law. From what you have told us, the systems are very different.

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio you mention that there was no blood found in the silencer from Nicholas Caffell(and by assumption also twin brother Daniel). But didn't the perpetrator hold the ,22 anschutz with moderator attached close to the twins' heads,and what would have been the result were this to be the case? I'm also interested in the DNA from June being found in the silencer but none from Sheila,or have I not got this correct?

1) DNA

A) Prior to testing for DNA the moderator was tested for the presence of blood and tested negative thus if any DNA were found there would be no way to establish is was blood based and therefore no way to use such finding to establish the person's blood had bee inside the moderator.  Thus the testing was pointless.

B) At least 3 DNA profiles were found in the moderator, it is possible they found 6.

They tested the baffles in 3 different sets, set A, B and C.  Each set comprised different baffles.

Set A had 2 incomplete profiles and a near complete profile. 

Sets B and C had 2 incomplete profiles and a near complete profile. 

The least complete profiles had only 2 markers present so were of no use at all in trying to assess who they belonged to.  It is possible for all 3 of these least complete profiles to belong to different people. 

The least complete profile in Set A they could not even ascertain the gender of the contributor.  Supposedly they were able to ascertain the gender of the contributors in groups B and C as being male.

The most complete profile in all 3 sets was determined to have been June's DNA.

The second most complete profile was female.  It could have come from up to 3 different females though there was not enough to say the same profile was in each of the 3 sets.       


Seven swabbings have been taken from internal parts of the moderator apart from the baffles. All seven results indicated that DNA from more than one person was present. The results were complex and incomplete and it was not possible to determine how many people had contributed to the DNA from the mixture. The predominant contribution appeared to have come from a female or females.

In addition 7 different swabbings were done of the other internals of the moderator (internals other than the baffles)

Sheila's DNA profile was detected in 5 of the 7.  The remaining 2 had components which matched Sheila , but not at all of the ten areas of DNA markers available for comparison so the match was not as conclusive.

The expert said it was enough to say Sheila's DNA was present but didn't have the knowledge to calculate the statistical odds.  The COA reduced this from Sheial's DNA definitely being present to might have been present in order to give Jeremy the best benefit possible.  They did so fully knowing it made no difference though so it was not really them being as generous as they made it seem.

C) The boys' wounds were far enough away they would not result in drawback.  Furthermore, 22 shots to  the skull do not usually result in backspatter it takes larger rounds to accomplish such because of the nature of the area.  That is why I don't include their blood as necessarily being on the killer.  The killer definitely would have had high velocity spatter from Nevill and June (because of the location of some of their wounds and distance of those shots) but it is possible that no spatter from the boys got on the killer.  It is possible spatter got on the killer from them but it is not that likely so far from a sure thing. 

For their blood to get in the weapon it had to be fired at 1mm or less from their bodies which didn't happen and even if that had happened the shots in the locations where they received them would still not have necessarily resulted in drawback. 

The unknown male DNA found in the moderator could have been from one of them for all we know.  We don't know whose DNA the unknown profiles were from.  Who they belonged to makes no difference at all because it can't be established it was blood based and even if it was blood based that sill doesn't have any bearing on the blood already removed which is what matters.  The only DNA test that could actually matter would be a DNA test of the blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986.

[scipio_usmc]

Sheila DID have soot on her right hand,as did June,most likely through grappling for control of the rifle.
Also deep grip marks were visible on arms of all three adults.

Sheilas' right hand was NOT clean.

Produce evidence. 

[lookout]

Produce evidence.  You are like Mike you constantly post nonsense and have demonstrated time and again that you are totally ignorant of the actual facts of this case.

Just because you profess to be a lawyer doesn't mean to say that you always get things right,or are right.
It's Scott Lomax's evidence,not Mikes,nor mine.

[ngb1066]

Produce evidence.  You are like Mike you constantly post nonsense and have demonstrated time and again that you are totally ignorant of the actual facts of this case.

Scipio - please avoid insults such as this.  Attack the argument, not the poster.

[Jane]

Produce evidence.  You are like Mike you constantly post nonsense and have demonstrated time and again that you are totally ignorant of the actual facts of this case.

We do ONLY have your word for that......................and your determination to be seen as being top dog.

[scipio_usmc]

I think you must allow that it is more likely that we would take the word of someone who, because it's been his career, has vast knowledge of British law and its' nuances, over someone like yourself who is involved in American law. From what you have told us, the systems are very different.

I don't care what you choose to believe.  I challenged him to back up his claims by asking for evidence and asking relevant questions.

Unless he can produce evidence that as a result of her testimony they were legally barred from bringing charges and thus trying to prosecute her then she wasn't granted immunity.  The simple truth is that her testimony didn't create a legal bar to attempting to prosecuting her after Jeremy's conviction.  There was no contract made where if she agreed to give testimony the government would not prosecute her.

Therefore it doesn't meet the definition of immunity.  Nor does it meet the spirit of what is referred to as immunity which as I explained relates to situations where the government wants a bigger fish and thus offers a deal for immunity or a plea-bargain to a suspect in exchange for testimony or a suspect  volunteers that they have information on another crime and requests a deal themselves.  Both situations involved someone already being snared by police and then rolling over on someone else.

This situation was where police were totally unaware of any wrongdoing by Julie until she admitted it herself and did so while rolling over on Jeremy.  If she truly thought she would be in serious trouble that actually helps her credibility.  It means that she didn't care that she coudl end up being prosecuted and told police what she knew about Jeremy anyway because she believed it was mro eimportant to risk being punished than to let him go free.

Going into the nuances actually helps her credibility instead of harming it.

This big picture is what matters.

I asked for evidence related to the potential punishment even though it is not that significant.  What I posted though reflected what British sources list I had to look up such things since I don't know British law offhand.  British sources discussed the need to enhance the punishment for fraud and what that enhanced punishment was and how it still was not enough to deter minor fraud.

It also discussed the punishments for drugs which varied by the substance, amount of substance, whether it was a first offense, if the drugs were being sold then the importance of the role of such person in the sale.  Was the person behind the whole operation, a major part or just a lesser role?  All of these factors result in Sheila at most standing to get a low community order and fine thought he normal course would be to just give a police caution.  If NGB has evidence of otherwise than I will look at it but I don't just accept claims blindly from anyone. 

 

[scipio_usmc]

Just because you profess to be a lawyer doesn't mean to say that you always get things right,or are right.
It's Scott Lomax's evidence,not Mikes,nor mine.

Lomax makes claims he is not a source for evidence.  In any event you have not even established he made the allegation.  Post evidence that he made such allegations and then what if anything he offered as proof to substantiate it. I read his book and I don't recall him making those allegations.

 

[scipio_usmc]

We do ONLY have your word for that......................and your determination to be seen as being top dog.

My word for what- my word that the only thing found on her hands was blood on the outside of her palm running to her wrist?

There are photos of such, that is what Vanezis recorded and expressed to others that he observed and that is what the COA summarized.

The defense never challenged the claim which they would have done if they had evidence to establish otherwise.

There are various documents demonstrating Nevill's and Sheila's hands were tested including court documents discussing the results.  There are none referencing June's or the twins' hands being tested. If someone wants to assert they were tested and to know the results of such testing then they need to produce evidence that they were actually tested and proof of the results.

Mike stressed the fact they were not tested and used such fact as shield to efforts to disprove his claims about June loading the gun and doing some shooting.  No testing was done so that means we can't prove she lacked GSR on her hands or lead residue from loading the rifle.     

[ngb1066]

I don't care what you choose to believe.  I challenged him to back up his claims by asking for evidence and asking relevant questions.

Unless he can produce evidence that as a result of her testimony they were legally barred from bringing charges and thus trying to prosecute her then she wasn't granted immunity.  The simple truth is that her testimony didn't create a legal bar to attempting to prosecuting her after Jeremy's conviction.  There was no contract made where if she agreed to give testimony the government would not prosecute her.

Therefore it doesn't meet the definition of immunity.  Nor does it meet the spirit of what is referred to as immunity which as I explained relates to situations where the government wants a bigger fish and thus offers a deal for immunity or a plea-bargain to a suspect in exchange for testimony or a suspect  volunteers that they have information on another crime and requests a deal themselves.  Both situations involved someone already being snared by police and then rolling over on someone else.

This situation was where police were totally unaware of any wrongdoing by Julie until she admitted it herself and did so while rolling over on Jeremy.  If she truly thought she would be in serious trouble that actually helps her credibility.  It means that she didn't care that she coudl end up being prosecuted and told police what she knew about Jeremy anyway because she believed it was mro eimportant to risk being punished than to let him go free.

Going into the nuances actually helps her credibility instead of harming it.

This big picture is what matters.

I asked for evidence related to the potential punishment even though it is not that significant.  What I posted though reflected what British sources list I had to look up such things since I don't know British law offhand.  British sources discussed the need to enhance the punishment for fraud and what that enhanced punishment was and how it still was not enough to deter minor fraud.

It also discussed the punishments for drugs which varied by the substance, amount of substance, whether it was a first offense, if the drugs were being sold then the importance of the role of such person in the sale.  Was the person behind the whole operation, a major part or just a lesser role?  All of these factors result in Sheila at most standing to get a low community order and fine thought he normal course would be to just give a police caution.  If NGB has evidence of otherwise than I will look at it but I don't just accept claims blindly from anyone. 

 

As I said earlier I will answer your points in full.  The problem is that I am busy and your post to which I responded was long (as usual!) and contained several distinct points.  It will therefore require a fairly lengthy post to deal with the issues.  I hope to be able to make that post tomorrow.  I accept that you do not need to take my my word for the assertion that your arguments are flawed and that you are entitled to a proper point by point response before you can assess what I say and decide whether you accept some or all of my rebuttal arguments.  I certainly do not mind being challenged, that is healthy and constructive.

[Jane]

My word for what- my word that the only thing found on her hands was blood on the outside of her palm running to her wrist?

There are photos of such, that is what Vanezis recorded and expressed to others that he observed and that is what the COA summarized.

The defense never challenged the claim which they would have done if they had evidence to establish otherwise.

There are various documents demonstrating Nevill's and Sheila's hands were tested including court documents discussing the results.  There are none referencing June's or the twins' hands being tested. If someone wants to assert they were tested and to know the results of such testing then they need to produce evidence that they were actually tested and proof of the results.

Mike stressed the fact they were not tested and used such fact as shield to efforts to disprove his claims about June loading the gun and doing some shooting.  No testing was done so that means we can't prove she lacked GSR on her hands or lead residue from loading the rifle.   

NO! And please don't redirect the subject. I'm referring to your own belief that you are more knowledgeable about this case than is ngb.

[lookout]

Lomax makes claims he is not a source for evidence.  In any event you have not even established he made the allegation.  Post evidence that he made such allegations and then what if anything he offered as proof to substantiate it. I read his book and I don't recall him making those allegations.

 

So there you are. You're told,or given the evidence and STILL you don't believe it whether it's from doctors,psychiatrists,pathologists,judges,authors who've interviewed people involved,no matter who,you are right,they're all wrong. You're incorrigible.!!

[scipio_usmc]

As I said earlier I will answer your points in full.  The problem is that I am busy and your post to which I responded was long (as usual!) and contained several distinct points.  It will therefore require a fairly lengthy post to deal with the issues.  I hope to be able to make that post tomorrow.  I accept that you do not need to take my my word for the assertion that your arguments are flawed and that you are entitled to a proper point by point response before you can assess what I say and decide whether you accept some or all of my rebuttal arguments.  I certainly do not mind being challenged, that is healthy and constructive.

I was speaking to April about my position.  I think people here too readily adopt opinions without evaluating the reasoning and evidence that provides the basis of such.

In the process of explaining it I was not rushing you for a response. Some people here can't wait 5 minutes for a response but I am not one of them. It doesn't matter if you take a week.  The only effect it would have if you never respond is I would have no reason to alter my position.  It is not a big deal either way.