outlandish Theory's

[nugnug]

that what a lot of us belive.

[Jane]

the point being she will never take a lie detector. However if she was so sure of her testimony and to put the people who don't believe her closer to believing her. But as you say it wont happen.

jane the point of there being noproof of the telephone call is that in British law JB does not have to prove that there was a call it is up to the prosecution to prove there wasn't one .

They can not prove that there was no call just as they cant prove that there was definate match of Shirleys blood on the silencer.

The bottom line is JMs testimony is tainted without her testimony which should have been disallowed i believe the jury would have found in his favour.

As again he is presumed innocent until proven different.

I actually think he may be guilty but i also believe that he should not have been convicted on the evidence.

Julie gave her testimony. Her testimony was believed by those to whom it mattered. To the best of my knowledge, it wasn't she who was on trial. Why, on God's earth, would she, 30 years on, threaten the very foundations of her present life simply because a few people don't believe her?  With all the variables connected to a STRESS DETECTOR test, would you?

As for proving a telephone call DIDN'T happen, as far as I'm aware, it's still impossible to prove a negative.

[Caroline]

the point being she will never take a lie detector. However if she was so sure of her testimony and to put the people who don't believe her closer to believing her. But as you say it wont happen. She doesn't have to, unless there is a retrial or an appeal - it's only Jeremy supporters and people interested in the case who question her testimony and in general, I don't think that amounts to a whole lot of people

jane the point of there being noproof of the telephone call is that in British law JB does not have to prove that there was a call it is up to the prosecution to prove there wasn't one . I think they did prove that but if he wants an appeal or a retrial, he would have to PROVE there was a call - he's a convicted man, no longer innocent until proven guilty.

They can not prove that there was no call just as they cant prove that there was definate match of Shirleys blood on the silencer. They don't have to, he's been convicted and don't call me Shirley! 

The bottom line is JMs testimony is tainted without her testimony which should have been disallowed i believe the jury would have found in his favour. And a guilty man would have walked free

As again he is presumed innocent until proven different. He has been

I actually think he may be guilty but i also believe that he should not have been convicted on the evidence. There is a whole lot of evidence that convicted him, not just Julie's testimony and the silencer

[Jan]

the point being she will never take a lie detector. However if she was so sure of her testimony and to put the people who don't believe her closer to believing her. But as you say it wont happen.

jane the point of there being noproof of the telephone call is that in British law JB does not have to prove that there was a call it is up to the prosecution to prove there wasn't one .

They can not prove that there was no call just as they cant prove that there was definate match of Shirleys blood on the silencer.

The bottom line is JMs testimony is tainted without her testimony which should have been disallowed i believe the jury would have found in his favour.

As again he is presumed innocent until proven different.

I actually think he may be guilty but i also believe that he should not have been convicted on the evidence.

today I think any accused person would have fought tooth and nail to have the moderator evidence excluded because it was removed from the crime scene and handled in a totally non forensic way.

[wiggy]

thank you jane im glad you agree that the telephone call can not be proved or unproved which is why we have the presumption of innocence.

im glad you now understand this

And i totally get that JM would never do a lie dectector and she was not on trial thats right all her charges were dropped. The point being if the jury knew she had immunity when she testified it would change there perception of her testimony which has never been collaborated by any evidence . Also do you really think she had no conversation prior to the trial re selling her story on a guilty verdict.

Her testimony whether it was true or not is tainted.  It was also inaccurate or have they now arrested the hitman that she claims shot the family.

Tell me jane on what piece of actual evidence would you convict JB on.

The blood evidence is not definite the family moved the evidence rather than pointing it out to the police . JMs testimony is tainted. And no proof that JB didn't in fact receive a call from his father.

So what insight do you have to say without any doubt at all that he did it. 

[Caroline]

today I think any accused person would have fought tooth and nail to have the moderator evidence excluded because it was removed from the crime scene and handled in a totally non forensic way.

I do agree with you on this.

[wiggy]

not only was it removed but removed and given to the police from teh very family members that benifited from JB being convidted

[Jan]

There is a lot of disputed evidence about Jeremys character - but the fact is he could have been arrogant and money obsessed ( although this is contradicted by some evidence) but this does not make him a murderer .

And the same goes for Sheila -she could have been very ill ( she was)and possibly depressed - but that does not make her a murderer either- but she would not need a motive.

So if you wanted to convict one of them - what would you do?

[Caroline]

thank you jane im glad you agree that the telephone call can not be proved or unproved which is why we have the presumption of innocence.

im glad you now understand this

And i totally get that JM would never do a lie dectector and she was not on trial thats right all her charges were dropped. The point being if the jury knew she had immunity when she testified it would change there perception of her testimony which has never been collaborated by any evidence . Also do you really think she had no conversation prior to the trial re selling her story on a guilty verdict.

Her testimony whether it was true or not is tainted.  It was also inaccurate or have they now arrested the hitman that she claims shot the family.

Tell me jane on what piece of actual evidence would you convict JB on.

The blood evidence is not definite the family moved the evidence rather than pointing it out to the police . JMs testimony is tainted. And no proof that JB didn't in fact receive a call from his father.

So what insight do you have to say without any doubt at all that he did it.

The angle of the first shot is 45 degree's and impossible to achieve and land in the position that Sheila was found in with the gun laying neatly across her chest. You don't have to be a forensic expert to realise no one holds a gun at a 45 degree angle when shooting themselves or that the crime scene was far too neat. Sheila had never used that weapon before so why would she choose it to shoot the family?

The jury didn't believe he received a call - they have the right to evaluate his story on the evidence provided. They decided it was BS.

[wiggy]

without proper evidence you cant convict any of them.

There are a few high profile cases where seemingly well people with mental health problems have gone
a bit mad with guns .

Port Arthur massacre and Dunblane and hungerford to name a few

but again is there enough evidence to be sure it was sheila i have no idea .

its not about that its a bout how sound the conviction was with the evidence presented

[Caroline]

There is a lot of disputed evidence about Jeremys character - but the fact is he could have been arrogant and money obsessed ( although this is contradicted by some evidence) but this does not make him a murderer . No, but it does give a motive

And the same goes for Sheila -she could have been very ill ( she was)and possibly depressed - but that does not make her a murderer either- but she would not need a motive. But if she 'went crazy' her choice of weapon would have been spontaneous not calculated

So if you wanted to convict one of them - what would you do? I think there is enough circumstantial evidence to show Jeremy is guilty and once to dismiss the BS from the OS - it's a no brainer.

[Caroline]

without proper evidence you cant convict any of them.

There are a few high profile cases where seemingly well people with mental health problems have gone
a bit mad with guns .

Port Arthur massacre and Dunblane and hungerford to name a few

but again is there enough evidence to be sure it was sheila i have no idea .

its not about that its a bout how sound the conviction was with the evidence presented

It's sound even without the moderator.

[wiggy]

The angle of the first shot is 45 degree's and impossible to achieve and land in the position that Sheila was found in with the gun laying neatly across her chest.

There again does not prove JB shot her and as you can see from the evidence photos there are photos of the body and the gun in more than one position. There is no doubt the crime scene was contaminated so the photos cannot be taken as evidence as we have no idea when the scene was staged but due to actual facts ie the photos the body was definitely moved

Sheila had never used that weapon before so why would she choose it to shoot the family?

there is again no evidence to say she never used that weapon before its unlikely that she did but no evidence and if it was sheila and im not saying it was it may have been the most handy weapon.

The jury didn't believe he received a call - they have the right to evaluate his story on the evidence provided. They decided it was BS.

The Jury gave a verdict of guilty they did not express any views as to what they believed or didn't believe on individual testimony. And if the prosecution cannot prove without reasonable doubt that JB did not have a call this should have been reiterated by the judges summing up not that the phone call was mysterious . Giving an impression to the jury.

[Jan]

The angle of the first shot is 45 degree's and impossible to achieve and land in the position that Sheila was found in with the gun laying neatly across her chest.

There again does not prove JB shot her and as you can see from the evidence photos there are photos of the body and the gun in more than one position. There is no doubt the crime scene was contaminated so the photos cannot be taken as evidence as we have no idea when the scene was staged but due to actual facts ie the photos the body was definitely moved

Sheila had never used that weapon before so why would she choose it to shoot the family?

there is again no evidence to say she never used that weapon before its unlikely that she did but no evidence and if it was sheila and im not saying it was it may have been the most handy weapon.

The jury didn't believe he received a call - they have the right to evaluate his story on the evidence provided. They decided it was BS.

The Jury gave a verdict of guilty they did not express any views as to what they believed or didn't believe on individual testimony. And if the prosecution cannot prove without reasonable doubt that JB did not have a call this should have been reiterated by the judges summing up not that the phone call was mysterious . Giving an impression to the jury.

It has been said on this forum that Sheilas body was moved (pulled flat) and that means she did not commit suicide .

And that what worries me .If she could be conscious after the first shot , how do we know that she was not really determined and sat up for the first shot - then when it did not work just moved herself down and flat for the second one?

It also worries me that it was not considered as a crime scene and the two officers were correct about her body and the bible/gun  being moved?

So they came across the scene - Sheila was in an embarrassing position ( nightdress up )  so as they had decided it was a cut a dry case they checked the rifle was safe and then moved the body and took the photos .

so therefore the jury were misled.

EP were not going to admit that were they when they were being vilified in the press?

[David1819]

thanks for that adam that has rely cleared it up.

The evidence is overwhelming.

there definitively was no call as the evidence shows(oh wait there is no evidence to show if there was or wasn't a call) However in his summing up he gave an opinion that it was mysterious there is grounds for a mistrial just on that point )

The blood almost certainly being sheilas means it definitely was sheilas (is almost certainly and definitely the same word)

The police were not looking for any incriminating evidence ah well that explains it( the police would still need to document the crime scene and look for clues even i it was suicide by shelia it was still  a murder
plus as i said there is documented evidence that the cupboard was seached and nothing found,

plus if the relatives found the silencer it would be more convincing would it not to have alerted the police to it rather than take it back to the other house. Dosent that raise any doubts at all.

im glad to see that you are however very open minded in you assessment of the facts.

As i have stated i have no idea whether he is guilty or not but where are the facts.

Also as far as JM statement is concerned she has shown to have lied as her first statement contradicts her statements after and only after she finds out she is being cheated on.

I hae no idea why she went to the police to tell them that JB told her he done it but isnt there any doubt in your mind that it happened after she found out he had been cheating on her and not before.

its all about reasonable doubt and in this case there is a lot of reasonable doubt.  No concrete evidence and the term almost certainly is not enough.

Much of what you need to know about what the Jury did not hear can be found in a letter from Bambers Lawyer Paul Terzeon

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754