too much bad luck for one person ?

[Caroline]

well what about eddie gilfoyle. It was his wifes family that said she wouldnt have comitted suicide , her workmates said she had helped her husband prepare suicide notes for a course at work. The police began to listen to her family and hey presto guilty. He served 18 years and always protested his innocence. It went to appeal twice and i think its withthem again.

complete shambles by the police and lots ofexperts now saying it was suicide,

not sure what the outcome was but this is very similar. People just assume something and then truly believe it.

Who said he's innocent? Just because he says he is, doesn't mean he is. Why would ANYONE need suicide notes for a course? Don't know much about this case but already alarm bells are ringing

[nugnug]

yes your right you dont.

[Neil]

A few years ago, I read a great deal about Gilfoyle.  I don't remember some of the finer details, but I formed the firm opinion that he was guilty as charged. 

His post prison sentence press conference, reinforced my view.

[Adam]

Prisoners who plead 'not guilty', are often still convicted.

After conviction, some prisoners will admit their guilt while in prison. Partly because there is no point lying any more due to the evidence against them. And partly because it means getting parole sooner.

Some prisoners will continue to protest their innocence after going to prison. Most will be guilty, but will be looking for a technicality to release them from a long sentence.

Bamber pleaded 'not guilty' because he wanted to spend his inheritance and believed he would win.

He protested his innocence after conviction as he had been given 25 years. If successful quickly,  he may regain his inheritance, reputation as a law abiding citizen and even compensation.

After the 'Life Means Life' law, he couldn't just give up and wait for parole. So has continued his campaign.

[notsure]

Who said he's innocent? Just because he says he is, doesn't mean he is. Why would ANYONE need suicide notes for a course? Don't know much about this case but already alarm bells are ringing

thats just it caroline, the wife had tried to comit suicide years before with a previous boyfriend. This case stinks too and i firmly believe he is innocent.

Its very similar in lots of ways so have a read. I think he will be found innocent caroline, no doubt.

i do however believe there are plenty of guilty people in prison lol. There not all innocent.!

[nugnug]

and eddies case this evedence was witheld from the jury as were her  dairys that talked about suicide.

[buddy]

Yes, why would they.

But Julie and the relatives had no control over the other mountains of forensic evidence which convicted Bamber.

Adam you keep harping on about the forensic evidence, but there was NONE. Circumstantial maybe, but NO forensic evidence a all.

[Caroline]

Adam you keep harping on about the forensic evidence, but there was NONE. Circumstantial maybe, but NO forensic evidence a all.

The silencer was forensic evidence (if you believe in it).

[guest2181]

Adam you keep harping on about the forensic evidence, but there was NONE. Circumstantial maybe, but NO forensic evidence a all.

You realise that forensic and circumstantial don't mean the opposite of each other?

[buddy]

You realise that forensic and circumstantial don't mean the opposite of each other?

Not sure what you mean Hartley. All I am saying is that there was no positive forensic evidence or the cops would have arrested Jeremy sooner.

[guest2181]

Not sure what you mean Hartley. All I am saying is that there was no positive forensic evidence or the cops would have arrested Jeremy sooner.

What I meant is that it would make more sense to reference between circumstantial and direct evidence, rather than include the term forensic.

It's also worth noting that circumstantial does not mean 'weak', it just means that of itself it is not sufficient to prove guilt.

By that definition, if finger prints were found to be present, they would be forensic evidence, but they would also be circumstantial as you would be asking a jury to consider whether the prints could have been left at a particular time.

I suppose that by the same token, the blood tests in the silencer would be taken as being both forensic and circumstantial.

That's as I understand it anyway, perhaps Petey or NGB would have a more informed definition.

[buddy]

What I meant is that it would make more sense to reference between circumstantial and direct evidence, rather than include the term forensic.

It's also worth noting that circumstantial does not mean 'weak', it just means that of itself it is not sufficient to prove guilt.

By that definition, if finger prints were found to be present, they would be forensic evidence, but they would also be circumstantial as you would be asking a jury to consider whether the prints could have been left at a particular time.

I suppose that by the same token, the blood tests in the silencer would be taken as being both forensic and circumstantial.

That's as I understand it anyway, perhaps Petey or NGB would have a more informed definition.

I fully understand what you are driving at, but it does not forensicly link Jeremy to the crime.
Yes I understand the blood ect, but still does not point the finger at Jeremy.
Only Julie did.

[guest2181]

I fully understand what you are driving at, but it does not forensicly link Jeremy to the crime.
Yes I understand the blood ect, but still does not point the finger at Jeremy.
Only Julie did.

I'd agree with you if you said that their was no 'direct' evidence showing Jeremy to be guilty.

[buddy]

I'd agree with you if you said that their was no 'direct' evidence showing Jeremy to be guilty.

What direct evidence was there then Hartley?

[guest2181]

What direct evidence was there then Hartley?

You may have misread my post? I'm saying that there was no direct evidence.