Facts

[lookout]

Rabbits blood. It was certainly human blood. And almost certainly Sheila's.

People on here have said the silencer has not been discarded but there is nothing left to test. Which is not surprising as Jeremy tested it after the trial, which did him no favours.

Rabbits blood is the nearest to human blood------------read up about it.

[Adam]

Adam, you just said ALMOST certainly Sheila's blood. I'm sorry Adam, but almost isn't good enough to send a man to prison for the rest of his life

There is nothing anyone can do about you're stance there.

It's good enough for the police, DPP, jury, COA and CCRC.

But there is a lot more incriminating evidence as you know.

[keepers]

Adam, I really don't know what part of my argument you don't understand, I've not once said Sheila committed the murders... Now repeat after me...

[David1819]

June's DNA got inside through contamination, there was nothing to suggest it was blood based.

The blood removed in 1985 and 1986 though was drawback and is among the evidence that proves Sheila didn't kill herself.

But those that 'discovered' this evidence stood to inherit a two million dollars worth of estate If a conviction was successful. Its not reasonable to have 100% confidence in this.

[Adam]

But those that 'discovered' this evidence stood to inherit a two million dollars worth of estate If a conviction was successful. Its not reasonable to have 100% confidence in this.

I am afraid Jeremy needs proof.

It was impossible for the relatives to correctly contaminate the silencer.

[Jane]

Adam, I really don't know what part of my argument you don't understand, I've not once said Sheila committed the murders... Now repeat after me...

No, you haven't. I think you may be playing a game of semantics.

[David1819]

There is nothing anyone can do about you're stance there.

It's good enough for the police, DPP, jury, COA and CCRC.

Stefan Kliskos case was good enough for the police, DPP, jury, COA he was innocent in the end

Susan May case was  good enough for the police, DPP, jury, COA and CCRC. She was proven innocent yet to this day her name has not been cleared.

You seem to have a very utopian view of the legal system

[lookout]

 Patti and I used to be on a forum years ago discussing the McCann case,and on the forum was a cop who was local to me at the time,who swore that the McCanns were involved with their daughter's disappearance. He was wrong ! This same cop,when I mentioned the Eddie Gilfoyle case,vanished off the forum ! That said more to me than if he'd spoken. He was obviously involved in it at the time before Eddie's release in 2010.

[Adam]

Stefan Kliskos case was good enough for the police, DPP, jury, COA he was innocent in the end

Susan May case was  good enough for the police, DPP, jury, COA and CCRC. She was proven innocent yet to this day her name has not been cleared.

You seem to have a very utopian view of the legal system

There is no proof that the evidence is wrong.

Just Jeremy's accusations that the police are corrupt, everyone else lied and the relatives expertly framed him.

Enjoy the next 30 years Jeremy.

[Adam]

Adam, I really don't know what part of my argument you don't understand, I've not once said Sheila committed the murders... Now repeat after me...

Do you believe Sheila committed the massacre ? 

[Caroline]

a friend of mine who is a retired old bailey judge , told me that the hardest thing to get over to a jury is that you can aquit a guilty man as its up to the prosecution to prove guilt. Despite what side of the fence you stand on jeremy banners guilt was not and has not ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In today's world of advances in DNA techniques only a NOT GUILTY verdict would be returned if this case was to go for re trial. That's fact and no one can say otherwise. I'm extremely open minded in this case and am very knowledgable in it so am open to persuasion if someone can definitely show me where the guilt is proven!!

Why would anyone want to acquit a 'guilty' man? Lots of cases are brought to court with only circumstantial evidence, this one is not unique. Nor is it the only case to have a majority verdict accepted.

[Jan]

A lot of the "evidence" is nothing more than unconfirmed hearsay.

And saying Sheila could not have done it is not necessarily proof that JB did it. How do you know there was not someone else in the house forcing NB to make the call to get JB there?

Again I am not saying that is what happened - but is it impossible?

JB indicated he was not the only person who knew how to get in and out of the house.

I too have seen no proof that JB was the murderer. And yet he is supposed to be stupid enough to have made several mistakes along the way.

[Jan]

Do you believe Sheila committed the massacre ?

try another angle.

[Adam]

try another angle.

Keepers is claiming she has never said Sheila was responsible.

But is not satisfied that Jeremy is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Although the police, DPP, jury, COA and CCRC are.

Just wondering if she thought Sheila committed the massacre.

[scipio_usmc]

But those that 'discovered' this evidence stood to inherit a two million dollars worth of estate If a conviction was successful. Its not reasonable to have 100% confidence in this.

On the contrary it is unreasonable to reject the evidence on the basis you do.  The family didn't know a thing about drawback, didn't know Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound let alone a contact wound that would result in drawback, didn't know her blood type, didn't have access to her blood and even if they wanted to plant blood for simplistic reasons without appreciating anything about drawback they would not have used something to spray blood inside.  Yet the blood inside the moderator was sprayed inside, that is the only way for blood to get on the first 8 baffles.  Furthermore, if the family had planted the blood then Sheila's blood would have been found in the muzzle of the rifle and the family had no access to the murder weapon so can't have removed such blood.  If they had known her fatal wound was one that would result in drawback and had known all about drawback they would have known her blood was in the rifle so planting blood in the moderator would be useless. 

In order to reject the evidence on the basis of the family finding it you need to establish there is a reasonable chance they planted the evidence.  There is not a reasonable chance they planted the evidence. The evidence is safe.

The family are part of the chain of custody.  The house was in police control until August 9.  August 10 the family, Basil Cock etc went to the house and the moderator, bullets and various weapons were found.  The family established the chain of custody of all such weapons. They only had the moderator for less than 2 days, keeping it in a closet or chest until turning it over to police on the 12th. From there the chain was in police custody or at the lab depending on the date. This is sufficient for a court to rule it reliable evidence.

To reject it you have to establish a reasonable likelihood of planting the evidence in question but the defense could not do so the defense had zero basis to suggest they planted any evidence.