are the appeal court and the ccrc guilty of double standards

[sami]

It matters little, the forensic evidence in relation to the wounds does not point to a suicide.  Any fool can see that!

good point john the rifle was at an angle to sc and not straight as it would be had she pulled the trigger

[lookout]

Why do you insist on promoting that particular myth lookout?  The forensic evidence is huge.

So huge that nobody can list it. It's no myth,I can assure you. But there's safety in numbers,isn't there John ?

[David1819]

It matters little, the forensic evidence in relation to the wounds does not point to a suicide.  Any fool can see that!

Why are you making things up?

[Jane]

Why are you making things up?

Thank-you for the above information but I'm perfectly certain that there will be another expert who totally concurs with John's beliefs. Indeed, I believe there already has been such. Jeremy's supporters constantly throw things/information? into the middle but it seems that thus far all the add ons have been rejected. 30 years ago a jury looked at all the available information and enough of them, to make it count, decided that Sheila didn't shoot herself.................OR her family.

[John]

So huge that nobody can list it. It's no myth,I can assure you. But there's safety in numbers,isn't there John ?

It has been listed for you many times by me and others, your problem is you choose to ignore it.

[John]

Why are you making things up?

I deal in hard facts and evidence, I'm not afraid to post my views publicly under my own name, are you?

[David1819]

Thank-you for the above information but I'm perfectly certain that there will be another expert who totally concurs with John's beliefs. Indeed, I believe there already has been such.

That's not how forensic pathology works, specially when it comes to firearms. No pathologist has excluded suicide based on the gunshot wounds. To make a certainty one way or another would be foolish.

Jeremy's supporters constantly throw things/information? into the middle but it seems that thus far all the add ons have been rejected. 30 years ago a jury looked at all the available information and enough of them, to make it count, decided that Sheila didn't shoot herself.................OR her family.

What I posted above were trial transcripts. What the jury saw 30 years ago as we now know is not the whole story. Evidence post trial is rejected by the courts not necessarily because it is wrong but because they are unwilling to concede to the possibility they got things wrong. specially in this case.

"Like all criminal-justice bureaucracies, the British one is extremely reluctant to admit possible mistakes"

http://www.germanjoys.eu/2012/09/free-jeremy-bamber-perhaps.html

[David1819]

I'm not afraid to post my views publicly under my own name, are you?

The thought of it gives me nightmares! 

[Jane]

That's not how forensic pathology works, specially when it comes to firearms. No pathologist has excluded suicide based on the gunshot wounds. To make a certainty one way or another would be foolish.

What I posted above were trial transcripts. What the jury saw 30 years ago as we now know is not the whole story. Evidence post trial is rejected by the courts not necessarily because it is wrong but because they are unwilling to concede to the possibility they got things wrong. specially in this case.

"Like all criminal-justice bureaucracies, the British one is extremely reluctant to admit possible mistakes"http://www.germanjoys.eu/2012/09/free-jeremy-bamber-perhaps.html

Their wording, though, is likely to have been ambiguous. I don't recall that any pathologist stood in the witness box and and said it was beyond doubt that she shot herself.

[David1819]

Their wording, though, is likely to have been ambiguous. I don't recall that any pathologist stood in the witness box and and said it was beyond doubt that she shot herself.

That's not what Vanezis said. He said the shots was entirely consistent with her taking her own life but you cant determine exactly one way or another.

Professor Knight then sais the idea of someone else doing it seems "extraordinary"

Contrary to Johns claim that the wounds mean any fool can work out she didn't shoot herself

[Jane]

That's not what Vanezis said. He said the shots was entirely consistent with her taking her own life but you cant determine exactly one way or another.

Professor Knight then sais the idea of someone else doing it seems "extraordinary"

Contrary to Johns claim that the wounds mean any fool can work out she didn't shoot herself

That is just your interpretation. I believe Vanezis has since changed his mind and I note the word used by Professor Knight was "extraordinary" NOT "impossible".

[nugnug]

venzis said there was nothing in his conclusions that rulled out suicide or murder i belive.

[Jane]

venzis said there was nothing in his conclusions that rulled out suicide or murder i belive.

So it appears that no one has been prepared to say, without a shadow of doubt, it was suicide. Add in all the other variables and it looks like murder.

[sami]

That's not what Vanezis said. He said the shots was entirely consistent with her taking her own life but you cant determine exactly one way or another.

Professor Knight then sais the idea of someone else doing it seems "extraordinary"

Contrary to Johns claim that the wounds mean any fool can work out she didn't shoot herself

the docters and patholygist were idiots and fell for jb running commentary .take a look at the angles thanks to lemonhead for this image

[nugnug]

So it appears that no one has been prepared to say, without a shadow of doubt, it was suicide. Add in all the other variables and it looks like murder.

they dont need to the fact they agrea it could of been makes the conviction unsafe be any normal standard of brittish justice.