The Myths of Circumstantial Evidence

[lookout]

Circumstantial evidence proved dangerous in the case of Rebecca Leighton who,in 2011,spent 6 weeks in prison,charged with tampering with medication whilst working as a nurse at Stepping Hill hospital.
The circumstantial evidence came,as it had been found,that the nurse in question had been stealing painkillers and antibiotics from off the ward where she worked and was then sacked. 3 patients had died in her care at that point,so she became branded.
After putting in her 6 week sentence at Styal prison,she was  released without charge and the whole sequence of events made her very unwell,to the point where she wanted to change her name.

Because Rebecca had stolen tablets from the hospital--------------she "automatically " became a murderer as well !!
 She successfully sued the police for making public her facebook page and leaking her name to the press.
As we all know---------4 years on,it was Victorino Chua who was the murderer and who is now serving 35+ years.

Rebecca's sacking over theft,gave police the " lead " in trying to also charge her with murder.
Some things just don't add up as the police THINK that their work is already done before they begin investigating. It sounds familiar to me.

[Jane]

Circumstantial evidence proved dangerous in the case of Rebecca Leighton who,in 2011,spent 6 weeks in prison,charged with tampering with medication whilst working as a nurse at Stepping Hill hospital.
The circumstantial evidence came,as it had been found,that the nurse in question had been stealing painkillers and antibiotics from off the ward where she worked and was then sacked. 3 patients had died in her care at that point,so she became branded.
After putting in her 6 week sentence at Styal prison,she was  released without charge and the whole sequence of events made her very unwell,to the point where she wanted to change her name.

Because Rebecca had stolen tablets from the hospital--------------she "automatically " became a murderer as well !!
 She successfully sued the police for making public her facebook page and leaking her name to the press.
As we all know---------4 years on,it was Victorino Chua who was the murderer and who is now serving 35+ years.

Rebecca's sacking over theft,gave police the " lead " in trying to also charge her with murder.
Some things just don't add up as the police THINK that their work is already done before they begin investigating. It sounds familiar to me.

Lookout, it seems to me that you quote EVERY instance where the authorities get it wrong. You appear not to see that they MOSTLY get it right. Just because SOME human beings get it wrong SOME of the, it isn't indication that they ALL get it wrong all of the time.......................whilst according to you, morally or legally, it appears that Jeremy never put as much as a foot wrong.

[lookout]

Lookout, it seems to me that you quote EVERY instance where the authorities get it wrong. You appear not to see that they MOSTLY get it right. Just because SOME human beings get it wrong SOME of the, it isn't indication that they ALL get it wrong all of the time.......................whilst according to you, morally or legally, it appears that Jeremy never put as much as a foot wrong.

It's only natural that I'm going to point out mistakes made by the law--------------I'm showing that it DOES happen,and as far as I'm concerned,they got it dreadfully wrong when they convicted Jeremy.

[Jane]

It's only natural that I'm going to point out mistakes made by the law--------------I'm showing that it DOES happen,and as far as I'm concerned,they got it dreadfully wrong when they convicted Jeremy.

And your proof of it is..............?

[lookout]

And your proof of it is..............?

The lack of evidence to prove that it was Jeremy-----------forensic and otherwise.

[Jane]

The lack of evidence to prove that it was Jeremy-----------forensic and otherwise.

But not recognized in a court of law. There WAS evidence enough -of whatever kind- to say that Sheila didn't do it but Jeremy did and I'm convinced that similar has occurred on COUNTLESS occasions at other trials. Jeremy's trial was in no way unique.

[lookout]

But not recognized in a court of law. There WAS evidence enough -of whatever kind- to say that Sheila didn't do it but jeremy did.

" of whatever kind ?". Is that what the judge said in his summing up ? 

[Caroline]

Circumstantial evidence proved dangerous in the case of Rebecca Leighton who,in 2011,spent 6 weeks in prison,charged with tampering with medication whilst working as a nurse at Stepping Hill hospital.
The circumstantial evidence came,as it had been found,that the nurse in question had been stealing painkillers and antibiotics from off the ward where she worked and was then sacked. 3 patients had died in her care at that point,so she became branded.
After putting in her 6 week sentence at Styal prison,she was  released without charge and the whole sequence of events made her very unwell,to the point where she wanted to change her name.

Because Rebecca had stolen tablets from the hospital--------------she "automatically " became a murderer as well !!
 She successfully sued the police for making public her facebook page and leaking her name to the press.
As we all know---------4 years on,it was Victorino Chua who was the murderer and who is now serving 35+ years.

Rebecca's sacking over theft,gave police the " lead " in trying to also charge her with murder.
Some things just don't add up as the police THINK that their work is already done before they begin investigating. It sounds familiar to me.

Scientific forensic evidence proved dangerous in the case of Barry George and Sion Jenkins (and many more). The majority of cases are based on circumstantial evidence so more people are correctly convicted than not. Some people try to make out that this case is unique because a lot of the evidence was circumstantial - and that simply isn't true!

[scipio_usmc]

The lack of evidence to prove that it was Jeremy-----------forensic and otherwise.

There is a ton of evidence proving Jeremy guilty that is why his appeals have gone no where. You simply don't want to face reality and thus ignore that evidence anytime it is raised here.  You would rather believe made up things like June and Nevill having nail marks in their arms from Sheila digging her nails into them instead of believing the actual facts of this case. 

If you want to ignore reality be my guest but you can't realistically expect the courts to support such or even the public at large. If you actually want others to agree you need proof that Jeremy is innocent and that means actually facing the evidence in this case and finding a way to refute it.

Raising examples of people being wrongfully convicted only speaks to those cases it doesn't help establish anything wrong occurred in this case.  In the meantime Leighton wasn't wrongfully convicted she was simply arrested and the arrest was reasonable. Saline bags she used were contaminated and caused patients to die.  She was released as they investigated further and found out that a different nurse contaminated a series of saline bags that she and other nurses gave to the patients without knowing they had been poisoned.

 

 

[notsure]

Hi scip

im currently half way through David Shaws An Innocent Man and so far he seems able to argue away all the so called evience.

Ive also read all your arguments regarding his guilt

nothing anywhere leads me to a conclusive deciscion


One of the jurors stated years later that she feels she was misled by the judges summing up which does seem rather biased against jeremy.

I dont see this ton of evidence you ckaim to be anything other than your take on things. It seems his defence were not in possessonf all the facts and so were on the back foot from the start.

what is your take on why EP still refuse to disclose all photos and evidence from the original investigation.

[lookout]

 Amongst the 260 pages of the 2002 Appeal is a passage which states,quote " Greater significance is that there is now strong support that June Bamber's DNA is in the silencer,contamination far less possible than in the case of SC. Is much weaker band of male DNA in the silencer would add significance to possibility of blood mix at trial.Will never know if blood was NB or not.
In 1996 the police without ref to anyone destroyed all the blood-based exhibits in this case,destroying only remaining source of DNA to NB and June.
Claimed by officer he had no idea of JB and the issue of DNA in the silencer was raised.
Submit ask decide if JB unfairly prejudiced by the destruction and if it was done in the knowledge that invest in this area was very much on-going.
Re.Ground 16 ask whether the actions of certain officers taint the whole of it such as the app conviction cannot be viewed as safe." unquote.

[scipio_usmc]

Hi scip

im currently half way through David Shaws An Innocent Man and so far he seems able to argue away all the so called evience.

Ive also read all your arguments regarding his guilt

nothing anywhere leads me to a conclusive deciscion


One of the jurors stated years later that she feels she was misled by the judges summing up which does seem rather biased against jeremy.

I dont see this ton of evidence you ckaim to be anything other than your take on things. It seems his defence were not in possessonf all the facts and so were on the back foot from the start.

what is your take on why EP still refuse to disclose all photos and evidence from the original investigation.

An innocent man is fictional it doesn't go on the basis of real evidence.  The way it argues evidence away is by making up things and pretending the facts and evidence are different than in actual life.

that is why I sent you the links to the Appeal Court decision, Dickinson report and archive of various statements so you can read yourself instead of reading made up claims.  It is easy to argue away evidence if you pretend it doesn't exist and pretend there is other evidence that never actually existed.

[notsure]

Ok i will get reading again.

[scipio_usmc]

Amongst the 260 pages of the 2002 Appeal is a passage which states,quote " Greater significance is that there is now strong support that June Bamber's DNA is in the silencer,contamination far less possible than in the case of SC. Is much weaker band of male DNA in the silencer would add significance to possibility of blood mix at trial.Will never know if blood was NB or not.
In 1996 the police without ref to anyone destroyed all the blood-based exhibits in this case,destroying only remaining source of DNA to NB and June.
Claimed by officer he had no idea of JB and the issue of DNA in the silencer was raised.
Submit ask decide if JB unfairly prejudiced by the destruction and if it was done in the knowledge that invest in this area was very much on-going.
Re.Ground 16 ask whether the actions of certain officers taint the whole of it such as the app conviction cannot be viewed as safe." unquote.

The Court of Appeals said all the DNA was the result of contamination and wasn't blood based.  It noted June's DNA was found on baffles where no blood was found even in 1985.  The blood only extended to the 8th baffle.  All the blood was removed prior to the DNA tests.  The Court didn't say anything about it being unlikely June's DNA was through contamination.

The Court stated that even if contamination had not caused June's DNA to get inside and it had been blood based that would not disprove that the blood removed in 1985 and 1986 was Sheila's.  The court noted blood of multiple victims could have gotten inside.  So it still would have flopped anyway even if it had been proven that June's blood was inside.

The DNA tests were a waste of time even the defense's own expert Webster stated the testing had no ability to prove whose blood had been removed in 1985 by the lab and 1986 by defense expert Lincoln.

This talking about the DNA testing is little more than a red herring.

[lookout]

So DNA testing is a complete waste of time then ?