An innocent Jeremy = an amazingly brave (and stupid) Julie:

[Steve_uk]

He didn't have marks on his face period let alone consistent with a struggle.  After he fainted then police observed wounds caused by the fall.  What is clear is that you made up your mind in advance of the facts and subscribe to false claims made on counterspin and don't have any real interest in reading about the real evidence and the defense case.   The system has advocates on both side for a reason.  You have to look at what both sides argued at trial and the witnesses testified to at trial.  What is clear is you don't want to ad don't care about reasonable doubt.  You are not a juror so that is fine you don't have to.   I have looked at the trial evidence and it is clear reaosnable doubt existed. As I said we will have to agree to disagree.

David Bain had exactly such marks on his head. The way you compose your specious posts with complete certainty makes me believe that there's a lot more truth in Mike's posts than first meets the eye. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-had-injuries-consistent-with-a-fight-with-stephen

[scipio_usmc]

David Bain had exactly such marks on his head. The way you compose your specious posts with complete certainty makes me believe that there's a lot more truth in Mike's posts than first meets the eye. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-had-injuries-consistent-with-a-fight-with-stephen

ALl you are doing is hurting your own creidibliy by linking to propaganda.

Facts:

1) Police testified they saw no injuries to David's body while speaking to him initially

2) After he fainted and fell injuries developed and the police then observed them

3) these injuries were deemed consistent with falling as he fainted

4) there is no evidence that Stephen managed to do anything to his attacker. His hand was shot so he could not use it effectively.  There is no evidence to suggest that one handed he was able to cause any injuries at all to his attacker.

You are the one acting like Mike in posting links to propaganda and ignoring the trial evidence.

 

[Steve_uk]

ALl you are doing is hurting your own creidibliy by linking to propaganda.

Facts:

1) Police testified they saw no injuries to David's body while speaking to him initially

2) After he fainted and fell injuries developed and the police then observed them

3) these injuries were deemed consistent with falling as he fainted

4) there is no evidence that Stephen managed to do anything to his attacker. His hand was shot so he could not use it effectively.  There is no evidence to suggest that one handed he was able to cause any injuries at all to his attacker.

You are the one acting like Mike in posting links to propaganda and ignoring the trial evidence.

Stephen grasped hold of a green fibre from a jersey which was found in the washing machine. Now are you seriously suggesting that Robin Bain that Monday morning woke up,retrieved the morning paper from the postbox,placed it on the table in the hall,killed all his family except David,changed his clothes and started a washing cycle?

Scipio we may be Europeans but I have formed the distinct opinion that you think the whole lot of us are stupid and you are superior in some way. I can tell you now that nothing is further from the truth,and in many ways from my experience the reverse happens to be the case. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-changed-his-testimony-regarding-the-green-jersey

[scipio_usmc]

Stephen grasped hold of a green fibre from a jersey which was found in the washing machine. Now are you seriously suggesting that Robin Bain that Monday morning woke up,retrieved the morning paper from the postbox,placed it on the table in the hall,killed all his family except David,changed his clothes and started a washing cycle?

Scipio we may be Europeans but I have formed the distinct opinion that you think the whole lot of us are stupid and you are superior in some way. I can tell you now that nothing is further from the truth,and in many ways from my experience the reverse happens to be the case. http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/evidence/david-changed-his-testimony-regarding-the-green-jersey

If you had half a brain you would stop bringing up the sweater because it was too small for David.  SOmeoen wearing that sweater was choking Stepehn and all Stepehn coudl do becaus ehe wa sinjured was pull as the sweater getting the fibers under his fingers.  That sweater didn't fit David but did fit Robin thus supports Robin took it off after killing him while wearing it.

David arrived home after Robin was dead and he didn't realize it had blood on it and touched it getting blood on his hand and a little on his clothes.  He put it and other clothing in the washing machine thus leaving the palm print.  This is what the defense argues and is quite plausible the prosecution could not establish this was not what happened.

Each time you post a link to that propaganda site you just look as bad as Mike.

[Steve_uk]

If you had half a brain you would stop bringing up the sweater because it was too small for David.  SOmeoen wearing that sweater was choking Stepehn and all Stepehn coudl do becaus ehe wa sinjured was pull as the sweater getting the fibers under his fingers.  That sweater didn't fit David but did fit Robin thus supports Robin took it off after killing him while wearing it.

David arrived home after Robin was dead and he didn't realize it had blood on it and touched it getting blood on his hand and a little on his clothes.  He put it and other clothing in the washing machine thus leaving the palm print.  This is what the defense argues and is quite plausible the prosecution could not establish this was not what happened.

Each time you post a link to that propaganda site you just look as bad as Mike.

It might have been a tight fit,but you ignore the bloodied gloves in Stephen's room and Robin's overall appearance that morning,which manifests clearly he had not traipsed around the house dripping blood.

[Caroline]

If you had half a brain you would stop bringing up the sweater because it was too small for David.  SOmeoen wearing that sweater was choking Stepehn and all Stepehn coudl do becaus ehe wa sinjured was pull as the sweater getting the fibers under his fingers.  That sweater didn't fit David but did fit Robin thus supports Robin took it off after killing him while wearing it.

David arrived home after Robin was dead and he didn't realize it had blood on it and touched it getting blood on his hand and a little on his clothes.  He put it and other clothing in the washing machine thus leaving the palm print.  This is what the defense argues and is quite plausible the prosecution could not establish this was not what happened.

Each time you post a link to that propaganda site you just look as bad as Mike.

Oh! You sure it was a palm print? This one has your endorsement does it? 

[maggie]

Oh! You sure it was a palm print? This one has your endorsement does it? 

[Steve_uk]

I am speaking for the victims in this case which is my main motivation. I feel strongly about this case just as Mike and Lookout feel that justice has not been served in the Jeremy Bamber case.

[Caroline]

I am speaking for the victims in this case which is my main motivation. I feel strongly about this case just as Mike and Lookout feel that justice has not been served in the Jeremy Bamber case.

Good for you Steve!! You stick to your guns!!

[scipio_usmc]

Oh! You sure it was a palm print? This one has your endorsement does it? 

The experts said it was a bloody palm print which was left while loading the machine. In contrast the experts who analyzed the Bamber Bible found no bloody prints of any kind.

[Caroline]

The experts said it was a bloody palm print which was left while loading the machine. In contrast the experts who analyzed the Bamber Bible found no bloody prints of any kind.

Which ones?

[scipio_usmc]

Which ones?

The ones who processed the Bible for prints and found only no prints in blood only prints belonging to June and those so small they must have belonged to a child. 

[Caroline]

The ones who processed the Bible for prints and found only no prints in blood only prints belonging to June and those so small they must have belonged to a child.

You got the documentation on that?

[scipio_usmc]

You got the documentation on that?

The examination documents were seen by the lawyers.  So were photos of the inside of Sheila's hands showing them free of blood.  So were photos of the floor under the Bible showing the Bible sat on her pool of blood.  Leon MacDOnnell saw such photo and he said the Bible was placed in such blood after she was dead. He saw the same photo you did plus more and he didn't assess the blood stain to be a palm print.

If it had been assessed as a palm print there would be documents noting it and they would have tried to figure out who's blood it was and who's print it was.  They assumed it was Sheila's blood because it was resting in her blood.

The COA decision noted it was printed and that nothing was found in blood just some ordinary prints. If a bloody palm print were found it would have been noted and would have been interest to both sides.



 

[Caroline]

The examination documents were seen by the lawyers.  So were photos of the inside of Sheila's hands showing them free of blood.  So were photos of the floor under the Bible showing the Bible sat on her pool of blood.  Leon MacDOnnell saw such photo and he said the Bible was placed in such blood after she was dead. He saw the same photo you did plus more and he didn't assess the blood stain to be a palm print.

If it had been assessed as a palm print there would be documents noting it and they would have tried to figure out who's blood it was and who's print it was.  They assumed it was Sheila's blood because it was resting in her blood.

The COA decision noted it was printed and that nothing was found in blood just some ordinary prints. If a bloody palm print were found it would have been noted and would have been interest to both sides.

I've seen the 2002 appeal doc which simply makes a lots of assumptions about the stain but we have no idea if they actually viewed the bible or not - I suspect 'not'. So you don't have a reference for the rest of the above then? The defence claimed not to have seen the bible so which lawyers?

They assumed it was Sheila's blood so perhaps they assumed it was Sheila's print - it makes no never mind to the outcome so it would hardly form a major part of the investigation. Are you saying that even though they were convinced that Sheila was the killer, they would have identified every bloody print at the scene?