0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Oh dear,a LOT of people look " as guilty as sin ",and if left to ME to imprison those who fitted the criteria, prisons would be bursting at the seams. A lot of faces look as though they should have a number underneath their mugshots.Wasn't it argued not long back that a remark I made had been " similar, dog ugly ?" That I was asked what a criminal looked like when discussing Jeremy ?
Caroline the only exhibit that holds the case against Jeremy is the silencer. without it there is no proof what so ever he is guilty, If you recall Scipio's arguments (Who is a Lawyer) it was the basis for every argument he made for Jeremy's guilt. Its also the only convincing argument I can make for his guilt also. Without the sound-moderator the case collapses. Every opinion and rumour is influenced by the silencer. If it was proven to have been a forgery then this is what will happen to the prosecution case.
It shows how important the silencer is to establishing guilt. Julies testimony and the lack of evidence on Sheila was also important and STILL is. The ritual washing BS that the defence came up with doesn't hold up. Also, if you EVER see the CS picture of Nevill - you might change your mind! Although I have no idea where you stand on this case - you change with the wind.The only circumstancial evidence is the silencer being in the gun cupboard and not on the end of the gun. Have you followed this case at all? And what is a guilty person supposed to look like? Tut, tut - you know what that meant - beneath you again!!
Which is surely why some question the validity of the silencer evidence while believing him guilty. It would not be the first time noble cause corruption has been used by the polive to nail a conviction when they lack evidence .
. . . when you add them altogether, there are too many to be coincidental.
The ritual washing BS that the defence came up with doesn't hold up
Also, if you EVER see the CS picture of Nevill - you might change your mind!
Although I have no idea where you stand on this case - you change with the wind.
Have you followed this case at all?
Are you not keeping up to date with the evidence? I. Hand Swabs of Sheila Can'tII — DRH/33 / Item 17. I have now been shown documentation which shows that the original hand swabs of Sheila Caffell were rejected by the laboratory on initial submission and that a set of hand swabs purporting to be that of Sheila Caffell were later submitted to the laboratory under a different exhibit and item number. Further, the SOCO exhibit sheets which fail to record any such resubmission. I am confident that this was not a matter of which I was ever aware. The alleged cleanliness of Sheila Caffell's hands was a key issue for the prosecution at trial. We had presented at trial a theory of ritualistic washing in the belief that the evidence presented by the prosecution in this regard was reliable. Had we known about this issue. I cannot imagine we would not have firstly sought to exclude the evidence at trial; secondly, if admissible, pursued the matter in cross-examination and ,thirdly, instructed an expert to look at this issue more closely in the light of the rejection.Paul Terzeon 2002 I guess you haven't read any historical posts here? I've written about the swabs MANY times, long before you were a member!! More importantly forensic science Delay in obtaining residues, movement, or washing of the body prior to autopsy will diminish or destroy gunshot residues. (Molina et al, 2007) A rapid loss in numbers of GSR particles occurs from 1 to 3 hours post firearm discharge, though maximum recovery times of 1 to 48 hours have been reported. (Dalby et al, 2010)http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNGSR.html And? Where is the blood spatter on Sheila's nightdress? If you had seen the pictures of Nevill, you would realise that whoever did that would be covered in blood and tissue!!.22 Caliber Ammunition CompositionManufacturers of primers are not required to disclose their formulations orany changes they may make in their formulations. This information is consideredproprietary and not made available to researchers and examiners.The only way for examiners to keep abreast of primer formulation changesis to conduct test firings of known ammunition and report their findings.The 1989 change in some formulations of .22 Remington rimfire ammunitionis a case that underscores the importance of examiners conducting tests andreporting their results. Some analysts who still adhered to the findings of theAerospace Report of 1977 did not routinely analyze .22 Remington rimfireammunition because it was common knowledge in the field that this formulationdid not contain Sb or Ba. However, in 1989, Remington added Sb andBa to its .22 rimfire primer, which meant GSR examination methods couldnow detect Sb and Ba in this ammunition. The only way analysts could learnabout this change was through their own routine analyses of .22 Remingtonrimfire ammunition. It is vital that examiners conduct routine analysis onall primers and that they keep abreast of the findings reported by othersSchwoeble, A. J.Current methods in forensic gunshot residue analysis / by A.J. Schwoeble,David L. Exline.I have seen it but in bad resolution. I can see it being pivotal to the investigation, Being shot seven times will make little difference if it was Jeremy or Shelia behind the trigger the result will be equally gruesome. I'm not talking about the shots, I'm talking about the battering and I have seen it in high res - not a pretty sight!! I have never been convinced either way and don't have any emotional investment in this case. I am in complete harmony with the uncertainties in all aspects of life. my verdict is open Neither do I, I just know he's guilty - I have no doubts 'now'. Yes very much so. you should know I have - then you should know the silencer is NOT the only circumstantial evidence.
Matt, i guess you feel i should know more about the case which would lead to me agreeing with you he is guilty.based on the blunders by ep and lack of real evidence as i see it there is reasonable doubt.people should remember we are not in the position of having all the facts and i like anyone else is entitled to an opinion.
This is certainly not the only case in which a conviction has been handed down on some circumstantial evidence.
I expect circumstantial evidence raises its head in a lot of cases but maybe without all the descrepancies and blunde, the police made.its very unsettling this case. The moderator played a big part and i dont see why if he was staging the scene and had used the moderator he didnt simply toss it on the floor near shiela.take it off and put it back in the box in the cupboard makes no sense. Too many things dont make sense and i would need to see all the trial transcripts on this to have a clearer opinion.in the meantime im sitting on the fence.
