Ending the SJ/1 nonsense once and for all

[Jane]

If the blood on the moderator was more of a stain which is more likely and would have been difficult to see without magnifiers that is an acceptable statement by RB but leaves us wondering how AE saw a 'blob of jam' as she stated, this makes me question what was on the moderator, and who actually saw it ?

There are many possibilities here, and whilst I'm not ruling out Scipio being right, there are too many considerations to make it one of the absolutes he's fond of.......................which is, after all, the norm where numerous people are involved.

[maggie]

There are many possibilities here, and whilst I'm not ruling out Scipio being right, there are too many considerations to make it one of the absolutes he's fond of.......................which is, after all, the norm where numerous people are involved.

I agree April, it may not be proof of innocence or guilt but it is questionable.

[nugnug]

If the blood on the moderator was more of a stain which is more likely and would have been difficult to see without magnifiers that is an acceptable statement by RB but leaves us wondering how AE saw a 'blob of jam' as she stated, this makes me question what was on the moderator, and who actually saw it ?

well i dont its blood they have no real reason to be interested in it i mean finding a slincer in a gun cupboard is hardly unusual.

[lookout]

If you read " Innocence is no Defence ",written by Sandra Lean,the questioning of an innocent person who tells the police EVERYTHING,becomes the main suspect as information gathered from other quarters is totally ignored when police are looking to secure a conviction for the person they're questioning.
One mistake regarding times and places is then turned on its head as police see this innocent person struggling with their lapse of memory,therefore digging themselves into a deeper hole so far as the police are concerned.
The way I see it,and have always done,is what happened in Jeremy's case.He all but stood on his head to help police,but to no avail,then along came the relatives to rub salt in the wound. 

It's unfair when a case is based on suspicion alone such as this was.!!

[lookout]

I notice EP have retained their status as " bungling police " after a man was found dead in his garden at home in Brentwood. Police confirmed the death as " non-suspicious ".The man had only been blasted by a shotgun.

[Caroline]

If you read " Innocence is no Defence ",written by Sandra Lean,the questioning of an innocent person who tells the police EVERYTHING,becomes the main suspect as information gathered from other quarters is totally ignored when police are looking to secure a conviction for the person they're questioning.
One mistake regarding times and places is then turned on its head as police see this innocent person struggling with their lapse of memory,therefore digging themselves into a deeper hole so far as the police are concerned.
The way I see it,and have always done,is what happened in Jeremy's case.He all but stood on his head to help police,but to no avail,then along came the relatives to rub salt in the wound. 

It's unfair when a case is based on suspicion alone such as this was.!!

It is also quite well known that some offenders like to get involved with the investigation to help lead the police away from themselves. Jeremy implicated Sheila in this way from the start.

[Caroline]

well i dont its blood they have no real reason to be interested in it i mean finding a slincer in a gun cupboard is hardly unusual.

The reason they gave for being interested, is that AP said the silencer was attached when he last saw the rifle at WHF.

[nugnug]

and he doesnt think the silencer would have been removed since then.

i cant see that as a credible reason.

[Adam]

and he doesnt think the silencer would have been removed since then.

i cant see that as a credible reason.

Why take the silencer off just to put it back on again ?  It was used for shooting vermin so would be permanently on.

I suppose in the course of months it may have been taken off. But AP saw the rifle with the silencer attached just before the massacre. A 'curious co incidence' it was taken off ?

Why would Bamber go outside to shoot rabbits with a rifle without a silencer ? What is the point in just firing one shot, which would probably miss before the rabbits dispersed. Thought he would have put the silencer on.

[Adam]

It is also quite well known that some offenders like to get involved with the investigation to help lead the police away from themselves. Jeremy implicated Sheila in this way from the start.

That is a good point.

People like Tracey Andrews, John Tanner and Mike Philpot co operated with the police. Making public appeals for information.

John Tanner even participated in the televised reconstruction.

Jeremy ringing the police to assist them in the 'siege' situation at WHF is standard practice if you know you will be a suspect anyway. The only reason a criminal would not do this is if they felt they would never be traced.

[Adam]

If you read " Innocence is no Defence ",written by Sandra Lean,the questioning of an innocent person who tells the police EVERYTHING,becomes the main suspect as information gathered from other quarters is totally ignored when police are looking to secure a conviction for the person they're questioning.
One mistake regarding times and places is then turned on its head as police see this innocent person struggling with their lapse of memory,therefore digging themselves into a deeper hole so far as the police are concerned.
The way I see it,and have always done,is what happened in Jeremy's case.He all but stood on his head to help police,but to no avail,then along came the relatives to rub salt in the wound. 

It's unfair when a case is based on suspicion alone such as this was.!!

The case was based on forensic and circumstantial evidence. Of which there is a lot.

But you just keep asking 'what evidence' although you contribute to all threads.

[nugnug]

Why take the silencer off just to put it back on again ?  It was used for shooting vermin so would be permanently on.

I suppose in the course of months it may have been taken off. But AP saw the rifle with the silencer attached just before the massacre. A 'curious co incidence' it was taken off ?

Why would Bamber go outside to shoot rabbits with a rifle without a silencer ? What is the point in just firing one shot, which would probably miss before the rabbits dispersed. Thought he would have put the silencer on.

when your puting a gun away you take the silencer off genrally.

[Caroline]

and he doesnt think the silencer would have been removed since then.

i cant see that as a credible reason.

Yes, I have to admit that I also find this reasoning weak. You simply need to unscrew it to remove it. However, he also said the sights were attached and people have said they are tricky to refit once removed. I did ask Jeremy if he removed them and he said no, he thought that perhaps his father had  in order to clean the rifle. I don't think Jeremy would have needed either the silencer or sights to commit the murders.

[Adam]

when your puting a gun away you take the silencer off genrally.

Really ? It must be easy to put off and on then.

I wonder why Jeremy didn't put it on before going to shoot rabbits.

[Caroline]

when your puting a gun away you take the silencer off genrally.

I guess that would be down to personal choice, you don't to have to remove it to put it away and Jeremy's claim that it didn't fit in the cupboard when the silencer was attached, turned out not to be true.