are the appeal court and the ccrc guilty of double standards

[nugnug]

but in other cases when forensic evdence has be called int qustion there has ben a retrial.

[nugnug]

Given that Jeremy staged the scene and had everyone (well almost everyone) believe that Sheila was responsible, had time to destroy or wash his clothes etc. AND that his presence at WHF wasn't unusual - what forensic evidence would you imagine there to be? Also, what forensic evidence shows that Sheila was responsible?

Circumstantial evidence is used to convict lots of offenders or would you be happy for anyone to walk free when no forensic evidence links them to the case, even though such evidence may be compelling?

there was cercumstancel evdence in the case of barry geordge and sion jenkins they stilll both got retrials.

[Caroline]

but in other cases when forensic evdence has be called int qustion there has ben a retrial.

Only where a case has been built that shows it is questionable. If they haven't got enough to prove the silencer wasn't used, then that's a problem. We can all have an OPINION but we can't prove it wasn't used, just as we can't prove Nevill didn't call the police.

[lookout]

but in other cases when forensic evdence has be called int qustion there has ben a retrial.

Not in either Susan May's case nor Eddie Gilfoyle's.

[lookout]

Not in either Susan May's case nor Eddie Gilfoyle's.

Was it two or three appeals they each had ?

[Adam]

but in other cases when forensic evdence has be called int qustion there has ben a retrial.

You can't have a retrial over more than a hundred pieces of incriminating forensic evidence Nugs. You know that.

Pretending it doesn't exist just shows total bias.

[nugnug]

Only where a case has been built that shows it is questionable. If they haven't got enough to prove the silencer wasn't used, then that's a problem. We can all have an OPINION but we can't prove it wasn't used, just as we can't prove Nevill didn't call the police.

the retesting has already caled the silencer evdence into qustion 2 medical experts have called into qustion the dna calls it into qustion.

the fact that its thought thats its thought to be junes blood not sheilas calls it into qustion.

[nugnug]

You can't have a retrial over more than a hundred pieces of incriminating forensic evidence Nugs. You know that.

Pretending it doesn't exist just shows total bias.

you cant even state what those are.

[Adam]

you cant even state what those are.

There is a forensic evidence library thread Nugs. I already told you on page one. Did you forget ?

It has links to 27 threads on the incriminating forensic factors that highlight his guilt.

[nugnug]

as i said you cant even say what those are.

[Adam]

as i said you cant even say what those are.

There is a forensic evidence library thread. Available to view.

It has links to dozens of the accepted forensic evidence which incriminates Bamber.

Ignoring all the evidence and just choosing one piece which you believe should support Bamber is not how it works Nugs.

[nugnug]

Not in either Susan May's case nor Eddie Gilfoyle's.

so what made barry and sion so specail.

[lookout]

so what made barry and sion so specail.

Public opinion probably as they made more headline news than the other two.

[lookout]

Particularly because Jill Dando was a popular figure,it drew more interest.

[nugnug]

well in the jenkins case i dont think it was public opionion and public opion certanly went in susan mays favour.