If confronted with a similar amount of incriminating evidence -

[Adam]

It does not matter one jot - not one iota what my opinion is - because the proof of order of death was never established . Hence why I have always said scenarios are a waste of time - Adam still has not explained how Sheila laid down calmly and allowed her self to be shot.

If anyone had read my posts, I said I am still asking questions and at the moment you may consider me to be in denial - that's your prerogative. As it is my prerogative to think you are ( Adam and Scipio) both a bit unstable to be posting when you know 100% in your own minds that he is guilty. If you are on a mission please don't bother with me   

I have plenty of other people from both guilty and innocent that I prefer to converse with , because they can debate in an adult way.

You have not read my threads and posts about Sheila being shot.

[Adam]

How can that be conclusive? I believe the twins where shot first, several authors and documentaries take this view also.

Why shoot the twins first ?

They pose least danger. Shooting them first may wake Neville, June or Sheila. Or all three. And Jeremy would only have 2/3 bullets left.

Common sense to shoot June and Neville first. They posed the most danger.

If Sheila has woken she has to be shot after Neville/June. If she has not woken, he may have then shot the twins and Sheila last. 

[lookout]

 So you'd have preferred those children to have been wakened by gunshots and running around hysterical ?
It's bad enough arguing about "why they should have been shot first",but being flippant is worse !

[scipio_usmc]

So you'd have preferred those children to have been wakened by gunshots and running around hysterical ?
It's bad enough arguing about "why they should have been shot first",but being flippant is worse !

The reason the moderator was used was to make sure they didn't wake up while their grandparents were killed.

[Patti]

The reason the moderator was used was to make sure they didn't wake up while their grandparents were killed.

The moderator could have been used and Sheila could have placed it back in the cupboard before she used on herself. This could explain why June's DNA was found is the moderator.   Who is to say what happened, or how it happened, its case of what you believe in and what others might believe in. 

[scipio_usmc]

The moderator could have been used and Sheila could have placed it back in the cupboard before she used on herself. This could explain why June's DNA was found is the moderator.   Who is to say what happened, or how it happened, its case of what you believe in and what others might believe in. 

June had no contact wounds let alone contact wounds that were in areas that would result in drawback.  June's DNA was not blood based, the blood already was removed years earlier no blood was present when it was DNA tested. June's DNA was even found in areas of the moderator where no blood had even been found in 1985 and 1986, indeed the areas were too deep for drawback to reach such areas.  Furthermore, there was no way her blood could have mixed with Nevill's into the flake and yet for the flake to not have her Ak2-1 enzyme and not to have enabled the lab to know it was a mixture.  The defense experts admitted that if the blood intimately mixed it is impossible for the lab to have made any such mistake and that the only way it was even possible to miss a mixture would have been if the blood failed to intimately mix but they failed to establish it would be possible for blood of 2 victims not to intimately mix in the moderator.

In any event even if June had suffered from contact wounds and her blood was found inside as well as Sheila's it still would not have helped matters nor would finding her blood inside help.  The notion SHeila went crazy then went to the close to get the moderator to attach to the weapon Jeremy left out so she could silently kill everyone in their sleep then to take the moderator and put it away in the closet before killing herself is not in the least bit credible.  The only way it is credible she would have used the weapon with the moderator attached is if it were attached already when she picked it up. Upon finding it inhibited her shooting herself she would not remove it and go downstairs to put it away she would just leave it in the room where she was trying to kill herself.   

The moderator used period harms the claim she did it given the moderator was put away and given Jeremy claimed it wasn't attached when he left the gun out. 

If he had had removed the moderator before shooting her and simply left it in the bed room and made her lie flat and had the gun across her body as she would have done to shoot herself in the chin he would have eliminated most of his problems.

1) that would eliminate the moderator problems and result in drawback in the weapon
2) it would result in soot getting on her gown
3) would eliminate having to move her body flat later which gave away she was moved by someone after her death

This assumes he could have gotten her to lie flat maybe he could not have gotten her to do it who knows.  If he could not get her to lie flat then he should have just left the gun near her or on her legs as opposed to moving her body that is a no no. 

 

[Patti]

June had no contact wounds let alone contact wounds that were in areas that would result in drawback.  June's DNA was not blood based, the blood already was removed years earlier no blood was present when it was DNA tested. June's DNA was even found in areas of the moderator where no blood had even been found in 1985 and 1986, indeed the areas were too deep for drawback to reach such areas.  Furthermore, there was no way her blood could have mixed with Nevill's into the flake and yet for the flake to not have her Ak2-1 enzyme and not to have enabled the lab to know it was a mixture.  The defense experts admitted that if the blood intimately mixed it is impossible for the lab to have made any such mistake and that the only way it was even possible to miss a mixture would have been if the blood failed to intimately mix but they failed to establish it would be possible for blood of 2 victims not to intimately mix in the moderator.

In any event even if June had suffered from contact wounds and her blood was found inside as well as Sheila's it still would not have helped matters nor would finding her blood inside help.  The notion SHeila went crazy then went to the close to get the moderator to attach to the weapon Jeremy left out so she could silently kill everyone in their sleep then to take the moderator and put it away in the closet before killing herself is not in the least bit credible.  The only way it is credible she would have used the weapon with the moderator attached is if it were attached already when she picked it up. Upon finding it inhibited her shooting herself she would not remove it and go downstairs to put it away she would just leave it in the room where she was trying to kill herself.   

The moderator used period harms the claim she did it given the moderator was put away and given Jeremy claimed it wasn't attached when he left the gun out. 

If he had had removed the moderator before shooting her and simply left it in the bed room and made her lie flat and had the gun across her body as she would have done to shoot herself in the chin he would have eliminated most of his problems.

1) that would eliminate the moderator problems and result in drawback in the weapon
2) it would result in soot getting on her gown
3) would eliminate having to move her body flat later which gave away she was moved by someone after her death

This assumes he could have gotten her to lie flat maybe he could not have gotten her to do it who knows.  If he could not get her to lie flat then he should have just left the gun near her or on her legs as opposed to moving her body that is a no no.

Surely this begs the question on how June's LCN DNA got inside the moderator.  The CAO was told that they could not tell if the LCN DNA was from blood alone.  The COA excepted that Junes DNA was inside the moderator....

[scipio_usmc]

Surely this begs the question on how June's LCN DNA got inside the moderator.  The CAO was told that they could not tell if the LCN DNA was from blood alone.  The COA excepted that Junes DNA was inside the moderator....

The COA was told:
1) The lab removed all visible blood before Lincoln examined it
2) Defense expert Lincoln removed microscopic traces of blood on the first 8 baffles
3) chemical blood tests done in 1999 detected no blood remaining in the moderator

Thus the DNA found inside was attributable to contamination. That contamination could have been from lab personnel or Lincoln who in 1985 and 1986 failed to take any precautions to prevent transferring DNA o the baffles when the weapon was taken apart and examined, form the jury which may have taken it apart without taking any precautions, or even could have been deposited prior to the shootings as it was being cleaned because Nevill could have had her DNA on him.

The whole reason why LCN DNA is problematic is because it is easy to transfer such tiny amounts through touch. LCN DNA is thus used very cautiously in implicating people. Transferring a tiny bit of someone's DNA innocently is one thing transferring their blood is something else entirely which is why it is so important to ensure whether DNA is blood based or not. That was the key in the Knox case, Kercher's DNA on the knife found at Sollecito's and Knox's footprint found via Luminol were not blood based they tested negative for blood.

LCN DNA is most useful in cases where victims are a stranger to the perp.  The perp in that case has no way to explain how his DNA got on the victim or the victim's DNA got on him. When there is no chance of innocent contamination it is in its glory the only argument that can be tried at that point is to say during the testing contamination occurred.  That is why there are very strict rules to clean equipment first and to take efforts to prevent such. 

[Adam]

I know Scipio and NGB have some legal experience.

Rather than there not being much evidence against Bamber, it seems there is a hell of a lot. Of everything. Rather than just one particle of gun residue as in the Barry George case.

Over 30 forensic points. Circumstantial evidence ( a lot). Several motives, no alibi, an opportunity. A witness. Only two suspects ( one dead).

If anyone else has experience of criminal trials, in comparison to other cases, do people believe there is a lot, or a small amount of incriminating evidence against Bamber ?

[Jan]

I know Scipio and NGB have some legal experience.

Rather than there not being much evidence against Bamber, it seems there is a hell of a lot. Of everything. Rather than just one particle of gun residue as in the Barry George case.

Over 30 forensic points. Circumstantial evidence ( a lot). Several motives, no alibi, an opportunity. A witness. Only two suspects ( one dead).

If anyone else has experience of criminal trials, in comparison to other cases, do people believe there is a lot, or a small amount of incriminating evidence against Bamber ?

A huge amount of the evidence is circumstancial which is the main reason the case is discussed so much . The main witness contradicts herself a lot .
What actually convicted Jeremy - a piece of evidence that had been removed from a crime scene and handled by all and sunder. A witness who had been dumped, who had criminal record and who was perfectly capable of telling lies and family members who were ( rightly or wrongly )determined to put him behind bars at all costs.  What stands out to me is that the police admitted that outside business ventures the "family" who were pestering the police actually did not know Jeremy or Sheila very well. And yet Colin who should have been the first person to raise the alert that Sheila could not have done it - accepted for some time that she was capable.

[Adam]

A huge amount of the evidence is circumstancial which is the main reason the case is discussed so much . The main witness contradicts herself a lot .
What actually convicted Jeremy - a piece of evidence that had been removed from a crime scene and handled by all and sunder. A witness who had been dumped, who had criminal record and who was perfectly capable of telling lies and family members who were ( rightly or wrongly )determined to put him behind bars at all costs.  What stands out to me is that the police admitted that outside business ventures the "family" who were pestering the police actually did not know Jeremy or Sheila very well. And yet Colin who should have been the first person to raise the alert that Sheila could not have done it - accepted for some time that she was capable.

Well there are well over 30 forensic things that link Bamber to the crime. And the problem is it can't be linked to anyone else in the world.

I just want to know, if on average, over 30 forensic reasons is a lot for a trial. Or a small amount.

And whether all the other issues is a lot.

For all I know Bamber may have been convicted on a tiny amount of evidence in comparison to others. Must admit I would be surprised if that was the case.

[Jan]

Well there are well over 30 forensic things that link Bamber to the crime. And the problem is it can't be linked to anyone else in the world.

I just want to know, if on average, over 30 forensic reasons is a lot for a trial. Or a small amount.

And whether all the other issues is a lot.

No they don't . the things you are talking about are allegedly showing Sheila could not have done it. And experts disagree about all of them . There is no direct evidence to link Jeremy to committing the crime 

[Adam]

No they don't . the things you are talking about are allegedly showing Sheila could not have done it. And experts disagree about all of them . There is no direct evidence to link Jeremy to committing the crime

You must have missed my other points. Which I have posted several times.

[Jan]

You must have missed my other points. Which I have posted several times.

trust me I have missed nothing .

I have only decided to read your posts because you have dropped from the most rude and annoying posters to second place . I am still very annoyed with you because of you accusations and lack of apology .

[Adam]

My view is today, if there is one forensic piece of evidence linking a suspect to a crime, then that should be enough. However today we have DNA which is so conclusive all the defence can do is claim contamination.

However in 1985, similar rules must have applied. But there are over 30 forensic things with case.