The main prosecution forensic case

[scipio_usmc]

It is somewhat astonishing that there are so many people here who still don't understand the prosecution's case.  Unless you understand the arguments by the prosecution there is no way to make an informed critique of those claims and certainly you must understand them to try to refute them.

The prosecution's case had 2 phases.  Phase 1 was to use forensic evidence to establish someone other than the victims had committed the murders and then fled the scene.  The forensic evidence was used to establish neither Sheila nor Nevill could have killed any of the victims.  Since the boys were shot in bed and June was shot in bed before dying on the floor it was obvious they could not have taken part in the killings so no forensic evidence was sought to establish their innocence. 

Nevill's hands were examined for lead and GSR to establish he didn't load or fire the weapon.  He was negative for lead or GSR.

Similarly Sheila was examined for GSR and lead and her gown was examined for sooting and GSR which would have deposited there had she fired the weapon.  Her hands and gown were negative.  Had she loaded the weapon her hands would have had elevated lead levels in fact her hands would have had visible marks from the lead.

Had she fired the gun 23 times at the other victims she would have gotten a good amoun of GSR and soot on her hands and gown.  Had she killed herself she would have to have hugged the weapon and it would have gotten deposits on the gown she died in. The staining would have been towards her stomach area where there was no blood so the argument that the blood covered it up was not possible.   

Furthermore she would have cut her feet in the kitchen or at least got them full of the items in the kitchen had she been the one who beat Nevill in the kitchen.  Furthermore, she would have gotten medium velocity blood impact spatter on her clothing if she had been the one who beat Nevill. Medium velocity spatter was on the butt of the weapon from the blows delivered by the stock. She also likely would have gotten her prints in the blood that was on the weapon.  Wearing gloves and shoes would be
the only way to avoid being injured and leaving bloody prints.  It is also likely she would have gotten high velocity spatter from Nevill and June on her body and clothing from some of the shots.  Yet she didn't have any medium or high velocity impact spatter from the victims on her body or clothing. 

Further proof she didn't killer herself is that she was killed with the moderator attached and could not have put it away after her death.  The manner in which they established the moderator was used is as follows:

1) Medical testimony that Sheila suffered a contact wound that would result in drawback. That means Sheila's blood would have to have been deposited in the muzzle of the rifle or the moderator if the moderator were attached to the rifle when the shot was fired
2) Testimony that no blood was found in the rifle but blood consistent with Sheila's was found in the moderator
3) Testimony that is unlikely June and Nevill suffered any wounds that were contact wounds that could have resulted in drawback and the twins did not suffer any contact wounds that would result in drawback
4) visible blood was found on the first 5-7 baffles which was determined to be from one person and it was group A blood
5) a flake of blood from 1 person that was between baffles 1 and 2 was group A blood and also had enzyme AK1. 
6) June and Sheila both have group A blood but Sheila has enzyme AK1 while June has enzyme AK2-1 so the flake was consistent with Sheila's blood not June's
7) AK2-1 is more hardy than AK1 and since the AK1 enzyme had not yet deteriorated that means had June's blood been present her AK2-1 enzymes would still have been present.  So this speaks against the blood on the baffles or the flake containing any of June's blood because there was no AK2-1 present and there should have been if her blood was present because AK2-1 takes longer to deteriorate than AK1 and AK1 was present.

All of these things combined- the lack of a wound that would result in June's blood getting inside, the fact Sheila did have a wound that would result in drawback and that none was found in the rifle, the lack of AK2-1, etc all combined lead to the conclusion the group A blood found inside the moderator was Sheila's.

So the prosecution argued the forensic evidence establishes:
A) Sheila didn't load the gun
B) Sheila didn't fire the gun
C) Sheila wasn't even near the other victims when they were being killed because she had no spatter on her
D) Sheila didn't beat Nevill
E) Sheila can't have killed herself
F) Nevill didn't shoot anyone
G) The other victims didn't shoot anyone

So someone else who left the scene had to have committed the murders

The prosecution presented evidence about Sheila being shot while seated but during the trial didn't make any effective argument concerning that point.  On appeal the prosecution produced evidence that Sheila had been shot and killed while seated propped up against something then after her death was dragged flat.  Furthermore the bible was placed in a pool of her blood that formed after she died and opened and closed.  This also establishes someone else was there at the scene.  The COA held that this these arguments while strong should have been raised at trial and would not allow them on appeal.  We are not limited to such rules so in looking at whether he is guilty or not we should take these into account. The defense though doesn't need to deal with them at appeal.  They would have to deal with them if raised in opposition to a clemency petition though.   

Phase 2

Phase 2 of the prosecution case was to establish who did commit the crimes.

The evidence proving Sheila didn't load or fire the gun means Nevill would have no reason to call Jeremy and say he needed Jeremy to come over to help disarm her.  He would therefore have no way to know they had been killed unless he was the killer.

It would make little sense for Nevill to call Jeremy to do so anyway because Nevill was the largest and strongest in the family so could disarm Sheila himself and there were plenty of weapons for him to select if he decided he could not to it with his bare hands.  Moreover, Jeremy did not get along with Sheila so he would have no ability to help calm her down. 

Furthermore the evidence establishes the shooting started in the master bedroom where no phone was because Jeremy removed it and replaced the perfectly working kitchen phone with it and hid the phone.  He lied and claimed the kitchen phone was replaced because it was broken and upon that phone being found and established as perfectly operating he claimed it was an extra simply.

His claim that the phone went dead and that he called right back finding the phone busy also doesn't add up.  Not only does it make no sense for the phone to have been left off the hook, he could not have phoned back right away he would have had to have waited a couple of minutes for the phone to clear.   

He called Julie to tell her what happened before the time he claimed he received the call from Nevill.  He called her before police despite claiming he called police right away. Julie testified that he had been planning to kill them for a while, had told her earlier he was going to kill them that night and then called to let her know it was done.  He also called a 6AM to tell her not to go to work because he would need her to talk to police.

Not only did he attempt to frame Sheila with the made up phone call from Nevill, he also made up taking out the gun and bullets and leaving it out.  But his claim of finding the gun without the moderator and scope attached was not credible. Nor was his claim of getting the gun out to shoot rabbits credible.  But even worse he staged too many bullets in the kitchen thus proving he staged the bullets after the murders in support of his framing efforts.  By doing this he proved he staged the bullets and that he had made up the tale of leaving them out.  Thus he made up the tale of leaving the gun and bullets out to set up the false narrative Sheila found a weapon of opportunity.

It was argued he further attempted to frame her with the lie to the initial responders that Sheila was competent with firearms and had fired all the weapons in the house.  Prosecution witnesses testified she had no interest in firearms and would not have even known how to use the murder weapon.

It was also testified to that that Jeremy knew how to get in and out through the windows even when locked and could lock the kitchen window from the outside.

So at the end of the day phase 1 was the forensics establishing someone other than the victims committed the murders and fled the scene and phase 2 featured all the evidence proving Jeremy was that person.

 

[lookout]

evidence proving Jeremy was that person  ?

Where ?

[David1819]

You have brought all this up before why go round in circles?

[lookout]

 Never mind about forensics-------------there weren't any which involved Jeremy.

How about the uncertainty that was amongst one or two ?
Like the time when JM went to the mortuary and " asked Sheila " what had happened ?? If she'd have KNOWN for absolute certain,then she wouldn't have asked ! Did JM shout out in court " you bloody murderer ?"---------------like MOST of us would have,me included.

The uncertainty when the " robin "? landed on the sill ( a message from beyond ?) Why ? What was all that about ? The bird was obviously used to being fed there.
Who was it who visited a medium ? As if they'd know 

Even Colin had remarked " she's finally done it ". What made him say that ? Was there more that he hadn't talked about ? And why should he forgive Jeremy who " murdered" his children--------I wouldn't!!
EP had resigned themselves initially that it was 4 murders and a suicide.What made them change 12 months later ? When any evidence to the latter would have been lost ?

Then there was poor Pam who'd dared to ask how Jeremy was. Would ANYONE have been bothered if he'd been the murdering monster he'd been made out to be ? I'm blowed if I would.

Unlike the red forum,if I thought the man was guilty,I WOULDN'T even be on the forum !! Involvement with murderers is NOT my forte ! Something not quite right about those who discuss murderers who are already jailed ! To you,it's like talking about Sutcliffe.I wouldn't waste my time online !
I'm on this forum because Jeremy is innocent.Why be on a forum when you know him to be guilty,except to argue and snipe at/to the likes of myself who has an opposing view ? As that's what it's mostly about,isn't it ? I call it bullying,not debating. Only this morning,John couldn't help but name me in one of his posts. Is there any need for that to occur from someone who should know better.

Then there's Scipio as with EVERY post I make comes a derogatory remark.Also Adam,and Mat when he gets the chance. Can I ask WHY you are like this towards me ? Do you get a kick out of being nasty ? Or is that your natural persona ?

[Mr. Gee]

You have brought all this up before why go round in circles?

I think scipio had outlined things clearly here and that is a good thing I think, because it means that we now have a distinct framework that we can go by.

[Caroline]

evidence proving Jeremy was that person  ?

Where ?

The phone call!

[Jane]

Never mind about forensics-------------there weren't any which involved Jeremy.

How about the uncertainty that was amongst one or two ?
Like the time when JM went to the mortuary and " asked Sheila " what had happened ?? If she'd have KNOWN for absolute certain,then she wouldn't have asked ! Did JM shout out in court " you bloody murderer ?"---------------like MOST of us would have,me included.

The uncertainty when the " robin "? landed on the sill ( a message from beyond ?) Why ? What was all that about ? The bird was obviously used to being fed there.
Who was it who visited a medium ? As if they'd know 

Even Colin had remarked " she's finally done it ". What made him say that ? Was there more that he hadn't talked about ? And why should he forgive Jeremy who " murdered" his children--------I wouldn't!!
EP had resigned themselves initially that it was 4 murders and a suicide.What made them change 12 months later ? When any evidence to the latter would have been lost ?

Then there was poor Pam who'd dared to ask how Jeremy was. Would ANYONE have been bothered if he'd been the murdering monster he'd been made out to be ? I'm blowed if I would.

Unlike the red forum,if I thought the man was guilty,I WOULDN'T even be on the forum !! Involvement with murderers is NOT my forte ! Something not quite right about those who discuss murderers who are already jailed ! To you,it's like talking about Sutcliffe.I wouldn't waste my time online !
I'm on this forum because Jeremy is innocent.Why be on a forum when you know him to be guilty,except to argue and snipe at/to the likes of myself who has an opposing view ? As that's what it's mostly about,isn't it ? I call it bullying,not debating. Only this morning,John couldn't help but name me in one of his posts. Is there any need for that to occur from someone who should know better.

Then there's Scipio as with EVERY post I make comes a derogatory remark.Also Adam,and Mat when he gets the chance. Can I ask WHY you are like this towards me ? Do you get a kick out of being nasty ? Or is that your natural persona ?

Lookout, I mean this in the kindest possible way, but despite what you've just said about involvement with murderers not being your forte, I feel, if it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Jeremy was responsible for the murders, you've invested SO much into him that you'd probably have difficulty in turning away from him. I think your defence of him is wholly admirable but I feel that it's more emotional than reasoned.

[Mr. Gee]

The phone call!

You mean of course the "alleged" phone call. If such a phone call actually took place then he could not have been the murderer. But it cannot of course the fact that he cannot prove that such a phone call took place does not mean that lack of proof makes it evidence of his guilt. But I would have thought that logic should tell you that any murderer would be able to place himself at home at the time of the killings? This is one of those dodgy pieces of so called "evidence" on which Bamber's guilt and the verdict stand and by default is one of those things that we debate in this forum today.

[lookout]

Lookout, I mean this in the kindest possible way, but despite what you've just said about involvement with murderers not being your forte, I feel, if it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Jeremy was responsible for the murders, you've invested SO much into him that you'd probably have difficulty in turning away from him. I think your defence of him is wholly admirable but I feel that it's more emotional than reasoned.

I'm confident that Jeremy is innocent,so therefore I don't even have the slightest doubt that one day he'll be pardoned. There's no need for me to think on the same lines as others,either dithering or asking myself " what if ".
There is NO emotional attachment whatsoever,you obviously don't know me, I am full of optimism for the future for him,whenever that might be,but there you are. As a person,Jeremy means nothing to me.He's just a man fighting for his freedom whatever you or anyone else thinks.

I couldn't care less if I'm the only person on this forum who believes in the man. I've looked deeper than any flimsy so-called evidence that's been put forward,and I will NOT be put off by those who insist on their cheap jibes just because I support Jeremy.

[Alias]

Lookout, I mean this in the kindest possible way, but despite what you've just said about involvement with murderers not being your forte, I feel, if it was proved beyond a shadow of doubt that Jeremy was responsible for the murders, you've invested SO much into him that you'd probably have difficulty in turning away from him. I think your defence of him is wholly admirable but I feel that it's more emotional than reasoned.

So we have to conclude that you yourself have been more emotional than reasoned for a very long time prior to your Eureka moment!
I wonder if anyone, in the kindest possible way, took it upon themselves to tell you that like you now are telling Lookout.

[Jane]

I'm confident that Jeremy is innocent,so therefore I don't even have the slightest doubt that one day he'll be pardoned. There's no need for me to think on the same lines as others,either dithering or asking myself " what if ".
There is NO emotional attachment whatsoever,you obviously don't know me, I am full of optimism for the future for him,whenever that might be,but there you are. As a person,Jeremy means nothing to me.He's just a man fighting for his freedom whatever you or anyone else thinks.

I couldn't care less if I'm the only person on this forum who believes in the man. I've looked deeper than any flimsy so-called evidence that's been put forward,and I will NOT be put off by those who insist on their cheap jibes just because I support Jeremy.

Lookout, your every word tells a different story. If I didn't KNOW it was about Jeremy, I could be forgiven for thinking, given how emotional is your defence of him, it was about a beloved grandson or godson who stood accused. Knowing how strong are your views regarding crime and your belief in the death sentence I can see how difficult it could be for you to contemplate Jeremy as anything other than innocent, but it doesn't mean he is.

[Jane]

So we have to conclude that you yourself have been more emotional than reasoned for a very long time prior to your Eureka moment!
I wonder if anyone, in the kindest possible way, took it upon themselves to tell you that like you now are telling Lookout.

Well, actually, since you ask, Alias, yes they have. So many times in fact that it's become open season in having a go at April. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, it was you who started it.

[lookout]

Lookout, your every word tells a different story. If I didn't KNOW it was about Jeremy, I could be forgiven for thinking, given how emotional is your defence of him, it was about a beloved grandson or godson who stood accused. Knowing how strong are your views regarding crime and your belief in the death sentence I can see how difficult it could be for you to contemplate Jeremy as anything other than innocent, but it doesn't mean he is.

It could be any Tom Dick or Harry festering in prison for all I care,but because I now know enough to feel confident in his innocence,why should it bother anyone else ?

I felt exactly the same about Eddie Gilfoyle,and if you followed that case,you'd understand why. I had every confidence that he HADN'T killed his wife and unborn child------------and I was right. Even though his wife's relatives,friends and Uncle Tom Cobley wanted him staying put.

[Alias]

Well, actually, since you ask, Alias, yes they have. So many times in fact that it's become open season in having a go at April. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, it was you who started it.

What did I start, April?

[Mr. Gee]

Well, actually, since you ask, Alias, yes they have. So many times in fact that it's become open season in having a go at April. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, it was you who started it.

That's a bit paranoid isn't it?