Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on May 23, 2014, 01:07:AM
-
A poster said this week Jeremy would not be convicted if the trial was now. Other supporters have claimed the same thing.
Would a trial now really result in a different outcome ?
The circumstantial evidence would be exactly the same. Julies testimony would be the same about what Jeremy said.
However massive advancements in technology would change the forensic evidence. Since the forensic evidence in 1985 that Sheila did not committ the crime was very convincing, it is likely to be even more damning for Jeremy now.
The silencer today would have DNA testing. This would likely show more conclusivly that it was Sheila's blood. The silencer evidence was accepted in court and at appeals. There is no reason why it should not be accepted as evidence in 2014.
Twenty nine years on, it is likely that there would have been a tightening up of police procedures. Meaning the police would not make the same mistakes in destroying evidence etc. There is still a possibility the police would have intially gone with the murder/suicide theory. However they are perfectly entitled to change their minds in 2014.
So it seems a trial now will result in the same verdict. But the fact is the crime was in 1985, so the trial in 1986.
-
The police in general have already had their feathers ruffled by Theresa May this week who pointed out her concerns over corruption within the force and " growing public mistrust ".
If it is found that there has been some sort of cover-up regarding the police and this case,,then for sure,it will be in the public domain,,and yes,,without a doubt,,the verdict would be different,as a can of worms would most definitely be opened up.
I can't wait for this day to arrive,,because Mays' speech paves the way for those who've been wrongly arrested/convicted.
-
A poster said this week Jeremy would not be convicted if the trial was now. Other supporters have claimed the same thing.
Would a trial now really result in a different outcome ?
The circumstantial evidence would be exactly the same. Julies testimony would be the same about what Jeremy said.
However massive advancements in technology would change the forensic evidence. Since the forensic evidence in 1985 that Sheila did not committ the crime was very convincing, it is likely to be even more damning for Jeremy now.
The silencer today would have DNA testing. This would likely show more conclusivly that it was Sheila's blood. The silencer evidence was accepted in court and at appeals. There is no reason why it should not be accepted as evidence in 2014.
Twenty nine years on, it is likely that there would have been a tightening up of police procedures. Meaning the police would not make the same mistakes in destroying evidence etc. There is still a possibility the police would have intially gone with the murder/suicide theory. However they are perfectly entitled to change their minds in 2014.
So it seems a trial now will result in the same verdict. But the fact is the crime was in 1985, so the trial in 1986.
MWT thinks so a senior comminisor from the CRCC thinks so
I have both on Email
-
yes i think it would becouse i doubt if any of the family would to face cross examination now.
i doubt if any of those cops would ethere.
-
I imagine that they would strip away more layers from each witness's testimony eg, Julie might be asked if she'd already signed on a deal with a particularly scummy publication and the family may be asked how much they stood to gain from Jeremy's conviction.
-
i cant see them being comfortable answring those sort of questions.
-
I dont see it getting to court. a proper police investigation using todays methods and standards would come to a completely different conclusion. there would of course be questions to answer about medical care and treatment which would keep the press occupied and some very searching money questions. most importantly the effects of better gun control would proberbly have instilled a mindset that prevented the careless use of firearms causing this tragedy.
wilf
-
theres no way the police would want a retrial.
-
i cant see them being comfortable answring those sort of questions.
They wouldn't be there for the good of their health, Nugs.
-
A retrial held today using todays attitudes and expectation of professional investigation would I think possibly see the prosecution offer no evidence. as the defence could pick them to pieces.
wilf
-
They wouldn't be there for the good of their health, Nugs.
and they would have to anser them truthfully now or face a perjury chardge.
-
I don´t think the silencer would be allowed into a trial this day and age. There is the (strong) potential of contamination, there is the POSSIBILITY of it having been tampered with, no less by people who stood to gain substantially from a guilty verdict.
I want to stress that I am not saying that happened, just that it could POSSIBLY have been tampered with.
Then there is Julie´s testimony. I have no idea how that would go down now, but also she had a lot to gain by a guilty verdict: The NOTW money and immunity from prosecution for her various crimes.
Then we are left with the phone logs, which are quite unclear. What else is there? Nothing, really, just hearsay and gossip.
I think that Jeremy would have walked if the trial had been in 2014 - remember that it only would have taken one more juror to find him innocent back in 1986.
An unsafe verdict, I´d say.
-
also the uncorroborated word of kelvin McKenzie would not be accepted as fact today.
-
I dont see it getting to court. a proper police investigation using todays methods and standards would come to a completely different conclusion. there would of course be questions to answer about medical care and treatment which would keep the press occupied and some very searching money questions. most importantly the effects of better gun control would proberbly have instilled a mindset that prevented the careless use of firearms causing this tragedy.
wilf
A police investigation using today's standards would have convicted him even more easily.
Modern blood anaylsis is against Jeremy. Modern ballistics principles are even more solidly against Jeremy.
There is nothing scientific that exists today to establish the blood was planted, if there were it coudl be used to free him.
Poepel like you are completely blind to the facts and running on raw emotion.
-
there cant be scientfic evedence to say the silencer just basic common sense says it was.
the police searched the cupboard 3 times and dident find it only logical explanation for that is it wasnt there.
-
I don´t think the silencer would be allowed into a trial this day and age. There is the (strong) potential of contamination, there is the POSSIBILITY of it having been tampered with, no less by people who stood to gain substantially from a guilty verdict.
I want to stress that I am not saying that happened, just that it could POSSIBLY have been tampered with.
Then there is Julie´s testimony. I have no idea how that would go down now, but also she had a lot to gain by a guilty verdict: The NOTW money and immunity from prosecution for her various crimes.
Then we are left with the phone logs, which are quite unclear. What else is there? Nothing, really, just hearsay and gossip.
I think that Jeremy would have walked if the trial had been in 2014 - remember that it only would have taken one more juror to find him innocent back in 1986.
An unsafe verdict, I´d say.
There is no legal ground to keep the suppressor out.
The defense must allege and establish contamination at trial to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, there is no basis for a judge to say the prosecution can't use it because the defense alleges contamination is possible.
In the meantime accidental contamination can't result in microscopic drops of Group A blood accidentally being deposited on the first 8 baffles like the defense found. The onyl aguemnt at all that can be made is that there was intentional planting and it must be proved not merely alleged by the defense.
Those who refuse to accept the suppressor out of bias use the same bias to suggest it could not be admitted today in a court of law though the claim is totally without any legal foundation whatsoever.
-
There is no legal ground to keep the suppressor out.
The defense must allege and establish contamination at trial to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, there is no basis for a judge to say the prosecution can't use it because the defense alleges contamination is possible.
In the meantime accidental contamination can't result in microscopic drops of Group A blood accidentally being deposited on the first 8 baffles like the defense found. The onyl aguemnt at all that can be made is that there was intentional planting and it must be proved not merely alleged by the defense.
Those who refuse to accept the suppressor out of bias use the same bias to suggest it could not be admitted today in a court of law though the claim is totally without any legal foundation whatsoever.
It wouldn't be admitted 'here' - not now! And who said the contamination was accidental?
-
There is no legal ground to keep the suppressor out.
The defense must allege and establish contamination at trial to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, there is no basis for a judge to say the prosecution can't use it because the defense alleges contamination is possible.
In the meantime accidental contamination can't result in microscopic drops of Group A blood accidentally being deposited on the first 8 baffles like the defense found. The onyl aguemnt at all that can be made is that there was intentional planting and it must be proved not merely alleged by the defense.
Those who refuse to accept the suppressor out of bias use the same bias to suggest it could not be admitted today in a court of law though the claim is totally without any legal foundation whatsoever.
Have a quick read up on forensic handling protocols where you will be told all about the preservation of forensic evidence. Maintaining the evidence intact, proper packaging to avoid contamination, handling with tongs and pincers to avoid contamination and reliable chain of custody are just a few things mentioned.
I haven't got to the bit where it suggests that you discard hairs, dismantle and scrape bits off, make sure it is handled by as many people as you can and then reassemble it before sending to the forensic lab with various exhibit references.
There is no chance that the silencer evidence would be accepted today.
-
Have a quick read up on forensic handling protocols where you will be told all about the preservation of forensic evidence. Maintaining the evidence intact, proper packaging to avoid contamination, handling with tongs and pincers to avoid contamination and reliable chain of custody are just a few things mentioned.
I haven't got to the bit where it suggests that you discard hairs, dismantle and scrape bits off, make sure it is handled by as many people as you can and then reassemble it before sending to the forensic lab with various exhibit references.
There is no chance that the silencer evidence would be accepted today.
They have a reliable chain of custody they established it in court and on appeal. These standards were not invented all of a sudden. Chain of custody goes to authentication of an exhibit and authentication of an exhibit has long been a requirement it is not new.
Jeremy supporters say that we should doubt the claims of those who testified to its chain of custody. That is what the trier of fact decides. The jury weighs those issues of credibility of evidence.
-
There is no legal ground to keep the suppressor out.
The defense must allege and establish contamination at trial to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, there is no basis for a judge to say the prosecution can't use it because the defense alleges contamination is possible.
In the meantime accidental contamination can't result in microscopic drops of Group A blood accidentally being deposited on the first 8 baffles like the defense found. The onyl aguemnt at all that can be made is that there was intentional planting and it must be proved not merely alleged by the defense.
Those who refuse to accept the suppressor out of bias use the same bias to suggest it could not be admitted today in a court of law though the claim is totally without any legal foundation whatsoever.
So you would accept this into evidence at a trial? Blood was scraped off of it because it was "fascinating" - with a razor blade, around a dinner table, a few days before it was given to police. Really?
-
There is no legal ground to keep the suppressor out.
The defense must allege and establish contamination at trial to the satisfaction of the trier of fact, there is no basis for a judge to say the prosecution can't use it because the defense alleges contamination is possible.
In the meantime accidental contamination can't result in microscopic drops of Group A blood accidentally being deposited on the first 8 baffles like the defense found. The onyl aguemnt at all that can be made is that there was intentional planting and it must be proved not merely alleged by the defense.
Those who refuse to accept the suppressor out of bias use the same bias to suggest it could not be admitted today in a court of law though the claim is totally without any legal foundation whatsoever.
If a judge threw out evidence every time the defence claimed it was unreliable or contaminated, no one would ever get convicted. Proof is needed from the defence.
I do not recall any claims before and during the trial that the silencer was contaminated. Or that the family were trying to frame Jeremy.
The family were accused by Jeremy of framing him, decades later. But this board have agreed the family did not do that.
The only explanation left is the police wiped off the 'wrong' blood which was already on the silencer when the relatives handed it in. Then the police instructed the lab technicians to expertly put Sheilas/Nevilles/Junes blood inside.
-
The police must have managed to wipe off the incorrect blood on the silencer, but at the same time fail to dislodge the paint. Unless they went back to WHF to put the paint back on.
-
this is the 21st century if a piece of evidence was not found by a properly trained forensic search team but turned up later having been taken from the scene, been handled by uncle Tom Cobbley and all, had supposed hairs missing from it,thrown into the boot of a car then left on a desk.
sorry not good enough!
-
Time of death would have been determined more precisely which would have helped. Paint on, and blood in the silencer is not conclusive even if that blood were Sheila's.
-
So you would accept this into evidence at a trial? Blood was scraped off of it because it was "fascinating" - with a razor blade, around a dinner table, a few days before it was given to police. Really?
Whether true or not it has no bearing at all on the integrity of the evidence found inside. That is the issue. One person said there was a bit of blood sticking out others do not. Since this alleged blood was not used as evidence it makes no difference at all whether it was or wasn't. If it was lost it makes no difference at all on the blood used. If it was never there then it especially makes no difference.
The fact of the matter is that the blood found by the prosecution and defense can't have gotten there by any accidental means and anyone planting blood evidence would have been likely to use a dropper or pour blood in from a small vial. There are no documented cases of planting blood evidence in a gun or suppressor by spraying it inside. I challenge you to find any because I found none nor any experts who claim that there is a tool that can be used to spray blood inside to mimick the distribution of drawback.
This is not only what matters to a jury but what matters to the appeal judges. If anyone wants to ge thim out of jail they have to establish the blood DETERMINED to be group A human blood was planted or wrongly identified as group A. That is what it will take to get the conviction overturned because of the suppressor.
For people interested in the truth who objectively view him as guilty, the same thing is required- establishing the blood determined by the prosecution and the defense experts to be group A blood is not group A or was planted.
The defense is unable to do that so tries playing games about this issue but dancing around it does nothing. It will not prove innocence therefore will not convince an appeal court or anyone objective.
The defense needs to establish the blood tested by the experts and determined to be group A by the experts was likely planted or that it is likely the experts were wrong about it being group A.
The inability to do so at trial was fatal to the defense, the inability to do so on appeal is fatal to efforts to vacate the conviction and the inability to do so means that people relying on such as proof of guilt have no reason to stop doing so.
Again though there is a lot more evidence against Jeremy this is just one aspect. A conviction could still be obtianed without the suppressor evidence but if it were proven to be planted then there would have to be at minimum a retrial for the prosecution to make out such case.
You simply choose to discount anything that establishes Jeremy's guilt because of bias. You choose to believe it was planted though there is no evidence at all to establish such. Because you simply take a leap of faither you can't prove a thing and that is the problem. Inability to prove what you want to believe means that you can't put forth anything in court to negate the evidence and can't put forth anything to people who rely on such evidence to believe in his guilt that negates it.
Evidence must be challenged head on, th eevidence that must be challenged is the blood that was determined to be group A. That is why a DNA test of the suppressor accomplishes little. Only a DNA test of that blood which tested as group A would be able to prove or disprove if that blood was Sheila's. But neither the defense nor the prosecution saved such blood evidence so there is no way to test it. Thus no way for a DNA test to disprove it was Sheila's.
The defense was not stupid they relaized they needed to try to prove it was not Sheila's blood so they 1) did not have their own expert testify because he found additional blood that he determined was group A (thus duplicated the findings of the prosecution) and 2) he originally thought it was possible the prosecution had found blood that could have been a mixture of June and Nevill's blood but changed his assessment when he learned it was from a signle flake of blood. So their own expert would have killed them and refuted the chance of the blood being a mixture. For these reaosns they did not call their expert at trial. The lawyers simply cross examined the prosecution expert rying to get him to admit the chance the blood was a mixture not group A. The best they could get the expert to say was a very remote chance which is better than their own expert would have stated.
For this very remote chance to actually occur the blood of 1 would have to have dried before the blood of the other was deposited and each victim would have needed to have been shot with the gun within 2mm of the body. So othere would have to have been a sizable gap between June and Nevill being shot and each would have needed to have suffered a contact or near contact wound. The pathologist did not think either had a wound close enough to result in drawback.
This was a Haily Mary play with the defense hoping some jurors would be confused and think that a remote possibility is enough to meet reasonable doubt which requires a reasonably probably not very remote. So in effect was hoping jurors would be tricked. Sometimes that happens because of bias, ignorance and because the prosecution does a poor job of making sure the jury understands.
If this trial were held in 2014 the evidence collection practices would have been so different that there might be more evidence against Jeremy.
The biggest difference though would be the blood inside the suppressor would have been tested for DNA to see if it was Sheila's as opposed to group A blood belonging to someone else. If guilters are right that Jeremy killed Sheila with the suppressor attached it would be determined to be her DNA. If innocenters are right that Sheila's blood was planted in the suppressor then it still would be determined to be her DNA. Either way the blood would be proven as hers. So the Hail mary the defense used in 1986 would be unavailable. The conviction might be 12-0 instead of 10-2 in such case.
The defense would need to establish a likelihood that her blood had been planted to overcome such evidence.
So at the end of the day we would be in the same exact place we sit today with the defense needing to establish the blood was planted to have such evidence discounted.
-
there cant be scientfic evedence to say the silencer just basic common sense says it was.
the police searched the cupboard 3 times and dident find it only logical explanation for that is it wasnt there.
The police didn't say it wasn't there. The police said they only took from the closet what they thought was relevant to the crime and thus didn't pay attention to it or take it. Only what was taken was listed on the forms, not all items they came across thus they didn't list other guns, bullets etc until they actually were taken later later on.
-
A police investigation using today's standards would have convicted him even more easily.
Modern blood anaylsis is against Jeremy. Modern ballistics principles are even more solidly against Jeremy.
There is nothing scientific that exists today to establish the blood was planted, if there were it coudl be used to free him.
Poepel like you are completely blind to the facts and running on raw emotion.
Really? Correct blood type but no DNA? The planting of the blood wouldn't necessarily free him because he could still have been responsible, but just didn't use the silencer.
People like you are completely blind to the facts because you just want to be right and when it's shown you are wrong, you just don't comment any more.
-
The police didn't say it wasn't there. The police said they only took from the closet what they thought was relevant to the crime and thus didn't pay attention to it or take it. Only what was taken was listed on the forms, not all items they came across thus they didn't list other guns, bullets etc until they actually were taken later later on.
so wouldn't they thought a silencer with blood on it was relevant then.
-
It wouldn't be admitted 'here' - not now! And who said the contamination was accidental?
even if it was admissible evidence would a jury take it seriously once the circumstances of it being found were fully explained to them.
-
Really? Correct blood type but no DNA? The planting of the blood wouldn't necessarily free him because he could still have been responsible, but just didn't use the silencer.
People like you are completely blind to the facts because you just want to be right and when it's shown you are wrong, you just don't comment any more.
;D
-
weather it wouldn't be admissible today would depend entirely on the judge.
but today the facta of finding it would probably be fully explained.
-
The police didn't say it wasn't there. The police said they only took from the closet what they thought was relevant to the crime and thus didn't pay attention to it or take it. Only what was taken was listed on the forms, not all items they came across thus they didn't list other guns, bullets etc until they actually were taken later later on.
This is true. Why people say the police looked in the gun cupboard three times and it wasn't there I'll never know. Just more myth by people who haven't actually read the statements.
-
This is true. Why people say the police looked in the gun cupboard three times and it wasn't there I'll never know. Just more myth by people who haven't actually read the statements.
Wasn´t it five times?
-
Wasn´t it five times?
Possibly? But pretty sure it's 3 times. Been wrong before though. :)
-
Possibly? But pretty sure it's 3 times. Been wrong before though. :)
I think it was Caroline who pointed out that it was five times - she is usually particular with detail.
-
I think it was Caroline who pointed out that it was five times - she is usually particular with detail.
Five different officers noted that they had searched the gun cupboard. There is a document on the forum somewhere but I may have a copy of it - I'll have a look.
-
Five different officers noted that they had searched the gun cupboard. There is a document on the forum somewhere but I may have a copy of it - I'll have a look.
No need, Caroline. :)
-
Five different officers noted that they had searched the gun cupboard. There is a document on the forum somewhere but I may have a copy of it - I'll have a look.
so thats a pretty good search then.
and no silencer found.
-
They weren't looking for a silencer. Doesn't mean it wasn't there. Of course it was there, where else would the silencer be?
-
they could hardly of missed it unless they had there eyes shut.
-
Of course they will have seen it. But they didn't remove it- didn't need to.
-
They weren't looking for a silencer. Doesn't mean it wasn't there. Of course it was there, where else would the silencer be?
Looking five times... it is a bit unlikely that they wouldn´t have spotted it, even though they weren´t specifically looking for it. What WERE they looking for then?
-
Of course they will have seen it. But they didn't remove it- didn't need to.
none of them mentioned seeing it.
-
Looking five times... it is a bit unlikely that they wouldn´t have spotted it, even though they weren´t specifically looking for it. What WERE they looking for then?
One was pretty snotty and rejected the claim he did a poor job by not finding it. He claimed they were not told to look for it and he only took items he was told to. He made it seem like he was following strict orders of his superiors almost as if bitter at them or something. "I did as I was told and nothing more" as if his bosses were Nazis or he was just a lazy slacker. Others suggested they were just looking around to see if there was anything that popped out as significant. They were not as nasty while being interviewed.
We don't know for sure if the suppressor was there or not. For all we know Jeremy put the box that had the ammo carrier and suppressor in subsequently. But more likely police just didn't think it was of any significance because they were told a story of the gun being left out without the suppressor attached so figured it had no relevance. They were aware of other firearms yet left them not just the accessories and bullets. They decided too quickly not to pursue it as a homicide and take everything. They didn't even call the firearms expert to the scene.
They had way to many people on the scene getting in eachother's way and not knowing what the others did. To not call the firearms expert though just because they felt it was murder suicide seems pretty stupid. So they have everyone galavanting around except who they should have.
They took photos, then moved things then others moved them back for more photos, then they moved them again and others moved them yet again for more photos. The left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. None of this kind of crap would have happened in 2014 so we would have a much clearer picture of certain things.
-
and what about the other 4.
i dont belive there were 5 blind policeman there that day.
-
One was pretty snotty and rejected the claim he did a poor job by not finding it. He claimed they were not told to look for it and he only took items he was told to. He made it seem like he was following strict orders of his superiors almost as if bitter at them or something. "I did as I was told and nothing more" as if his bosses were Nazis or he was just a lazy slacker. Others suggested they were just looking around to see if there was anything that popped out as significant. They were not as nasty while being interviewed.
We don't know for sure if the suppressor was there or not. For all we know Jeremy put the box that had the ammo carrier and suppressor in subsequently. But more likely police just didn't think it was of any significance because they were told a story of the gun being left out without the suppressor attached so figured it had no relevance. They were aware of other firearms yet left them not just the accessories and bullets. They decided too quickly not to pursue it as a homicide and take everything. They didn't even call the firearms expert to the scene.
They had way to many people on the scene getting in eachother's way and not knowing what the others did. To not call the firearms expert though just because they felt it was murder suicide seems pretty stupid. So they have everyone galavanting around except who they should have.
They took photos, then moved things then others moved them back for more photos, then they moved them again and others moved them yet again for more photos. The left hand did not know what the right hand was doing. None of this kind of crap would have happened in 2014 so we would have a much clearer picture of certain things.
In view of all you've just said, it makes gigantic cock up seem likely and if the guy you mention in your first paragraph is to be believed there seems to be the liklihood of them being involved in a cover up. For the rest, for once I concur with what you say.
-
theres cock ups and thers cock ups i dont belive all 5 officers could of cocked up a simple thing like searching a cupboard.
-
and what about the other 4.
i dont belive there were 5 blind policeman there that day.
theres cock ups and thers cock ups i dont belive all 5 officers could of cocked up a simple thing like searching a cupboard.
none of them mentioned seeing it.
They were not looking for it, that's why they didn't mention it or take it. You don't understand what they were doing in there which is why you're unable to understand why they didn't mention it.
They weren't looking for it. They will have seen it and left it.
-
They were not looking for it, that's why they didn't mention it or take it. You don't understand what they were doing in there which is why you're unable to understand why they didn't mention it.
They weren't looking for it. They will have seen it and left it.
What were they looking for?
-
you dont have to be looking for somthing to see it.
-
They were not looking for it, that's why they didn't mention it or take it. You don't understand what they were doing in there which is why you're unable to understand why they didn't mention it.
They weren't looking for it. They will have seen it and left it.
So IYO, what were they looking for? It was either very important or they were very incompetent.
-
What were they looking for?
Things linked to the muders id figure, bullets, general check of the cupboard. they werent looking for a silencer because it wasnt known one was used at that time.
you dont have to be looking for somthing to see it.
Show me where its said the 5 officers didnt see it?
-
If they were looking just in general, they would have picked up on the silencer then and there. I don´t think it was there.
-
In view of all you've just said, it makes gigantic cock up seem likely and if the guy you mention in your first paragraph is to be believed there seems to be the liklihood of them being involved in a cover up. For the rest, for once I concur with what you say.
It doesn't suggest a big coverup in the least. All police had to do was to blame Sheila and none of their mistakes would have been exposed to anyone. Their sloppy work came to light because they decided to not blame Sheila after the evidence proved she didn't do it. Known scandals were to close cases faster and avoid embarrassment. This supposed coverup did the complete opposit it exposed their sloppy work and kept a case open longer. They would have looked much better just blaming Sheila and closing it. They didn't because they decided to follow the evidence not cover it up.
-
if they never mentioned then clearly dident see it.
i think they would mention seeing a silencer with blood on it.
-
if they never mentioned then clearly dident see it.
Do you have a list of what they saw?
-
if they never mentioned then clearly dident see it.
The reports only mention what they took. They didn't itemize all the contents of the closet let alone of the house. They specifically stated they didn't know the relevance it would have. Even after they took it Davidson recorded such and other things about it but stated he never understood the significance it held. He had no idea what the lab was doing what it was with it. If many had no idea of the significance even after then little wonder so many saw no significance before.
-
i would of thought they would of mentioned it in there statements.
if they had seen it then would be proof of guilt and they would of said so at the trial.
no such evedence was intruduced in court meaning they dident see it.
-
It doesn't suggest a big coverup in the least. All police had to do was to blame Sheila and none of their mistakes would have been exposed to anyone. Their sloppy work came to light because they decided to not blame Sheila after the evidence proved she didn't do it. Known scandals were to close cases faster and avoid embarrassment. This supposed coverup did the complete opposit it exposed their sloppy work and kept a case open longer. They would have looked much better just blaming Sheila and closing it. They didn't because they decided to follow the evidence not cover it up.
Maybe, because the rellies "found" the silencer, they weren't allowed to blame Sheila. MAYBE someone knew someBODY in a high enough place to cause problems for those nearer the ground. They didn't follow evidence they'd found, they followed evidence they'd been presented with, which after searching it's "hiding" place 5 times, they'd failed to locate.
-
Maybe, because the rellies "found" the silencer, they weren't allowed to blame Sheila. MAYBE someone knew someBODY in a high enough place to cause problems for those nearer the ground. They didn't follow evidence they'd found, they followed evidence they'd been presented with, which after searching it's "hiding" place 5 times, they'd failed to locate.
Or maybe not.
It wasn't hidden. That's a gun cupboard where items like that are kept.
-
if the police had seen the silencer they could back relatives story so very strange they dident say so in court.
-
if the police had seen the silencer they could back relatives story so very strange they dident say so in court.
Good point you make there.
-
if the police had seen the silencer they could back relatives story so very strange they dident say so in court.
Didn't they?
-
no they dident as im sure here can tell you.
-
if the police had seen the silencer they could back relatives story so very strange they dident say so in court.
That is all the more evidence that police are not lying and it is not all a nice neat set up.
Police say they didn't look for a suppressor and don't know if it was there or not they only noticed things that struck them as relevant and that the suppressor did not because Jeremy claimed it wasn't on the gun and no one thought it was used in the murders. Even after it was collected police say they had no idea of the significance it held.
If this was all a setup and they were lying and making up stories they would have made up that they saw it, saw it had blood but had no idea it was used in the murders so assumed it was animal blood. There was no need to involve the family at all in the finding.
-
its also certan proof the silencer wasnt in the cupboard.
-
its also certan proof the silencer wasnt in the cupboard.
No it isn't.
"I didn't look for a silencer so I don't know if it was there or not" is not proof it wasn't there.
-
thers no way anyone could not of noticed seeing a bloodstained silencer whatever they were looking for.
i mean the blood would of been a big red light.
and silencers arnt exactly tiny.
-
thers no way anyone could not of noticed seeing a bloodstained silencer whatever they were looking for.
i mean the blood would of been a big red light.
and silencers arnt exactly tiny.
They don't remember if the suppressor was there or not when they searched because they were not looking for a suppressor. Seeing a suppressor and if noticing the blood assuming it was animal blood means nothing for the crimes. They were only looking for evidence related to the crimes as they were told the crimes occurred so didn't even care about the ammo carrier or other weapons.
It is indeed easy to not remember what wa sin a closet when you look through a great many places in a house and have other scenes you searched as well and you only wrote down notes about things that mattered so when you reveiw your notes no mention of what was in their other than what you decided was relevant and took.
-
That is all the more evidence that police are not lying and it is not all a nice neat set up.
Police say they didn't look for a suppressor and don't know if it was there or not they only noticed things that struck them as relevant and that the suppressor did not because Jeremy claimed it wasn't on the gun and no one thought it was used in the murders. Even after it was collected police say they had no idea of the significance it held.
If this was all a setup and they were lying and making up stories they would have made up that they saw it, saw it had blood but had no idea it was used in the murders so assumed it was animal blood. There was no need to involve the family at all in the finding.
And they would have been ridiculed at a time when they were already under heavy criticism. It's quite clever (IMO) (that if they did plant the silencer) to distance themselves from the actual find because if anything had gone wrong, they just simply say that it was given to them in the condition under which it was tested.
-
And yet when the relatives found it DB shouted out and AE came from the kitchen to see what he had found. They had no doubt it was relevant and an important find and the police should have it... in a few days time.
Sheila could have attached the silencer to be sure the children wouldn't wake up which would have made it more difficult for her to shoot them. It could have been attached when she finished off June and shot Neville in the kitchen. That could be when it picked up the paint from the mantle piece.
She may have removed it when she realised it made it difficult to reach the trigger.
-
Hi lebaleb
but would Sheila have gone to the trouble of putting the silencer back in the box and into the gun cupboard I am not saying what you have suggested is incorrect as it is very credible but suspect another silencer was used and taken away by EP and would have been found quite near to where she was found.
-
And yet when the relatives found it DB shouted out and AE came from the kitchen to see what he had found. They had no doubt it was relevant and an important find and the police should have it... in a few days time.
Sheila could have attached the silencer to be sure the children wouldn't wake up which would have made it more difficult for her to shoot them. It could have been attached when she finished off June and shot Neville in the kitchen. That could be when it picked up the paint from the mantle piece.
She may have removed it when she realised it made it difficult to reach the trigger.
But someone who gave that much thought into what they were doing, can't really be described as suffering a psychotic episode. That's planning.
-
They don't remember if the suppressor was there or not when they searched because they were not looking for a suppressor. Seeing a suppressor and if noticing the blood assuming it was animal blood means nothing for the crimes. They were only looking for evidence related to the crimes as they were told the crimes occurred so didn't even care about the ammo carrier or other weapons.
It is indeed easy to not remember what wa sin a closet when you look through a great many places in a house and have other scenes you searched as well and you only wrote down notes about things that mattered so when you reveiw your notes no mention of what was in their other than what you decided was relevant and took.
for one policeman to miss maybe not all 5.
-
Jeremy told the police he left the gun without the silencer on.
So Sheila in a rage put the silencer on. Killed everyone. Then took the silencer off, put it neatly in a box and back in the gun cupboard.
Then (according to Jeremy) shot herself in the kitchen. Waited for the raid team to enter WHF. Then sneaked upstairs without being seen & not getting any downward blood trails Then shot herself again the bedroom.
But the pathologist said the shock & pain of Sheilas first shot would have immobilised her.
-
adam scipio_usmc mat one qustion if your so convinced a retrial would reach the same verdict why dont you wnt one to happen.
-
Because Jeremy is guilty and has been found guilty in a trial, so why should he get a re-trial? If he proves anything that he claims he can then he will be granted a re-trail, until then he isn't getting one.
-
So was Barry George, Colin Stagg, Stefan Kiszko, Eddie Gilfoyle, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and many many more who were found guilty at trial.
-
So was Barry George, Colin Stagg, Stefan Kiszko, Eddie Gilfoyle, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and many many more who were found guilty at trial.
And they all proved their right to an appeal. Jeremy has had that chance too.
-
Because Jeremy is guilty and has been found guilty in a trial, so why should he get a re-trial? If he proves anything that he claims he can then he will be granted a re-trail, until then he isn't getting one.
but surely a retrial would settle things once and for all if your so confidant the verdict would be the same.
-
How would a re-trial settle it? Jeremy is still going to claim innocence no matter what happens in a trial. Jeremy's supporters wouldn't respect a second trial if it found him guilty.
I don't think you know what you are talking about to be honest.
-
so you say a retrial would reach the same verdict but you dont want to put that theory to test rather srange.
-
so you say a retrial would reach the same verdict but you dont want to put that theory to test rather srange.
If Jeremy proves his case to the CCRC/COA then I would have no problem with him getting a re-trial. That hasn't happened.
-
If Jeremy proves his case to the CCRC/COA then I would have no problem with him getting a re-trial. That hasn't happened.
yet
-
yet
IMO the latest appeal was the final nail in the coffin and will be the last one considered by the CCRC.
-
YET !
-
IMO the latest appeal was the final nail in the coffin and will be the last one considered by the CCRC.
you cant possibly know that.
-
you cant possibly know that.
Like I said "IMO". I doubt I'll be proven wrong.
-
IMO the latest appeal was the final nail in the coffin and will be the last one considered by the CCRC.
This could clinch it then there'd be no need for any further submissions/considerations or anything else.
My glass is always half-full.
-
what i cant understand is if certan people are that confidant hes guilty and that confident hes never geting out why do they bother.
-
Barry Georges retrial or its aftermath proves one important lesson. the establishment hate to be proved wrong............ok he's innocent but not innocent enough to be compensated.
Mrs May seems to be unafraid to tackle the old boy attitude in the police lets hope the same can be said for the legal system modern society deserves a more rapid open and accountable system.
-
if the system thought it would result in a guilty verdict jeremy would get a retrial tomorrow.
-
if the system thought it would result in a guilty verdict jeremy would get a retrial tomorrow.
No it wouldn't. Nothing you are saying makes any sense. Why would they re-try someone to get another guilty verdict? Are they going to re-try EVERYONE who says they are innocent in prison, or just the ones you believe are innocent.
The appeals process is there for a reason and can't just be ignored when it comes to a prisoner you like.
-
what i cant understand is if certan people are that confidant hes guilty and that confident hes never geting out why do they bother.
I think that the only cases that keep people interested are the unsolved ones and the ones where there is some doubt about guilt or innocense. This case has kept people interested for almost thirty years now, there are lots of doubts! Also for the "guilters" - they wouldn´t use all this time on the case otherwise - they are here to convince themselves. 8)
-
well thats what im thinking if your convinced you have won an argument why carry on arguing.
-
well thats what im thinking if your convinced you have won an argument why carry on arguing.
Why indeed! :P
-
well thats what im thinking if your convinced you have won an argument why carry on arguing.
Why should we let people who are convinced he is innocent make ridiclous claims unopposed just because he is in jail?
You want such so you can propaganzdize in peace and hope to fool some people. You don't like being challenged? Too bad.
-
adam scipio_usmc mat one qustion if your so convinced a retrial would reach the same verdict why dont you wnt one to happen.
I have never said I do not want a retrial.
Whatever the legal system decides I respect.
Jeremy has to get through the CCRC & COA first. He did not in 2012.
Re trials are rare. Doubtful he will get one.
-
Don't you think you're getting a bit carried away ? Ridiculous claims ? So are some of yours too !
What makes you think your opinions are any better than anyone else's ?
We're all in the same boat-------------we're pi55ing in the wind,simply because we weren't there. It could go one way or the other,,who cares as long as justice is done and seen to be done.
It would appear to me that it's you who doesn't like to be challenged because you think you know it all.Tuff !
-
Don't you think you're getting a bit carried away ? Ridiculous claims ? So are some of yours too !
What makes you think your opinions are any better than anyone else's ?
We're all in the same boat-------------we're pi55ing in the wind,simply because we weren't there. It could go one way or the other,,who cares as long as justice is done and seen to be done.
It would appear to me that it's you who doesn't like to be challenged because you think you know it all.Tuff !
I support my claims with evidence. I don't make irrational claims. I have no problem being challenged. I like to debate that is why I post on forums like this. To me it is fun to argue.
While you might think it is rational to suggest the things you do most people disagree. You even suggested that June shoudl be tested for gunshot residue and spatter from other victims because you think she might have been involved in shooting some of them. You tried to backtrack and pretend you didn't accuse her of such but there is no need to test someone fro GSR and spatter unless you suspect they did some of the shooting. SO trying to pretend you didn't make the accusation fails.
On my worst day and your best I could still run circles around you on this case even though I only started researching it 2 months ago and that is why you have a problem with me. You have a problem with those who challenge you because they have evidence to back up their positions and you offer crazy specualtion with nothing to support it. SO you wish they would just go away and leave your silly claims unimpeached.
-
Hello lookout I have seen your views challenged many many times on this forum and you take it on the chin and respond in a fair manner. You post what you believe and we should all respect that we all have different views and none of us "know it all"
-
Why should we let people who are convinced he is innocent make ridiclous claims unopposed just because he is in jail?
You want such so you can propaganzdize in peace and hope to fool some people. You don't like being challenged? Too bad.
i never said i dident like being challenged i just asked a question.
why are you bothered about if your certain hes not getting out.
and saying other peoples opinions are propaganda suggests. you dont like yours questioned.
-
Some people think a re trial would be a nightmare for Jeremy.
Source available upon request.
-
well he obviosly dosent.
-
Adam source please :)
-
Susan thought you were providing a source yesterday. Showing how Jeremy is popular in prison.
Not that it makes him innocent.
And Grahame providing a source Sheila painted her nails before bed.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387438/I-wrong-Jeremy-Bamber-says-crime-writer.html
-
well he obviosly dosent.
That's because he has no chance at all without a retrial so a retrial is better to him than just rotting without any chance of being freed. In the meantime if some of the worst claims alleged by his supporters were actually able to be established with evidence they probably would not even retry the case.
-
Adam so sorry could not find the source on Jeremy popular in prison will keep looking I agree this does not make him innocent did I say he actually was.
-
That's because he has no chance at all without a retrial so a retrial is better to him than just rotting without any chance of being freed. In the meantime if some of the worst claims alleged by his supporters were actually able to be established with evidence they probably would not even retry the case.
so a retrial cant be a daister for him then can it whatever the verdict.
id love to see the same witness cross qustioned in a retrial.
-
so a retrial cant be a daister for him then can it whatever the verdict.
id love to see the same witness cross qustioned in a retrial.
He has nothing to lose but the subject of this thread is would there have been a different verdict if the trial had been held today and there is nothing at all to suggest he would not have been convicted if there were a trial today.
The only way he would get a retrial is if he could prove some significant wrongdoing though. The hope of new scientific evidence proving his innocence is not serious. His only hope would be someone admitting serious wrongdoing.
-
Well, police destroyed most physical evidence against court orders. Makes it even more of an uphill battle for Jeremy.
-
well in a retrial it would be up to a jury to decide and i think it would necessarily take scientific evidence to find him innocent.
i think as the facts now stand there could be enough to put doubt in a jurys mind.
-
well in a retrial it would be up to a jury to decide and i think it would necessarily take scientific evidence to find him innocent.
i think as the facts now stand there could be enough to put doubt in a jurys mind.
Where do the facts stand now that are different than they stood before? The whole reason Jeremy lost his appeal bids is because the evidence as it stands now is still against his claims.
-
Where do the facts stand now that are different than they stood before? The whole reason Jeremy lost his appeal bids is because the evidence as it stands now is still against his claims.
The appeals were not in front of a jury though. It makes one wonder why we have a jury in the first place. If a jury is present at the first trial then surely it makes perfect sense to use a full jury at an appeal. The reason they don't use a jury, in my opinion is that it makes a conviction less likely to be overturned. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
The appeals were not in front of a jury though. It makes one wonder why we have a jury in the first place. If a jury is present at the first trial then surely it makes perfect sense to use a full jury at an appeal. The reason they don't use a jury, in my opinion is that it makes a conviction less likely to be overturned. ;D ;D ;D ;D
It makes no sense to have a jury handle an appeal. That would be like granting a second trial and granting 2 bites at the apple. That is what Italy does they have a whole second trial on appeal where both sides can make different arguments than they made at the initial trial. So if an argument failed they can learn and make a new one instead.
Under our joint Common law an appeal is decided on legal grounds.
Both sides get 1 bite at the apple, they don't get to say well my defense failed so let me change my defense or my prosecution theory failed so let's try a different argument.
The only time the defense gets another crack at it evidence wise if IF there is an argument the defense would not have been able to make at the original trial because evidence was newly discovered and the evidence is sufficient to change the outcome. The normal basis for an appeal is there was some legal error committed which if it had not been committed could have resulted in the jury acquitting.
In the US the prosecution gets no second bite the apple if there is an acquittal regardless of what new information emerges after the trial. The defendant can confess after being acquitted and there is nothing that can be done about it at that point. In the UK there are limited circumstances where there can be a retrial but it has to be based on new evidence that is compelling.
Suppose they never found the murder weapon they only had a record showing the defendant purchased a gun of the same caliber used in the murders. The defendant claimed he lost the gun and police never locate it. After being acquitted he is caught threatening someone with the gun he claimed was lost. it is ballisticly matched to the murder. That is new compelling evidence that would warrant retrying him. In the US that would not be possible though. The UK amended common law to be more in tune with the interests of justice.
It is a judge that must assess whether evidence is new or not because evidence that is not new cna't be used if you had the option of making an argument at trial but chose not to than too bad you lose it whichever side of the table you sit on. A witness changing testimony in a major way is new evidence. A new scientific principle not available at the time of the trial (like DNA) is new evidence. To warrant a new trial requires the change in testimony or other new evidence to eat at one of the pillars of the conviction. A judge must assess the legal issue of whether this burden is met.
What would legally be sufficient to overcome the suppressor? Testimony the suppressor was doctored by someone claiming to have participated in such. DNA testing of the blood that was inside which was determined to be group A blood. The defense and prosecution did not save their exhibits so there is no way to attempt to test them for DNA though chances are the tests that they conducted destroyed the DNA anyway. So the only way to try to get a retrial without the suppressor evidence would be if someone had proof the blood that was tested and determined to be group A had been planted. Short of testimony there is no way to try to establish such.
What other kind of changed testimony would be sufficient legally? A cop saying that he hear gunshots before or afte rpolice entered, a cop saying he saw her shoot herself as police entered. Something along those lines. There is no hope of anything proving that except testimony.
Since science and other evidence won't be able to attack he evidence in chief the only hope left is a change in testimony and it has to be significant enough to impeach major evidence that resulted in the jury deciding he was guilty not some minor point. In the US if an error is minor and doesn't get to the hear to the case then it is called harmless error.
Once the legal standard is met to vacate a conviction then the prosecution either gets a chance to retry the case if it wants to or if there is no case left because the new evidence is so damaging the court will in some instance not even give the prosecution the option.
One legal standard that is rarely met during a direct appeal is the clearly erroneous standard- no rational jury (or judge if it is a bench trial) could have reached the finding based on the evidence presented. This is a failsafe to prevent completely irraitonal bias. The Knox case provides a great example.
Guede testified Kercher invited him over and that while he was with her Knox came hom and when he went to the bathroom Knox and her boyfriend killed Kercher.
Knox and her boyfriend testified they were at his place all night.
The prosecution alleged Knox and her boyfriend sought out Guede, invited him to rape Kercher and help the kill her. The prosecution presented no evidence to establish when they invited him to do this, how they could have invited him since they didn't have his address, phone number or email address. The prosecution simply said he was a drug dealer and they liked drugs so they must have known how ot get in contact with him. They didn't even estbalish he ever sold drugs to them.
The court found Knox invited him over to help kill and rape Kercher.
In the US and UK this would meet the clearly erroneous legal standard. No rationally trier of fact could find based on the eivdence presented that knox invited him over to kill and rape Kercher. There was no evidence put forward to establish this happened only an unsubstantiated allegation.
Testimony from the prosecution witness that he went there on his own because he was invoted by Kercher can' possibly establish Knox invited him over. They have to at least produce evidence that she did so like showing they had shared a telephone call before where they allege she invited him. They presented nothing.
Since this is a legal standard judges decide it. Having a separate jury that could make the same mistake would be worthless.
In Italy appeal judges act as triers of fact so can be as biased and irresponsible as a jury. Her new conviction demonstrates that quite clearly. In our system appeal judges look at law and whether facts that were found had rational support and all the legal issues were all properly applied.
and their own witness claimed he was invited there by Kercher and went ove rhimself he didn't go with Knox or at her invitation.
-
Where do the facts stand now that are different than they stood before? The whole reason Jeremy lost his appeal bids is because the evidence as it stands now is still against his claims.
the qustion is who would a jury belive we cant possbly say remember they only just convicted him last time.
-
The appeals were not in front of a jury though. It makes one wonder why we have a jury in the first place. If a jury is present at the first trial then surely it makes perfect sense to use a full jury at an appeal. The reason they don't use a jury, in my opinion is that it makes a conviction less likely to be overturned. ;D ;D ;D ;D
it certanly does it might help if the orignal jury were asked what they thought of the orignal evedence.