Another Freudian Slip?

[Stephanie]

Because if the silencer wasn't used it's the one -the ONLY- thing he's been accused and convicted of that he really IS innocent of so he'd feel justified in continuing to proclaim it.

Same as the fibre evidence in a case I'm familiar with. The prosecution had made mistakes regarding the fibre evidence, which left room for argument. The fibres had come from the accused!

[Adam]

Is he concentrating on the silencer ?  I thought it was destroyed decades ago. And prior to that they had run out of anything to test on it.

The results and re tests did Jeremy no favours.

[Jan]

Because if the silencer wasn't used it's the one -the ONLY- thing he's been accused and convicted of that he really IS innocent of so he'd feel justified in continuing to proclaim it.

well technically if it was a frame up it is a MOJ whether morally correct or not.

[Jan]

Is he concentrating on the silencer ?  I thought it was destroyed decades ago. And prior to that they had run out of anything to test on it.

The results and re tests did Jeremy no favours.

why do you carry on repeating things deliberately when you know they are incorrect. You know and have been shown the silencer was not destroyed. The tests on the gun and whether the silencer were on the gun were not completed . and we do not know the full extent of the new submission. But some of them are not to do with the silencer , whether some of them are we have not been fully informed.

[scipio_usmc]

Well if he is guilty it does look pretty certain that the silencer was not used - otherwise why would he be concentrating on it so much.

This is a very stupid argument.  His legal team is concentrating on the moderator for the same reason they concentrated on trying to attack Julie.  The most powerful evidence against him was the moderator evidence and Julie's testimony.  The only way to reverse the conviction is by refuting such evidence. 

The fact he is trying to find a way to counter the moderator evidence doesn't prove it wasn't used it merely reveals he understands the significance.  Only refuting the moderator evidence could establish it wasn't used and that would require establishing that sheila's blood was found in the rifle but this was concealed and her blood or blood with exactly the same properties was planted in the moderator.

The existing evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the moderator was used.  Nothing at all has been developed to counter this. 

[Stephanie]

well technically if it was a frame up it is a MOJ whether morally correct or not.

My understanding of a genuine MOJ is that the person claiming innocence did not commit the crime - someone else did, secondly they would have a sense of morality, without such this would present to me yet further concerns for pathology.

I should add I am referring to murder cases.

[Jan]

This is a very stupid argument.  His legal team is concentrating on the moderator for the same reason they concentrated on trying to attack Julie.  The most powerful evidence against him was the moderator evidence and Julie's testimony.  The only way to reverse the conviction is by refuting such evidence. 

The fact he is trying to find a way to counter the moderator evidence doesn't prove it wasn't used it merely reveals he understands the significance.  Only refuting the moderator evidence could establish it wasn't used and that would require establishing that sheila's blood was found in the rifle but this was concealed and her blood or blood with exactly the same properties was planted in the moderator.

The existing evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the moderator was used.  Nothing at all has been developed to counter this.

No it is not a stupid argument because you are not him and you are not on his defence team.So you don't know why they have been concentrating on it. There are guilters who still think the silencer was a plant used to frame him . So if he was guilty and did not use the silencer of course he would try and prove that it was not on the gun at the time.

It was not my argument originally but I concur it is a possibility that is why he was concentrating on it.

[Caroline]

No it is not a stupid argument because you are not him and you are not on his defence team.So you don't know why they have been concentrating on it. There are guilters who still think the silencer was a plant used to frame him . So if he was guilty and did not use the silencer of course he would try and prove that it was not on the gun at the time.

It was not my argument originally but I concur it is a possibility that is why he was concentrating on it.

It was my argument and I agree. 

[Jane]

It was my argument and I agree. 

To me, it seems a completely logical reason for him to cling to his innocence. In his mind he knows he didn't use a silencer when he shot them, ergo, he didn't shoot them. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

[scipio_usmc]

why do you carry on repeating things deliberately when you know they are incorrect. You know and have been shown the silencer was not destroyed. The tests on the gun and whether the silencer were on the gun were not completed . and we do not know the full extent of the new submission. But some of them are not to do with the silencer , whether some of them are we have not been fully informed.

The tests they did are worthless and have zero ability to prove that the moderator wasn't used.  The tests involve trying to see what a muzzle imprint from a hard contact shot with the moderator would look like and then to say that because such muzzle imprint is lacking it means the moderator wasn't used.

Neither wound to Sheila was a hard contact shot though so there was no muzzle imprint left and no muzzle imprint was thus observed on her or any other victim for that matter because none of them suffered a hard contact shot either.  Alternatively, they would like to pretend she did suffer a hard contact shot with the rifle sans moderator but again no muzzle imprint was observed the people who examined the wounds didn't determine them to be hard contact wounds and thus the efforts are a complete waste of time because there is no way to establish to the court of appeal she suffered a hard contact shot which left a muzzle impression from the rifle sans moderator.  They have no photos which reveal any muzzle impressions, no assessments from those who saw her body that she had any muzzle impressions and no reports that she suffered a hard contact wound that could have left a muzzle impression. They do all the tests they want but it won't change these facts so such tests are simply a waste of time because the tests have no ability to prove anything. ONLY if it were determined that she suffered a hard contact wound that resulted in a muzzle impression would testing be called for.  The testing would be to assess whether the muzzle imprint matches the gun with or without the moderator. 

What they are doing is akin to doing fiber tests they despite no fibers being found with the expectation that if they are able to get favorable results then to look for a way to try to pretend fibers had been found.



 

 

[Adam]

why do you carry on repeating things deliberately when you know they are incorrect. You know and have been shown the silencer was not destroyed. The tests on the gun and whether the silencer were on the gun were not completed . and we do not know the full extent of the new submission. But some of them are not to do with the silencer , whether some of them are we have not been fully informed.

I don't keep repeating things. Just asked a question.

Please provide evidence that the silencer was not destroyed in 1996. The 'Crimes Hearts and Coronets' article says it was destroyed. Anyway there is nothing left to test.

You keep repeating the term 'if he is guilty'. Which is an improvement from saying he's innocent. Which you used to write.

Even you have to admit defeat in saying Jeremy is innocent. Especially after you bottled it and refused to say how Sheila committed the massacre. But unlike Susan, Caroline and April, you will bottle it again and refuse to change stance.

[scipio_usmc]

No it is not a stupid argument because you are not him and you are not on his defence team.So you don't know why they have been concentrating on it. There are guilters who still think the silencer was a plant used to frame him . So if he was guilty and did not use the silencer of course he would try and prove that it was not on the gun at the time.

It was not my argument originally but I concur it is a possibility that is why he was concentrating on it.

Even if I had not become a lawyer I still would recognize that the defense has to attack the evidence that resulted in conviction to get a conviction vacated but as a lawyer even moreso I recognize this.

To say that because they are trying to attack the main evidence that proves such evidence is invalid is ABSURD.  Only by SUCCESSFULLY attacking it can they refute it.  The mere fact they are trying doesn't negate it.

Caroline's argument is even worse and more illogical:

Jeremy knows he didn't use the moderator so knows the prosecution planted Sheila's blood inside.  Jeremy thus knew a DNA test of the moderator would clear him.  Knowing the prosecution planted her blood would not enable a DNA test to clear him.

The argument totally flops.

He wanted the test to try to find a way to spin the results to pretend it somehow helped him because without the test he had zilch and there was thus no harm in doing the test.  He would either still have zilch after the test or something he could try to spin.

[Adam]

24 of the 26 shots were contact or from inches away. But the end of the rifle had no blood on.

[Adam]

Everything makes sense for the silencer to be on -

It was used for shooting vermin. So would permanently be on. Why take it off ?

AP said it was on the weekend before.

Jeremy went out to shoot rabbits. He would know the silencer should be on in this situation.

Jeremy as the killer would use a silencer. To try to prevent anyone waking.

[scipio_usmc]

To me, it seems a completely logical reason for him to cling to his innocence. In his mind he knows he didn't use a silencer when he shot them, ergo, he didn't shoot them. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Not to me.  Guilty people don't like to admit their guilt for a whole host of reasons.  It is quite common for people to be executed or die naturally without ever admitting guilt though they were caught dead to rights.

Jeremy's lawyers are the ones trying to find a way top prove the moderator wasn't used and are doing so because that is the only way his conviction is going to be overturned.  People who say it is him who thought it up and is driving the research are just fooling themselves.   The moderator was attacked by the trial defense lawyers to the extent they could and multiple people during the appeal addressed it including those here:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4779.15.html

It is by necessity that advocates for Jeremy are trying to find a way to undermine the oderator and the fact they failed to do so is proof the evidence was sound.

It is totally illogical to claim that Jeremy would want a DNA test to prove the prosecution planted Sheila's blood in the moderator since a DNA test would have no ability to prove such.

It is even more illogical to claim the DNA tests had the ability to prove anything given tests done prior to the DNA testing found no blood inside.  hey knew from the outset that if any DNA was found they had no ability to prove it was blood based.  Jeremy's own expert said the testing had no ability to establish the blood that was present after the murders.   It was all a sham.  The defense simply planned to try spinning the results because they had nothing valid to raise against the moderator.

They still don't. Their most recent nonsense before the CCRC was to pretend that a muzzle imprint was found around the non-fatal wound and that such muzzle imprint was made by the rifle sans moderator.  But no muzzle imprint was in fact found nor could one be found because that wound was a near contact wound and muzzle imprints are not left as a result of near contact wounds. 

Some people have decided they want to believe the moderator wasn't used and are especially coming up with excuses to justify their beliefs in their own minds but they fail under objective scrutiny.

Why do guilty murders convicted of rape and murder want rape kits and other evidence tested for DNA?  It will likely confirm their guilt so why do they bother?  Because they have nothing to lose and hope that there will be something that ends up opening the conviction to attack.  If they don't do it then they have nothing and just sit rotting in jail without any hope at all.  Why do basketball players lob the ball at the basket from huge distances away when there is a split second left in the game? Because they have nothing to lose in trying.  If they don't try then for sure they are going to lose the game. it is the same principle.