The main prosecution forensic case

[Alias]

One doesn't have to know someone personally to become emotionally invested, you surely are emotionally invested in the case and biased in his favor.  Adam is emotionally invested and he doesn't know Jeremy or the victims.

It is hardly surprising that many people who are biased and emotionally invested don't want to admit it.  You would much rather delude yourself into thinking you are operating exclusively based on facts though such is clearly not the case.  Oddly enough lookout is one of the few willing to admit her emotional investment.  April admitting she used to be in that camp seems to cause problems for those still in the predicament she used to be in who recognize they are like she was but don't want to admit it.

Only people with an emotional attachment would have a problem with her changing her views and saying she had an epiphany.   

I don´t have a problem with April changing her view, why would I? I am not even sure Jeremy didn´t do it.

 I have a problem with a condescending tone. You wouldn´t understand that, since that is what you do constantly.

[Caroline]

I don´t have a problem with April changing her view, why would I? I am not even sure Jeremy didn´t do it.

 I have a problem with a condescending tone. You wouldn´t understand that, since that is what you do constantly.

Lots of people here have a condescending tone, in fact, I don't think there is anyone who hasn't been guilty of it at one point or another.

[Alias]

Lots of people here have a condescending tone, in fact, I don't think there is anyone who hasn't been guilty of it at one point or another.

With some it is the norm. As if they are here just to beat other people over their heads for their views (or what they perceive to be their views.)

[susan]

Lookout you go girl

[Jane]

I asked a lot of questions when I first came here, I read all the documents and after doing so, I came to the conclusion that my thoughts on innocence were way of the mark. I still ask questions and not ALL of them are guilt centred.

As far as April is concerned, I think people are being completely unfair, she has never set out to upset anyone. She is one of the kindest and gracious people that I know. If she didn't set out to upset anyone - I don't understand why people are upset. Seems to me to be a misunderstanding - no need for drawn swords!!

Caroline, THANK-YOU. I really appreciate your kind words. Funny, but not SO very long ago, words like yours were told me almost daily. My opinion were sought AND valued. I was praised for my insightfulness and rational thinking. WHAT happened?!!!!!! To MY knowledge, I haven't changed. My thought processes are exactly the same as they ever were but where I was once clearsighted and fair, it appears that I'm now condescending and so arrogant that I think -or so I'm told!!!- that I have the ability to read minds, the result of which being that I've suddenly become a virtual outcast.

[Jan]

I asked a lot of questions when I first came here, I read all the documents and after doing so, I came to the conclusion that my thoughts on innocence were way of the mark. I still ask questions and not ALL of them are guilt centred.

As far as April is concerned, I think people are being completely unfair, she has never set out to upset anyone. She is one of the kindest and gracious people that I know. If she didn't set out to upset anyone - I don't understand why people are upset. Seems to me to be a misunderstanding - no need for drawn swords!!

I don't have a problem with most people on here . We are all entitled to our own opinions and I don't think there is any need to get personal .

[Alias]

Caroline, THANK-YOU. I really appreciate your kind words. Funny, but not SO very long ago, words like yours were told me almost daily. My opinion were sought AND valued. I was praised for my insightfulness and rational thinking. WHAT happened?!!!!!! To MY knowledge, I haven't changed. My thought processes are exactly the same as they ever were but where I was once clearsighted and fair, it appears that I'm now condescending and so arrogant that I think -or so I'm told!!!- that I have the ability to read minds, the result of which being that I've suddenly become a virtual outcast.

Well, just stop telling people what you think they think.
You did it to me and you did it to Lookout today.

[Jan]

I asked a lot of questions when I first came here, I read all the documents and after doing so, I came to the conclusion that my thoughts on innocence were way of the mark. I still ask questions and not ALL of them are guilt centred.

As far as April is concerned, I think people are being completely unfair, she has never set out to upset anyone. She is one of the kindest and gracious people that I know. If she didn't set out to upset anyone - I don't understand why people are upset. Seems to me to be a misunderstanding - no need for drawn swords!!

I was not actually referring to you about not asking questions. In the interests of honesty that was about Adam and Scipio . They never ask questions or look at another angle because they have 100% made up their minds.

[Jane]

Well, just stop telling people what you think they think.
You did it to me and you did it to Lookout today.

DETERMINED to bite, aren't you. Have just looked back and can find nowhere that I told Lookout what she thought, I did however own my own feelings by telling her what I FELT she thought which is VERY different. I would prefer it if you refrained from speaking to me or AT me, but please feel free to talk about me.

[scipio_usmc]

I was not actually referring to you about not asking questions. In the interests of honesty that was about Adam and Scipio . They never ask questions or look at another angle because they have 100% made up their minds.

Not only have I looked at all the angles I have discussed them in detail.  Taht is something you do not do because you are incapable of doing so or know that when that it doene all speculation you engage in falls apart.

Just look at the issue of whether a phone call was received form nevill.  I go into all the different angles involved in assessing such while you ignore tham and just say that you think it happened without being able to come up with any rational evidence to support such a belief.

Adam is emotionally invested and raises some speculation that doesn't even matter let alone can be established but doesn't rely exclusively on that.  He actually relies on established evidence to justify his claims of guilt.

You made up your mind not on the basis of facts or evidence but on emotional issues including having  problems with the police- you have an agenda you advance you are not objective at all.

My first post discusses the evidence that convicted Jeremy.  Have you come up with anything to refute these pieces of evidence?  no  Are you even trying to address the?  Not really you dance around them instead of having a real discussion where you look at all the angles involved in a rational manner.

[lookout]

And you----------------stop telling people that they're incapable ! It's unacceptable.,

[Mr. Gee]

You should try standing in my shoes, Grahame. Guess what? It started because I offered support to someone who I believed had been upset.

I have been in your shoes April.

[Jane]

I have been in your shoes April.

How come I didn't feel your presence?

[scipio_usmc]

And you----------------stop telling people that they're incapable ! It's unacceptable.,

I meant it in the sense of unwilling.

In contrast I am willing.  I actually look at claims made and evaluate them in detail for instance I did a detailed evaluation of the claims with respect to the bullets.  I posted the following:

"I have seen a variety of claims that non-Eley ammunition was used in 5 rounds, another supporter claims 7 rounds, some call them lighter others heavy.  The only thing consistent in these claims is no evidentiary support is presented for the claims to establish there was any non-Eley ammunition used.  There are 2 ways to establish such:

1) testing the chemical composition and finding it totally different from Eley's formula/the Eley bullets form the box the undisputed Eley ammo came from

2) looking at the shell casings

The latter is the most obvious and easiest manner.

The misrepresentations about the bullet characteristics that match the Anschutz are legion.

Fletcher observed 3 main features that tied the bullets to the murder weapon:

1) 8 L&G
2) narrow lands meaning the grooves are wider than the lands as opposed to being equal in size
3) rifling marks that are made by imperfections unique to the barrel of the Anschutz and no other weapon- these are called individual or accidental characteristics while the first 2 are class characteristics

Which bullets suffered the least damage and were most intact?  The 3 bullets that exited June and bullet that exited Daniel.  These bullets had all 3 of the characteristics above present. PV/29 in Daniel also had all 3 of these present according to Jeremy supporters.

A bullet is round and you can roughly look at 120-150 degrees at any given time.  Looking at 120 degrees at a time you can get 3 views that cover everything.   

Many bullets fragmented and expanded and the outside parts that broke off were the parts that had the impressions from the lands and grooves. When that happens you might only have a small section that still has any impression remaining from the lands and grooves and/or the unique rifling marks. 

Even if there are not 8 lands and grooves you still could be able to potentially match the lands and grooves remaining and the accidental marks to a particular cross section of a test bullet and this match enables you to say it was fired by the same weapon even though you don't have an entire bullet.

A bullet that is damaged too much and can't definitely be tied to the gun could still potentially have been fired by it.  The only way to rule it out as having been fired is if it has characteristics that demonstrate it was definitely fired by a different gun.

I have yet to see reliable documents that for sure came from Fletcher that account for all the claims made by Jeremy supporters about what exactly what was observed on each and every bullet.

For instance, the Holab form for PV/2 indicates "general and small amount of detail" match from the Anschutz. General means class characteristics and the small detail part refers to the accidental characteristics.  Both he class characteristics and accidental characteristics are rifling marks. Numerous charts and posts say no RM for PV/2, clearly the accidental characteriscs are being ignored in such analysis.   

Some supporters claim that Fletcher noted some bullets had wide lands but this has not been demonstrated at all. Rather where narrow lands were not found because insufficient detail was on the bullet has been misrepresented by Jeremy supporters as Fletcher finding wide lands, though he never made such a claim he merely asserted he was unable to make an effective measurement so unable to determine the measurement of the lands in comparison to the grooves on such bullets.

The first Holab form I looked at is PV/8 which is hard to read but looks like it says same L&G width as the Anschutz but too damaged and small to match the quantity of lands and grooves possessed by the Anschutz..

This is what I have pieced together from the claims of Jeremy supporters without correcting anything so there may be more errors than the 2 I mentioned above, indeed it is impossible to detect 0 lands and yet claim narrow lands were detected so there was a typo somewhere or someone a mistake in reading something:


Master Bedroom

Nevill
PV/2  (Shoulder) (5L) (NL) (no RM)
PV/5 (jaw) fragment broken from either PV10 or PV11
PV/10 (lip)           (WL) (no RM)
PV/11 (neck) (4L) (WL) (no RM)
Arm/chest Graze wound-1 of the following: DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35  (all 8 L&G) (NL) (RM)   

June
PV/23 ( 0 )(NL) (no RM)
PV/24 (4L) (NL) (has RM)
PV/25 (5L) (NL) (has RM)
PV/26 (5L) (NL) (no RM)
3 of the following DRH/5, 9, 15, or 35 (all 8 L&G) (NL) (RM)   

Sheila
PV/19 (WL) (no RM)
PV/20 (NL) (RM)

Kitchen

Nevill
PV/3 (skull) (NL)
PV/4 (skull) (NL) (RM)
PV/8 (skull) (WL)
PV/9 (skull) (?)

Twins

Daniel
PV/29 (8 L&G) (NL) (RM)
PV/34 (WL)
PV/35 (WL)
PV/36 (WL)
DRH/36 (8 L&G) (NL) (RM)

Nicholas
PV/30 (3L) (NL)
PV/31 (NL) (RM)
[bullet 3 fragmented into small parts in the head and was not recovered]

The wide/narrow lands claims are fiction but at any rate if one wants to claim that the bullets that failed to register narrow lands were fired from a different gun that means Nevill was shot with 2 guns in both rooms he was shot in, that both boys were shot with 2 guns and Sheila was shot with 2 guns. The yellow represents the shots claimed to be from other guns. 

In the meantime the shots in both boys and 4 in Nevill's head were tightly grouped and assessed to have been fired in rapid succession from the same gun.  2 people firing together are unlikely to get a nice tight grouping.     

I wonder how many other errors I will find in the above claims anyway with respect to number of lands and grooves found, whether the land width matched the Anschutz and whether the individual barrel characteristics were found.

Again though the fact a bullet lacks enough detail doesn't prove it wasn't fired from the Anschutz it merely means there is insufficient detail to say it was definitely fired from the Anschutz and other evidence like the spent casings will have to carry the day."

So I actually looked at the claims and available evidence and did an objective evaluation. It is amusing watching people say I am too biased to try dealing with the evidence.  The shoe is on the other foot. 

[Mr. Gee]

I meant it in the sense of unwilling.

In contrast I am willing.  I actually look at claims made and evaluate them in detail for instance I did a detailed evaluation of the claims with respect to the bullets.  I posted the following:

"I have seen a variety of claims that non-Eley ammunition was used in 5 rounds, another supporter claims 7 rounds, some call them lighter others heavy.  The only thing consistent in these claims is no evidentiary support is presented for the claims to establish there was any non-Eley ammunition used. 
..................................................
..................................................
I wonder how many other errors I will find in the above claims anyway with respect to number of lands and grooves found, whether the land width matched the Anschutz and whether the individual barrel characteristics were found.

Again though the fact a bullet lacks enough detail doesn't prove it wasn't fired from the Anschutz it merely means there is insufficient detail to say it was definitely fired from the Anschutz and other evidence like the spent casings will have to carry the day."

So I actually looked at the claims and available evidence and did an objective evaluation. It is amusing watching people say I am too biased to try dealing with the evidence.  The shoe is on the other foot.

I understand that the firearms expert could not tell if the bullets were fired through the silencer or not? Is that always the case, or can you tell in some instances but the marks on the bullets?