Human blood in the silencer:

[Mr. Gee]

The silencer proved guilt at trial.

Experts saying it was Sheila's blood. Other experts saying Sheila could not shoot herself.

There was only one way to vote.

If that was so then why did 2 of the jury vote not guilty?
It is an illusion to say that the silencer proved guilt for reasons I have consistently explained for a long time obviously to willingly deaf ears.

[Caroline]

If that was so then why did 2 of the jury vote not guilty?
It is an illusion to say that the silencer proved guilt for reasons I have consistently explained for a long time obviously to willingly deaf ears.

The silencer doesn't prove anything either way. Only one thing would prove innocence and that's evidence of the phone calls (Nevill to Jeremy and/or Nevill to police).

[Mr. Gee]

The silencer doesn't prove anything either way. Only one thing would prove innocence and that's evidence of the phone calls (Nevill to Jeremy and/or Nevill to police).

Maybe not Caroline. But the silencer evidence was accepted over Bambers statement of the phone call just because he could not offer evidence that it was made.
On the same terms the silencer evidence was offered and accepted on the presumption that it was true although it co7uld not be proved that the relatives found it except by their own word.

[Adam]

If that was so then why did 2 of the jury vote not guilty?
It is an illusion to say that the silencer proved guilt for reasons I have consistently explained for a long time obviously to willingly deaf ears.

I have asked this question several times on here.

At trial, the defence did not dispute it was Sheila's blood. The jury were told the gun was too long for her to shoot herself with the silencer on.

These two facts alone is enough to get a 12-0 guilty verdict. Who else could have shot Sheila ? However there was also a mountain of other incriminating evidence.

The jury reached their guilty verdict quickly. Quite why two woman voted not guilty I will never know.

[Adam]

Maybe not Caroline. But the silencer evidence was accepted over Bambers statement of the phone call just because he could not offer evidence that it was made.
On the same terms the silencer evidence was offered and accepted on the presumption that it was true although it co7uld not be proved that the relatives found it except by their own word.

The silencer was evidence. It was a physical item which had blood on it.

Neville's phone call is not evidence. Just an allegation.

Who else was going to find the silencer ? It would have been better if the police said they found it. They had no reason to rope in the relatives.

[maggie]

I have asked this question several times on here.

At trial, the defence did not dispute it was Sheila's blood. The jury were told the gun was too long for her to shoot herself with the silencer on.

These two facts alone is enough to get a 12-0 guilty verdict. Who else could have shot Sheila ? However there was also a mountain of other incriminating evidence.

The jury reached their guilty verdict quickly. Quite why two woman voted not guilty I will never know.

Maybe those women had a bit more insight than the others, Adm.  Just because they saw things differently doesn't mean they are stupid or that they were overwhelmed by his pretty face.

[Caroline]

Maybe not Caroline. But the silencer evidence was accepted over Bambers statement of the phone call just because he could not offer evidence that it was made.
On the same terms the silencer evidence was offered and accepted on the presumption that it was true although it co7uld not be proved that the relatives found it except by their own word.

Sometimes it just comes down to who the jury believe and the majority didn't believe Jeremy.

[lookout]

Sometimes it just comes down to who the jury believe and the majority didn't believe Jeremy.

As the case went,and it was a massive one,you have to also question why two people did actually believe Jeremy,as it was most unusual in such a high profile case for it not to have been unanimous.?

[scipio_usmc]

The silencer doesn't prove anything either way. Only one thing would prove innocence and that's evidence of the phone calls (Nevill to Jeremy and/or Nevill to police).

The moderator evidence does indeed prove something and what it proves it that Sheila could not have killed herself.  Your refusal to believe the moderator was used is not based on anything rational but rather the irrational argument that Jeremy would not have allowed his legal team to request DNA testing if he had used the moderator.  You ignore that he had nothing to lose, an automatic way out and that DNA tests requested by convicts have confirmed the guilt of such convicts in a large number of cases.  The only rational way to be able to refute the moderator evidence is to prove the blood inside was planted. You have no such evidence so have no rational basis upon which to ignore it let alone to keep insisting it is a fact it wasn't used which is basically a tactic of Jeremy's supporters.  His supporters refuse to characterize their unsupported opinions as unsupported opinions and instead mis-characterize them as facts.

The moderator evidence which you discount was no doubt critical to the jurors and it critical to the judges who have upheld his sentence.  Indeed it has been relied upon by the judges to discount the alternative speculations put forth by the defense on appeal.  COAs have repeatedly stated the alternatives put forth by the defense have failed to deal with the blood in the moderator and lack of blood in the rifle.  These issues are a critical part of the conviction and need to be dealt with in order for the conviction to be vacated.

[Jan]

nothing is straight forward

[Mr. Gee]

I have asked this question several times on here.

At trial, the defence did not dispute it was Sheila's blood. The jury were told the gun was too long for her to shoot herself with the silencer on.

These two facts alone is enough to get a 12-0 guilty verdict. Who else could have shot Sheila ? However there was also a mountain of other incriminating evidence.

The jury reached their guilty verdict quickly. Quite why two woman voted not guilty I will never know.

But it didn't and that doubt in the jury's minds produced instead a 10-2 verdict.
In any case w3hat makes you think it was two women?

[Mr. Gee]

The silencer was evidence. It was a physical item which had blood on it.

Neville's phone call is not evidence. Just an allegation.

Who else was going to find the silencer ? It would have been better if the police said they found it. They had no reason to rope in the relatives.

Wrong. It was a piece of evidence that was allegedly found by a party who had an intertest in finding Bamber guilty.

[lookout]

nothing is straight forward

So a coin was tossed and they decided that Jeremy must have been responsible

[Jan]

so was it one small flake - or blood splatter?

Was it a mixture or not?

Why did Hayward not make it clear he had not done the tests himself

Apparently as well there was NO test done  to see if it was "back splatter "  interesting that.

[Mr. Gee]

The plain facts are these: The silencer evidence was accepted by the court as evidence without question and it should have been questioned as it was allegedly found by interested parties. To my mind a disgraceful state of affairs. Why people on here accept the silencer evidence so blindly really surprises me?