the most likely scenario as i see it

[Jane]

How would you have viewed the situation if Sheila had been sprayed with bullets like her parents were and either of one parent remained clean ?

But her parents weren't supposed to look as if they'd committed suicide so it didn't matter that they were bloodied and peppered with bullets.

[Caroline]

What do you mean I don't want to believe it? I ask you time and time again for you to prove it and you come back with nothing substantial, then leave the responsibility with the accused. Shifting the burden of proof. That in itself speaks volumes

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence. —Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), 

The latin semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges"

The philosophical burden of proof lies with the accuser(You). All I have to do show doubt on the evidence that the accusers produce. And so far you make that an easy Job, claims such as "Shelia would not have chosen that spot to shoot herself" or "Julie Mugford said so" is not just weak its worthy of ridicule

Not in this case as Jeremy has been CONVICTED - the innocent side need to PROVE the court were wrong. It's not longer innocent until proven guilty and you have come up with absolute ziltch that shows Jeremy innocent and Sheila guilty. You want to believe he is innocent because you have doffed your cap towards freedom. The charges are from your side - the charges from Jeremy are that he was wrongly convicted, he (and you as a supporter) need to PROVE it. I'm happy with the status quo (not the band, they're crap). Now, jump to it - but you'll need more than a cake and file though! 

[sami]

Not in this case as Jeremy has been CONVICTED - the innocent side need to PROVE the court were wrong. It's not longer innocent until proven guilty and you have come up with absolute ziltch that shows Jeremy innocent and Sheila guilty. You want to believe he is innocent because you have doffed your cap towards freedom. The charges are from your side - the charges from Jeremy are that he was wrongly convicted, he (and you as a supporter) need to PROVE it. I'm happy with the status quo (not the band, they're crap). Now, jump to it - but you'll need more than a cake and file though! 

they havent got a chance in hell of showing that sheila did it so its turned around to try and show jb didnt do it .but they dont do a very good job.what do we have to prove its allready been proved in a court of law.says it all

[lookout]

The scientific methods of investigation back in 1985 left a lot to be desired and because of these outdated methods,easily led to errors being made and to my mind this is where most of the errors lies. Forensic science was relied upon far more then than it is present day,so the margin for error was much greater.

[sami]

these days a micoscopic hair ,skin cell,and siliava can get a person a life sentence forencis is relied on far more than in the past

[David1819]

Not in this case as Jeremy has been CONVICTED - the innocent side need to PROVE the court were wrong. It's not longer innocent until proven guilty and you have come up with absolute ziltch that shows Jeremy innocent and Sheila guilty.

You want to believe he is innocent because you have doffed your cap towards freedom. The charges are from your side - the charges from Jeremy are that he was wrongly convicted, he (and you as a supporter) need to PROVE it. I'm happy with the status quo (not the band, they're crap). Now, jump to it - but you'll need more than a cake and file though! 

That's incorrect, Post guilty verdict the Defence just needs to prove reasonable doubt so the prosecution cant make their case, examples David Bain, Sion Jenkins and Marty Tankleff.

As I have said before I don't believe he is innocent nor do I believe he guilty, Belief requires a leap of faith. Being a rational person I don't take leaps of faith if evidence is not satisfactory I embrace the uncertainty.

The burden of proof falls on the accuser (YOU) if the accuser cannot prove guilt then the presumption of innocence applies (Innocent until proven guilty)

The state (according to its own standards) has denied Jeremy a fair trial thus I reject the verdict of that trial. But since you are so eager to point out he has been convicted and using that a basis for believing him guilty. Tell me what evidence did the crown present to secure this conviction? 

[lookout]

But her parents weren't supposed to look as if they'd committed suicide so it didn't matter that they were bloodied and peppered with bullets.

Like " Taff " first said------------" a domestic ".

[Jane]

Like " Taff " first said------------" a domestic ".

OR, what Jeremy was convicted on, 5 murders, one made to look like suicide.

[sami]

That's incorrect, Post guilty verdict the Defence just needs to prove reasonable doubt so the prosecution cant make their case, examples David Bain, Sion Jenkins and Marty Tankleff.

As I have said before I don't believe he is innocent nor do I believe he guilty, Belief requires a leap of faith. Being a rational person I don't take leaps of faith if evidence is not satisfactory I embrace the uncertainty.

The burden of proof falls on the accuser (YOU) if the accuser cannot prove guilt then the presumption of innocence applies (Innocent until proven guilty)

The state (according to its own standards) has denied Jeremy a fair trial thus I reject the verdict of that trial. But since you are so eager to point out he has been convicted and using that a basis for believing him guilty. Tell me what evidence did the crown present to secure this conviction? 

well the defence couldnt even prove reasonable doubt.the crown showed sheila could not have done it .and how many more times must i say 10 out of 12 people accepted it

[Caroline]

That's incorrect, Post guilty verdict the Defence just needs to prove reasonable doubt so the prosecution cant make their case, examples David Bain, Sion Jenkins and Marty Tankleff.

As I have said before I don't believe he is innocent nor do I believe he guilty, Belief requires a leap of faith. Being a rational person I don't take leaps of faith if evidence is not satisfactory I embrace the uncertainty.

The burden of proof falls on the accuser (YOU) if the accuser cannot prove guilt then the presumption of innocence applies (Innocent until proven guilty)

The state (according to its own standards) has denied Jeremy a fair trial thus I reject the verdict of that trial. But since you are so eager to point out he has been convicted and using that a basis for believing him guilty. Tell me what evidence did the crown present to secure this conviction? 

The burden on proof doesn't fall on me at all just like YOU rejecting the verdict means ziltch! I think you already know the evidence that convicted him so that's a pretty dumb question. Whether or not you believe that circumstantial evidence is good enough mean squat - there was certainly enough of it to make Bamber the only option. Singularly, such circumstantial evidence means nothing but when you add it together and apply common sense - it can ONLY be Jeremy. It doesn't take a leap of faith, just a little logic.

He has had more chances than any other prisoner to show he is innocent - NOTHING he has presented so far goes to show that there is even a remote chance that he is.


.

[John]

i also believe there was a violent fight in the kitchen which involved the rifle,thats the only way the lampshade could have been broken.i fully believe if that fight was between nb and  sc than nb would be alive today,even with the shots he took upstairs he could have still contained sc

Absolutely, Sheila could never have got the better of Nevill.

[sami]

The burden on proof doesn't fall on me at all just like YOU rejecting the verdict means ziltch! I think you already know the evidence that convicted him so that's a pretty dumb question. Whether or not you believe that circumstantial evidence is good enough mean squat - there was certainly enough of it to make Bamber the only option. Singularly, such circumstantial evidence means nothing but when you add it together and apply common sense - it can ONLY be Jeremy. It doesn't take a leap of faith, just a little logic.

He has had more chances than any other prisoner to show he is innocent - NOTHING he has presented so far goes to show that there is even a remote chance that he is.


.

and there never will be any proof he is innocent

[lookout]

Absolutely, Sheila could never have got the better of Nevill.

What ? With a rifle poking at him ? Move or I shoot ?

[David1819]

The burden on proof doesn't fall on me at all just like YOU rejecting the verdict means ziltch! I think you already know the evidence that convicted him so that's a pretty dumb question. Whether or not you believe that circumstantial evidence is good enough mean squat - there was certainly enough of it to make Bamber the only option. Singularly, such circumstantial evidence means nothing but when you add it together and apply common sense - it can ONLY be Jeremy. It doesn't take a leap of faith, just a little logic.

He has had more chances than any other prisoner to show he is innocent - NOTHING he has presented so far goes to show that there is even a remote chance that he is.

.

There is no cicumstancial evidence to add together in the first place. All you have is tainted words of Julie Mugford and The Relatives that wanted him convicted. To claim that is logical proof of guilt is beyond laughable

[Jane]

There is no cicumstancial evidence to add together in the first place. All you have is tainted words of Julie Mugford and The Relatives that wanted him convicted. To claim that is logical proof of guilt is beyond laughable

Wanting him convicted doesn't indicate innocence.