Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: David1819 on May 05, 2015, 08:45:PM
-
Very Bizarre :o
The Mackenzie report alleges that Neville could be the biological father of the Twins
(http://s21.postimg.org/kkja3dlc7/bizzare.jpg)
???
Please share your thoughts
-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>nearly swallowed my chewy.
-
Have heard this allegation before. Disturbing indeed.
Bottom line is, that paternity cannot be decided 100% from blood grouping.
Only speculation - and awful at that.
-
I wonder where this has come from ?
-
I had heard this before - but thought it was just nasty rumour.
No DNA tests and I don't think the blood groups are unusual .
So don't think it is relevant .
-
Only DNA testing would have solved that one. A bit sickening,isn't it ? I wonder who writes these knowing that a relative could be up in arms over it ?
-
Have heard this allegation before. Disturbing indeed.
Bottom line is, that paternity cannot be decided 100% from blood grouping.
Only speculation - and awful at that.
Alias I agree it is awful to read such stuff. What is this MacKenzie Report never heard of it before.
-
Alias I agree it is awful to read such stuff. What is this MacKenzie Report never heard of it before.
This, IMO, is a thread that SHOULD be removed. It's far more disrespectful than those which have so far "gone missing".
-
The original poster did not write the allegation - and was just asking the question. None of us has agreed with it - so I don't think we have fuelled a fire.
-
Alias I agree it is awful to read such stuff. What is this MacKenzie Report never heard of it before.
It was a document published in 1996 by
Mckenzie Organisation
Lay Advisory Investigations
Dr Peter Wright
James Stevenson
I don't think they are still around today
-
This, IMO, is a thread that SHOULD be removed. It's far more disrespectful than those which have so far "gone missing".
I did say it 'Alleges'. I am not saying its true
-
It was a document published in 1996 by
Mckenzie Organisation
Lay Advisory Investigations
Dr Peter Wright
James Stevenson
I don't think they are still around today
David problem is we don't know who these people are would you mind if I asked where you came across this dreadful article.
-
I had heard this before - but thought it was just nasty rumour.
No DNA tests and I don't think the blood groups are unusual .
So don't think it is relevant .
I'm surprised Jeremy supporters have not put this allegation to more investigation and scrutiny, Because if true would give Shelia an understandable motive
-
David problem is we don't know who these people are would you mind if I asked where you came across this dreadful article.
Its in the archive and library on this site lol
-
I did say it 'Alleges'. I am not saying its true
It may only be an allegation, but the use of the word PROBABILITY suggests that the allegation is fact.
-
lets start again - taking the information from Colins blood group and Sheilas is it possible the twins were not his? If not then it is a non starter.
-
It may only be an allegation, but the use of the word PROBABILITY suggests that the allegation is fact.
No it does not probability and fact are two different things. However its rather a strawman argument because this is nothing compared to the allegations that everyone else makes on here
Its alleged on here that - Jeremy Murdered 5 people, Shelia Murdered 4 people, The Boutflour's framed 'innocent' Jeremy for his money, The Police framed 'innocent' Jeremy and god knows what else
I mean what this alleges than Neville has done is far less serious and incriminating compared to what is frequently alleged above
-
Very Bizarre :o
The Mackenzie report alleges that Neville could be the biological father of the Twins
(http://s21.postimg.org/kkja3dlc7/bizzare.jpg)
???
Please share your thoughts
I have found this David it was Caroline that posted it and I believe she put it the archives...Its also on the Fraudulent Thread.
I don't believe a word of it to be honest....
-
I have found this David it was Caroline that posted it and I believe she put it the archives...Its also on the Fraudulent Thread.
I don't believe a word of it to be honest....
The credibility of this pretty much went out the window with the word "probability".
-
I have found this David it was Caroline that posted it and I believe she put it the archives...Its also on the Fraudulent Thread.
I don't believe a word of it to be honest....
You don't believe a word of just the allegation or the entire report?
-
No it does not probability and fact are two different things. However its rather a strawman argument because this is nothing compared to the allegations that everyone else makes on here
Its alleged on here that - Jeremy Murdered 5 people, Shelia Murdered 4 people, The Boutflour's framed 'innocent' Jeremy for his money, The Police framed 'innocent' Jeremy and god knows what else
I mean what this alleges than Neville has done is far less serious and incriminating compared to what is frequently alleged above
No David. It isn't alleged that Jeremy murdered 5 people. It is fact that he was tried, found to be guilty, and convicted of murdering 5 people.
-
The credibility of this pretty much went out the window with the word "probability".
Well they cannot say its a fact without a DNA comparison. However if your a Jeremy Supporter the Mckenzie report has a lot of good information to read up on
-
You don't believe a word of just the allegation or the entire report?
I'm not sure what I believe anymore David...I have not read the document for a long while and cannot remember its contents...I don't feel like reading it tonight, sorry. :-[
-
During conversations I had with Jeremy regarding this very matter, he admitted that it would not surprise him if the allegation turned out to be true, since he siad that there were significant numbers of cross breeding involving certain named families who lived in the area, and close friends of the Banners, Boutflours and Eaton's. It was during one such discussion between us that Jeremy told me about the occasion June caught Sheila in a sexually provocative act with a named relative in the barn at whf. Jeremy told me the relative in question was xxxx, who had an unhealthy fixation about her...
-
No David. It isn't alleged that Jeremy murdered 5 people. It is fact that he was tried, found to be guilty, and convicted of murdering 5 people.
It is alleged that Jeremy Murdered 5 people. Found guilty beyond reasonable doubt 10-2 does not make it a fact. By that analogy you stated are saying the legal system gets in right 100% of the time and all conviction are beyond all doubt?
The allegations made on this site against Jeremy, Shelia, and other parties involved are far more serious than this.
-
It is alleged that Jeremy Murdered 5 people. Found guilty beyond reasonable doubt 10-2 does not make it a fact. By that analogy you stated are saying the legal system gets in right 100% of the time and all conviction are beyond all doubt?
The allegations made on this site against Jeremy, Shelia, and other parties involved are far more serious than this.
1 hour ago, I suggested that this thread should be removed. I'm appalled that no mod has had the decency to do it.
-
1 hour ago, I suggested that this thread should be removed. I'm appalled that no mod has had the decency to do it.
Oh I see... lose the argument demand the thread gets taken down ::)
Just don't visit the thread if you find it troubling ( I don't mean that in a harsh tone)
-
I remember the first time this came up - annoyed me then as it does now. Baseless. Certainly wasn't Caroline who first brought it up either - don't think she'll be happy with that one.
-
I remember the first time this came up - annoyed me then as it does now. Baseless. Certainly wasn't Caroline who first brought it up either - don't think she'll be happy with that one.
Then why did Mckenzie organization publish it? If its Baseless then Colin and other relatives would have a strong libel case on their hands. To publish such a thing with 0 evidence is asking to be sued more or less
-
The snippet doesn't sound very professional - I am not even sure what the report was for or who wrote it. There is a clear case for libel, I am not sure if anything was done about that.
-
I remember the first time this came up - annoyed me then as it does now. Baseless. Certainly wasn't Caroline who first brought it up either - don't think she'll be happy with that one.
I don't think anyone has said that Caroline brought this up Mat or discussed it, all I said is that Caroline posted the document in the another thread and Caroline may have put it in the archives unaware of all its contents.
In all fairness I do think that we should all be very careful what we say about its contents. I shall raise the issue with NGB tomorrow. But, at the end of the day it is in our archives and the document has been posted and discussed before, therefore forms part of the case discussion.
If anyone wants the thread locked till this is raised with NGB please feel free to say.
-
it is a disturbing alegation but its also disturbing unprovable allegation.
-
Very Bizarre :o
The Mackenzie report alleges that Neville could be the biological father of the Twins
(http://s21.postimg.org/kkja3dlc7/bizzare.jpg)
???
Please share your thoughts
It's bollocks which just goes to show how crap the M report is
-
It's bollocks which just goes to show how crap the M report is
I don't understand some peoples reaction to this. We should be able to debate things like adults.
If your going to investigate crimes and/or situations that will inevitably involve looking into peoples private and family lives then you must be prepared to come across such allegations or situations like this. If there is no solid proof then no need to worry I guess
Does anyone recall when or who conceived this idea? not many people could make this up
-
I remember the first time this came up - annoyed me then as it does now. Baseless. Certainly wasn't Caroline who first brought it up either - don't think she'll be happy with that one.
Thanks Mat, you can see what was happening!! My post was removed when I complained.
-
blood grouping doesnt really prove a lot often children are of diffrent blood grous to there parents.
-
Thanks Mat, you can see what was happening!! My post was removed when I complained.
I meant the whole document, not that bit. That bit is not a bit that is in the archives, its the whole document. You have completely misunderstood what I meant and I have just looked back and I can see now how it can be misread, but the truth is I meant the whole document and not that bit. I am sorry if you have taken it the wrong way it was my intention to so that. Why would I say that you had put it in the archives as that bit, knowing it was the full document.
-
I meant the whole document, not that bit. That bit is not a bit that is in the archives, its the whole document. You have completely misunderstood what I meant and I have just looked back and I can see now how it can be misread, but the truth is I meant the whole document and not that bit. I am sorry if you have taken it the wrong way it was my intention to so that. Why would I say that you had put it in the archives as that bit, knowing it was the full document.
It was in the archive and was part of a large series of papers, I just copied and pasted that relevant part to one image.
-
It was in the archive and was part of a large series of papers, I just copied and pasted that relevant part to one image.
I know you did David, thank you.
-
I meant the whole document, not that bit. That bit is not a bit that is in the archives, its the whole document. You have completely misunderstood what I meant and I have just looked back and I can see now how it can be misread, but the truth is I meant the whole document and not that bit. I am sorry if you have taken it the wrong way it was my intention to so that. Why would I say that you had put it in the archives as that bit, knowing it was the full document.
I'm glad you cleared that up because that's not how your initial post sounded.
-
who is the orginal source of this cliam.
-
who is the orginal source of this cliam.
That's what I want to know ???
-
That's what I want to know ???
I think its the Manchester Forensic Science Lab. Ewen Smith probably commissioned it. You can see the full report on the Fraudulent thread starting I think from page 3...or have a neb in the archives. ;)
-
Very Bizarre :o
The Mackenzie report alleges that Neville could be the biological father of the Twins
(http://s21.postimg.org/kkja3dlc7/bizzare.jpg)
???
Please share your thoughts
Jeremy's defenders have long made allegations without any basis for them. This is one of them. The suggestion that because they share the same blood type as Nevill this means they most likely are Nevill's children is bizarre.
It is one of the things that demonstrates those writing the report have no idea what they are talking about and are hardly reliable. The various allegations in the they made in this document ended up going nowhere for the most part they were debunked by the time of the 2002 Appeal. This was supposed to be an internal document for the defense to try using as a basis to investigate further.
Frankly reading things like that just makes them look like fools who know little about science. Blood parental tests stopped being used because they could only rule out 30-35% of the population as being a parent so were of limited use.
When I was in 7th grade I learned the following in science class:
Mother has group A blood. Child has Group O blood. What blood type must the father have? The answer is A, B or O only AB is ruled out as being a possible blood type for the father.
So the father could have A, B or O blood. How much do you want to wager that Colin has one of these blood types...
For court orders of child support etc where parentage needed to be established they used immunity system tests to calculate parentage (HLA gene testing). These tests were somewhere in the 80 percent level so vastly superior to blood group testing. Naturally those who wrote the report had no access to such information to make any comparisons, they only had access to blood typing information and thus could only make the simplistic observation that my 7th grade class was taught- the father had to have Group O, A or B blood. That Nevill had group O blood is hardly a basis to suggest they were his kids instead of Caffell's kids.
-
I am blood group A. D-positive
My father was A ?-Positive
My mother was RH Negative
I shall never fathom this grouping malarkey....not even sure what D-positive is.
-
Mainly used for cross-matching in case a transfusion is needed.
I can only receive blood from someone who is O the same as me.Blood types,A,B,AB and O can receive my blood.
Patti can receive blood from A and O. D refers to an antigen in your blood ( which isn't present in mine ) ;D
-
My blood type is referred to as being the universal one--------the giver of the majority,but on the other hand,can only receive from my own type and not others.
-
I am blood group A. D-positive
My father was A ?-Positive
My mother was RH Negative
I shall never fathom this grouping malarkey....not even sure what D-positive is.
Positive or negative has to do with RH (Rhesus) factor. The main RH antigen that causes problems with respect to blood transfusions is the D antigen. So A positive means group A blood with the D antigen and A negative means without the D antigen. It is assumed the D antigen is being discussed unless otherwise stated so it normally is not stated.
Someone actually bothered to state it fully with respect to you and to denote it means you have the D antigen.
There are other antigens but they are not as critical when it comes to transfusions so are not mentioned except in very detailed blood testing.
Your father had the D antigen like you while your mother was D negative.
If they don't know your blood type they give you O negative because it has the least chance of causing problems, O is the universal donor and even if you are RH positive it doesn't cause harm to give blood lacking it usually.
-
My blood type is referred to as being the universal one--------the giver of the majority,but on the other hand,can only receive from my own type and not others.
Hello lookout
I'm just plain good old O positive as common as muck ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Jeremy's defenders have long made allegations without any basis for them. This is one of them. The suggestion that because they share the same blood type as Nevill this means they most likely are Nevill's children is bizarre.
If you think this is crazy look at the theory I found on the internet yesterday, I left in the off topic section under the title 'King Jeremy' Its so crazy it does not have a place in the case discussion buts its funny non the less. Talk about going down the rabbit hole
-
Hello lookout
I'm just plain good old O positive as common as muck ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I know,Susan,same as me. ;D ;D ;D ;D Never mind.
-
I know,Susan,same as me. ;D ;D ;D ;D Never mind.
We're givers. ;D ;D
-
i dont belive its true but i would be very intrested to find out where this roumour came from.
-
Me too nugs. Another one who's fled the country probably in case of a libel action,or worse.
-
If you think this is crazy look at the theory I found on the internet yesterday, I left in the off topic section under the title 'King Jeremy' Its so crazy it does not have a place in the case discussion buts its funny non the less. Talk about going down the rabbit hole
That's just crackpot nonsense. The point here is that 90 plus percent of the male population could be the father of the twins if we just go by blood type. It is rather stupid to claim that because they shared the same blood type it means he most likely is their father. Only those with the AB blood type can be scientifically ruled out as being their father- what percentage of males has AB blood in the UK 3-4%? I hate science it was the subject I liked least in school and even I remember this crap from grammar school. This doesn't instill much confidence in their scientific abilities.
-
i dont belive its true but i would be very intrested to find out where this roumour came from.
The basis is provided in the document it asserts that because they shared the same blood type as Nevill it means they likely are his sons. First of all almost half the population of the UK has O blood so by their own criteria of the father needing to have the same blood type that means nearly half the male population could be their father. But worse, their father could have had A or B blood not just O. The only blood type their father could not have is AB. So those males with AB blood are ruled out their father could be everyone left so 96-97% of the male population could be their father.
They grossly overestimated the likelihood of Nevill being the father based simply on blood type.
-
no i mean who it came from
-
no i mean who it came from
James Stevenson and Peter Wright. Both signed it so either both agreed with the statement or one wrote it and the other was negligent in signing without reading very carefully.
-
James Stevenson and Peter Wright. Both signed it so either both agreed with the statement or one wrote it and the other was negligent in signing without reading very carefully.
I have read somewhere before DNA they hade methods to compare blood to determine paternity with 80% accuracy but I assume they would have said they conducted such a test. I doubt they would make such a bizarre claim without at least hearing the accusations from people that may have been familiar with the families and known the bambers somewhat.
According to Mike, Jeremy sais he would not be surprised if the allegations turned out to be true as there where farming families having incestial children (apparently)
-
I have read somewhere before DNA they hade methods to compare blood to determine paternity with 80% accuracy but I assume they would have said they conducted such a test. I doubt they would make such a bizarre claim without at least hearing the accusations from people that may have been familiar with the families and known the bambers somewhat.
According to Mike Jeremy sais he would not be surprised if the allegations turned out to be true as there where farming families having incestial children (apparently)
Of course it's not true! It's simply another example of desperate people trying to deflect from Bambers guilt.
-
Of course it's not true! It's simply another example of desperate people trying to deflect from Bambers guilt.
If it turned out to be true I really cant see how it would help Jeremy's situation it would just make things worse by showing a disfuncional family
-
If it turned out to be true I really cant see how it would help Jeremy's situation it would just make things worse by showing a disfuncional family
Quite without foundation. Sheila had only been married to Colin for a short time and had already lost babies she'd conceived with him.
-
If it turned out to be true I really cant see how it would help Jeremy's situation it would just make things worse by showing a disfuncional family
The family must have been highly dysfunctional as it is. One child turned out to be a mass murderer, one child as a seriously mentally ill person. Both did drugs.
Something must have been wrong in that family.
-
i dont know people can develop mentall isness when they had perfectly normal childhoods its gentic in some people.
-
i dont know people can develop mentall isness when they had perfectly normal childhoods its gentic in some people.
I know, nugnug.
Colin for instance believes that Sheila was in fact not mentally ill, but that she "carried" June´s illness for the whole family. This may sound far fetched, but it is quite common.
I knew a couple where the wife came down with a mental illness - she went to a psychiatrist. It turned out that there was nothing wrong with her, but her husband had a mental illness.
He got treatment and all was well - I guess.
-
Would Sheila have left her sons with Colin if he'd been mentally disturbed like she was?? Would any woman have done,knowing what the psychiatrist knew ??
-
Would Sheila have left her sons with Colin if he'd been mentally disturbed like she was?? Would any woman have done,knowing what the psychiatrist knew ??
One thing is sure, a woman who had left her children with her mentally ill ex-husband would have had to take a lot of bashing for doing so. I doubt many would have done it by the way.
There often are different sets of rules for men and women. Sadly.
-
If it turned out to be true I really cant see how it would help Jeremy's situation it would just make things worse by showing a disfuncional family
im ive heard this rounour a couple of times i cant see much to back up it would good to trace who the orignal source is.
-
im ive heard this rounour a couple of times i cant see much to back up it would good to trace who the orignal source is.
Someone obsessed with trying to prove Jeremy innocent. So nasty!
-
but that wouldent prove him inncent it wouldent prove anything as far as the conviction was concerned.
-
but that wouldent prove him inncent it wouldent prove anything as far as the conviction was concerned.
It is an allegation that Sheila was 'abused' by her own father and that's motive for murder!
-
you have to have a lot more than that to get someone out of prison
even if you can prove it beyound doubt to be true a motive does not equal guilt.
-
This is a sick thread !!
-
you have to have a lot more than that to get someone out of prison
even if you can prove it beyound doubt to be true a motive does not equal guilt.
It adds weight!! What other reason would someone have to suggest something so sick?
-
This is a sick thread !!
It highlights the depths to which SOME will sink to try to get Jeremy released.
-
it raises some intresting points though id like to know more about the mcanzie organisation who these doctors are andd how they got involved in this.
-
It highlights the depths to which SOME will sink to try to get Jeremy released.
I'm NOT that desperate.
-
I'm NOT that desperate.
I think MOST poster here on both side will view the allegation as sick! Least most of us will be able to agree on something!!
-
It's a very dangerous area. Probably suggested by a crank. Anyhow,it's sick.
Why don't the relatives look into it and report it ? They're good at investigating.
-
I'm NOT that desperate.
Aww, Lookout, Not for a MOMENT was I suggesting such :o
-
if this was alleged in a report there must be some sort of record of who alleged it.
-
mike you made this allegation from was it from the mckenzie report.
-
The only way you could put this allegation to a conclusion is by exhuming the graves of the twins take DNA samples from their teeth then compare it to Colin's DNA.
I doubt anyone would be allowed to do this. But take on the challenge if you want to ::)
-
you need to justify doing and i dont think theres a good enough justifacation im more interested in tracing the original source for who said it.
-
The only way you could put this allegation to a conclusion is by exhuming the graves of the twins take DNA samples from their teeth then compare it to Colin's DNA.
I doubt anyone would be allowed to do this. But take on the challenge if you want to ::)
You are forgetting something. The DNA of at least one of the boys was found in the moderator. The main contributor in 2 tested areas was one or both of the boys. The people doing such testing didn't notice any similarity to Nevill's DNA. The MacKenzie report predated the DNA testing by many years. As part of the process of figuring out who the main contributors were they looked at the DNA of Neivll's relatives as well as Sheila's birth mother. There was no commonality seen between the DNA belonging to the boys and Nevill but rather simply commonality with Sheila indicating a relation to Sheila. That is how we know it was the boys. So there actually is evidence suggesting this wacky scenario is not true. But that is not surprising since the sole basis of the allegation was the simple fact that the boys had the same blood type as Nevill.
Sheila had type A blood and the boys type O blood so what blood type did their father have? Handy 8th grade science provides the answer A, B or O. Isn't that helpful that only eliminates the 2% of UK men who had AB blood as their father... So just based on this one factor 98% of UK men in existence when they were conceived could be their father. What blood type are you and were you over 16 at the time they were conceived? :P
-
but where did the mckenzie report get it from.
-
You are forgetting something. The DNA of at least one of the boys was found in the moderator. The main contributor in 2 tested areas was one or both of the boys. The people doing such testing didn't notice any similarity to Nevill's DNA. The MacKenzie report predated the DNA testing by many years. As part of the process of figuring out who the main contributors were they looked at the DNA of Neivll's relatives as well as Sheila's birth mother. There was no commonality seen between the DNA belonging to the boys and Nevill but rather simply commonality with Sheila indicating a relation to Sheila. That is how we know it was the boys. So there actually is evidence suggesting this wacky scenario is not true. But that is not surprising since the sole basis of the allegation was the simple fact that the boys had the same blood type as Nevill.
Sheila had type A blood and the boys type O blood so what blood type did their father have? Handy 8th grade science provides the answer A, B or O. Isn't that helpful that only eliminates the 2% of UK men who had AB blood as their father... So just based on this one factor 98% of UK men in existence when they were conceived could be their father. What blood type are you and were you over 16 at the time they were conceived? :P
I thought you said the DNA had not come from blood so must have got there from contamination ?
-
but where did the mckenzie report get it from.
They decided that since Nevill had the same blood type as the boys that means he could potentially be their father. That is the sole basis of their suggestion. They were so far in the tank for Jeremy they thought perhaps they could parlay this allegation as a motive for Sheila killing herself and everyone else.
-
I thought you said the DNA had not come from blood so must have got there from contamination ?
What does that have to do with the issue at hand? It makes no difference how the twin's DNA got inside or whether it was saliva based, skin based or blood based. All that matters is one (or both) of their DNA was compared to Nevill's and no one notice any similarities.
-
You are forgetting something. The DNA of at least one of the boys was found in the moderator. The main contributor in 2 tested areas was one or both of the boys. The people doing such testing didn't notice any similarity to Nevill's DNA. The MacKenzie report predated the DNA testing by many years. As part of the process of figuring out who the main contributors were they looked at the DNA of Neivll's relatives as well as Sheila's birth mother. There was no commonality seen between the DNA belonging to the boys and Nevill but rather simply commonality with Sheila indicating a relation to Sheila. That is how we know it was the boys. So there actually is evidence suggesting this wacky scenario is not true. But that is not surprising since the sole basis of the allegation was the simple fact that the boys had the same blood type as Nevill.
Sheila had type A blood and the boys type O blood so what blood type did their father have? Handy 8th grade science provides the answer A, B or O. Isn't that helpful that only eliminates the 2% of UK men who had AB blood as their father... So just based on this one factor 98% of UK men in existence when they were conceived could be their father. What blood type are you and were you over 16 at the time they were conceived? :P
Where did you read that Scip? How would they know it was the DNA of one of the twins, if they had nothing to test it against? A source for this would be helpful as I would like to read it and I imagine others would too.
-
Where did you read that Scip? How would they know it was the DNA of one of the twins, if they had nothing to test it against? A source for this would be helpful as I would like to read it and I imagine others would too.
Ten areas of the moderator were tested. The main contributor in 5 areas was Sheila, in 3 areas was June and the main contributor in the last 2 areas was someone with DNA extremely close to Sheil's but not identical 1 DNA marker was different. Since there was no biological relation of anyone except the twins to Sheila that means either the main contributor in the last 2 areas was one of the boys or both the boys.
The 2002 Appeal Court discussed this very issue when discussing the the 7 areas of the moderator tested aside from the the baffles:
"When comparisons were possible, components matching Sheila Caffell's DNA profile were detected in five of these seven results. The other two results also contained components which matched those of Sheila Caffell, but not at all of the ten areas of DNA tested where information was available for comparison. Some of the components detected did not match the profile of Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins."
So this is effectively saying the last 2 moderator areas tested matched the twins because it was nearly identical to Sheila's DNA yet not a perfect match in all 10 markers. The last sentence acknowledges the twins' DNA was found but mentions their were minor contributions from people other than Sheila and one or both of the twins in these 7 samples. They could not ascertain who these minor contributors were because the profiles were too incomplete.
-
Ten areas of the moderator were tested. The main contributor in 5 areas was Sheila, in 3 areas was June and the main contributor in the last 2 areas was someone with DNA extremely close to Sheil's but not identical 1 DNA marker was different. Since there was no biological relation of anyone except the twins to Sheila that means either the main contributor in the last 2 areas was one of the boys or both the boys.
The 2002 Appeal Court discussed this very issue when discussing the the 7 areas of the moderator tested aside from the the baffles:
"When comparisons were possible, components matching Sheila Caffell's DNA profile were detected in five of these seven results. The other two results also contained components which matched those of Sheila Caffell, but not at all of the ten areas of DNA tested where information was available for comparison. Some of the components detected did not match the profile of Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins."
So this is effectively saying the last 2 moderator areas tested matched the twins because it was nearly identical to Sheila's DNA yet not a perfect match in all 10 markers. The last sentence acknowledges the twins' DNA was found but mentions their were minor contributions from people other than Sheila and one or both of the twins in these 7 samples. They could not ascertain who these minor contributors were because the profiles were too incomplete.
I might be being thick here but the first highlighted sentence states that some components did NOT match Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins? So how is that saying that he last 2 moderator areas tested matched the twins?
-
I might be being thick here but the first highlighted sentence states that some components did NOT match Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins? So how is that saying that he last 2 moderator areas tested matched the twins?
There were additional components because the DNA was mixed. Every single area tested had DNA of more than 1 person in it. Each sample had a major contributor and then minor contributor.
Moderator areas 1-3 (the baffles) featured June as the major contributor. The minor contributor could have been the same for all 3 batches or could have each been a different person.
Moderator Area 1) major contributor June, minor contributor anyone
Moderator Area 2) major contributor June, minor contributor a male
Moderator Area 3) major contributor June, minor contributor a male
Moderator Area 4) major contributor Sheila, minor contributor someone other than the twins
Moderator Area 5) major contributor Sheila, minor contributor someone other than the twins
Moderator Area 6) major contributor Sheila, minor contributor someone other than the twins
Moderator Area 7) major contributor Sheila, minor contributor someone other than the twins
Moderator Area 8) major contributor Sheila, minor contributor someone other than the twins
Moderator Area 9) major contributor a twin, minor contributor someone other than Sheila
Moderator Area 10) major contributor a twin, minor contributor someone other than Sheila
-
But you said the DNA did not come from blood - so how did the DNA get there?
-
But you said the DNA did not come from blood - so how did the DNA get there?
I thought the appeal conceded that it most likely got there from contamination?
-
I know - but is that not a co-incidence that the contamination came from the victims?
This is looking at it from both angles - I am not saying it makes it look good for Jeremy - But the jury was led to believe it was not a "mixture" of blood ( although other experts said it could have been)
But as the DNA was not from the blood how did the DNA of persons who were dead get in the moderator? - it was insinuated the contamination came about because the silencer was handled - but it was not handled by the twins or june was it?
-
But you said the DNA did not come from blood - so how did the DNA get there?
It was handled repeatedly after the murders by people who had touched the victim's DNA. It is quite easy to transfer minute amounts of DNA. Such tiny transfers were not even detectable prior to DNA techniques which replicate the DNA until creating a large enough sample. Some of minor contributions could have belonged to people who built the moderator/parts of the moderator and thus handled them or the lab workers or even jury members. Even spit can result in minor contamination.
There is also a small chance the DNA of the boys and Sheila were blood based but there is no way to prove it either way. They didn't do exhaustive blood tests in 1985 and 1986 of the entire moderator like had been done with the baffles. The 1999 blood tests were not as thorough as the earlier ones because they didn't want to damage any DNA that was present. There could have been microscopic blood drops missed in 1985 and 1986 which were picked up by the LCN testing because it is so sensitive. If it was blood based all it means is that very tiny drops of the boys blood got not far inside of it. That small amount of blood would help confirm it was used to kill them because their blood would not otherwise be inside even in such tiny amounts but there is no way to prove it was blood based as opposed to contamination.
The only thing removed which we know was blood based was the blood removed which proves the moderator was used. The trial defense conceded it was used because they had no way to refute it's use. The best idea they could come up with was to suggest it was used on everyone except Sheila and put away which is a very weak argument but the only argument they had, and no argument is worse than a very weak one.
-
I know - but is that not a co-incidence that the contamination came from the victims?
This is looking at it from both angles - I am not saying it makes it look good for Jeremy - But the jury was led to believe it was not a "mixture" of blood ( although other experts said it could have been)
But as the DNA was not from the blood how did the DNA of persons who were dead get in the moderator? - it was insinuated the contamination came about because the silencer was handled - but it was not handled by the twins or june was it?
Not really given that forensic staff would have been working with evidence from all of the victims. I suspect they had to wear gloves so there was more risk of cross contamination of evidence rather than from the lab staff.
-
Not really given that forensic staff would have been working with evidence from all of the victims. I suspect they had to wear gloves so there was more risk of cross contamination of evidence rather than from the lab staff.
We don't know if Nevill ever took apart the moderator prior to the murders but that is another way non-blood contamination could occur. If Nevill had DNA from someone else on him he could have transferred tiny amounts and naturally that includes DNA of other victims in addition to friends.
If there is a substantial amount of saliva based DNA then it means I spit inside but a lesser quantity of my saliva can get on someone and small amounts could be transplanted. The quantity and nature of the DNA and totality of the circumstances are important in assessing what if anything DNA can prove. DNA winds up being useless in a number of cases.
Suppose there were a retrial would the NA tests be able to prove anything? Since it can't be established as being blood based the prosecution can't use DNA to prove it was used to shoot anyone. By the same token the defense can't use the DNA to prove it was used on June and Nevill but not Sheila. The DNA would be of no value at all. That is why the Appeal Court didn't allow it to be used by either side. It objectively fails to prove anything.
-
It was handled repeatedly after the murders by people who had touched the victim's DNA. It is quite easy to transfer minute amounts of DNA. Such tiny transfers were not even detectable prior to DNA techniques which replicate the DNA until creating a large enough sample. Some of minor contributions could have belonged to people who built the moderator/parts of the moderator and thus handled them or the lab workers or even jury members. Even spit can result in minor contamination.
There is also a small chance the DNA of the boys and Sheila were blood based but there is no way to prove it either way. They didn't do exhaustive blood tests in 1985 and 1986 of the entire moderator like had been done with the baffles. The 1999 blood tests were not as thorough as the earlier ones because they didn't want to damage any DNA that was present. There could have been microscopic blood drops missed in 1985 and 1986 which were picked up by the LCN testing because it is so sensitive. If it was blood based all it means is that very tiny drops of the boys blood got not far inside of it. That small amount of blood would help confirm it was used to kill them because their blood would not otherwise be inside even in such tiny amounts but there is no way to prove it was blood based as opposed to contamination.
The only thing removed which we know was blood based was the blood removed which proves the moderator was used. The trial defense conceded it was used because they had no way to refute it's use. The best idea they could come up with was to suggest it was used on everyone except Sheila and put away which is a very weak argument but the only argument they had, and no argument is worse than a very weak one.
Sorry still don't get it - in forensic environments even in the 80s people wore gloves and protection so I am still not getting how the victims DNA got into the moderator by contamination. You could also say lost of people were handling things contaminated by the victims blood and that is how that got in there as well.
-
Not really given that forensic staff would have been working with evidence from all of the victims. I suspect they had to wear gloves so there was more risk of cross contamination of evidence rather than from the lab staff.
but you would not wear the same gloves when handling different evidence. This was only the 80s not the dark ages surely .
The police did not have any excuses - but forensic staff definitely should not . Otherwise opening up cold cases on forensic DNA evidence would be almost impossible.
-
forensic knew about contaimation risks in the 80s.
even before dna there was other evedence that be contaimated if not handled corectly so your right they would of used diffrent gloves if they were in anyway competent.
-
but you would not wear the same gloves when handling different evidence. This was only the 80s not the dark ages surely .
The police did not have any excuses - but forensic staff definitely should not . Otherwise opening up cold cases on forensic DNA evidence would be almost impossible.
They didn't know DNA evidence would be available in the future ot retest th eitmes. They would not change gloves. Glove changing is recent thing done specifically because of DNA contamination risk and in numerous cases even today labs are lazy and do not do such. They didn't change gloves in the Knox case for instance.
-
They didn't know DNA evidence would be available in the future ot retest th eitmes. They would not change gloves. Glove changing is recent thing done specifically because of DNA contamination risk and in numerous cases even today labs are lazy and do not do such. They didn't change gloves in the Knox case for instance.
I agree. they had no reason to change gloves before looking specifically for DNA.
-
even in those there was evedence that could be contaminated for a start blood was still used as evedence you just couldent determine as much from it. and there was still the risk of mixing to lots of blood together it was stil somthing the labs cared about.
if what your saying was no cold case from the 80s would be able to be reopened.
contaimiating one persons blood with somone elses was somthing the cared about even then.
-
even in those there was evedence that could be contaminated for a start blood was still used as evedence you just couldent determine as much from it. and there was still the risk of mixing to lots of blood together it was stil somthing the labs cared about.
if what your saying was no cold case from the 80s would be able to be reopened.
contaimiating one persons blood with somone elses was somthing the cared about even then.
Why would they contaminate blood? By the time the lab receives it would be dry on any article and blood taken from victims etc. is in a tube. It's not the same as DNA.
-
dry blood is still at risk of contaimation.
if what you were saying was true then every cold case where there has been a conviction must be an unsafe conviction and a possble misscarege of justice.
-
dry blood is still at risk of contaimation.
if what you were saying was true then every cold case where there has been a conviction must be an unsafe conviction and a possble misscarege of justice.
Nugs, it's a fact they didn't change gloves all of the time, you can find that out by doing a little research. You don't have to take anyone's word for it!!
-
dry blood is still at risk of contaimation.
if what you were saying was true then every cold case where there has been a conviction must be an unsafe conviction and a possble misscarege of justice.
Dry blood is a risk of contamination for what? You make up things without having a clue what you are talking about like just making up that Sheila would have to have GSR on her hands and gown just by virtue of being shot.
-
Well in that case they could have contaminated exhibits with blood as well as DNA . If they did not change gloves or were examining exhibits on the same benches there could have been cross contamination of blood as well. But funnily enough I am sure you are going to think up some excuse for why that did not happen.
-
Well in that case they could have contaminated exhibits with blood as well as DNA . If they did not change gloves or were examining exhibits on the same benches there could have been cross contamination of blood as well. But funnily enough I am sure you are going to think up some excuse for why that did not happen.
How? All the blood was dry.
-
Well in that case they could have contaminated exhibits with blood as well as DNA . If they did not change gloves or were examining exhibits on the same benches there could have been cross contamination of blood as well. But funnily enough I am sure you are going to think up some excuse for why that did not happen.
You mean like get blood based DNA on gloves and then spread the DNA? That is the only blood based contamination that could have occurred. They can't take dry blood and accidentally create blood stains on something.
-
You mean like get blood based DNA on gloves and then spread the DNA? That is the only blood based contamination that could have occurred. They can't take dry blood and accidentally create blood stains on something.
Which they didn't know about at the time.
-
Which they didn't know about at the time.
No but even now that we do know about it some people don't take proper precautions and even leave DNA in machines by not properly cleaning them.
With respect to 1985 if a lab were particularly inept they could potentially test blood found on June's gown and incorrectly label it as blood found on Sheila's gown in which case it would result in erroneously saying they found June's blood on Sheila's gown. But errors like that would implicate Sheila as opposed to exonerating her.
-
They were examining "flakes" of dry blood - not wet blood.
Contamination is being used as an excuse - so by doing that there is an implication that the labs were not as careful as they should have been.
And that does not even take into account the way the crime scene was handled.
-
Dried blood is already contaminated. Any articles which contain specimans should immediately be put into a sealed container and then refrigerated.
Household " air " contains all kinds of particles and unless an item is collected straight away,it's deemed impaired. This is why I CAN'T understand why a pathologist wasn't called in to do the job PROPERLY !!
-
They were examining "flakes" of dry blood - not wet blood.
Contamination is being used as an excuse - so by doing that there is an implication that the labs were not as careful as they should have been.
And that does not even take into account the way the crime scene was handled.
Contamination of evidence with DNA by spreading minute amounts of the DNA around is different from contamination of a sizable amount of specific material. Minute amounts of DNA will not reveal what the tissue source of the DNA was so won't be able to establish that someone's blood, skin, saliva or other tissue was left. If you see a big ass stain and test it and fin the stain was blood based then you know you have a blood stain. Accidental contamination can't account for that blood. You can screw up determining whose blood it is if you are really sloppy and swap results from tests of two different blood sources but such is a different issue than contamination.
Contamination of blood occurs when wet blood is transferred somewhere by a means other than during an attack. It can occur before a crime or after. The transfer can be innocent and accidental or can be done intentionally. Intentional planting rarely works because so many things give it away including if you use a blood sample then it will have chemicals to preserve the sample and when such chemicals are detected it gives away that a stored sample was used.
Innocent transfers can happen from touching a victim to try to give aid or even walking through blood and thus leaving prints. This is why it is so important to be able to read blood evidence. Spatter doesn't happen from just coming upon a victim later you have to be present during an attack to get spatter on you so either will be a witness, fellow victim or the assailant.
-
Dried blood is already contaminated. Any articles which contain specimans should immediately be put into a sealed container and then refrigerated.
Household " air " contains all kinds of particles and unless an item is collected straight away,it's deemed impaired. This is why I CAN'T understand why a pathologist wasn't called in to do the job PROPERLY !!
That's just not true Lookout. What about bodies that are discovered for days or weeks? Are you saying that blood evidence would never be collected in such instances? Of course it would! Killers have been caught because minute drops of blood have been found on their clothing well after the murder.
-
You are forgetting something. The DNA of at least one of the boys was found in the moderator. The main contributor in 2 tested areas was one or both of the boys. The people doing such testing didn't notice any similarity to Nevill's DNA. The MacKenzie report predated the DNA testing by many years. As part of the process of figuring out who the main contributors were they looked at the DNA of Neivll's relatives as well as Sheila's birth mother. There was no commonality seen between the DNA belonging to the boys and Nevill but rather simply commonality with Sheila indicating a relation to Sheila. That is how we know it was the boys. So there actually is evidence suggesting this wacky scenario is not true. But that is not surprising since the sole basis of the allegation was the simple fact that the boys had the same blood type as Nevill.
Sheila had type A blood and the boys type O blood so what blood type did their father have? Handy 8th grade science provides the answer A, B or O. Isn't that helpful that only eliminates the 2% of UK men who had AB blood as their father... So just based on this one factor 98% of UK men in existence when they were conceived could be their father. What blood type are you and were you over 16 at the time they were conceived? :P
The Twins DNA was never found in the moderator, Jeremy supporters have always pointed out the autopsy states they died from contact wounds so why is their no blood from drawback? The argument I have always used against this is there would be no drawback from a shot to the skull since the bullet would pass hair bone and brain tissue its very different from a contact wound to the neck such as in the case of Shelia.
-
The Twins DNA was never found in the moderator, Jeremy supporters have always pointed out the autopsy states they died from contact wounds so why is their no blood from drawback? The argument I have always used against this is there would be no drawback from a shot to the skull since the bullet would pass hair bone and brain tissue its very different from a contact wound to the neck such as in the case of Shelia.
At least one of the twins DNA was found in the moderator. The major DNA contributor in 2 of the 10 test batches belonged to one or both of the twins. There was no way to say such DNA was blood based as opposed to the result of contamination (liek the rest of the DNA)
22LR rounds to the head infrequently result in drawback. It is possible and happens on occasion but doesn't happen regularly. There were differences of opinion on whether any of the wounds to the boys were contact wounds. The prosecution experts didn't think they were contact wounds.
-
theres no way to say it is but theres no way to say it isnt ethere.
-
They must have been contact wounds to have had DNA inside ?
-
At least one of the twins DNA was found in the moderator. The major DNA contributor in 2 of the 10 test batches belonged to one or both of the twins. There was no way to say such DNA was blood based as opposed to the result of contamination (liek the rest of the DNA)
22LR rounds to the head infrequently result in drawback. It is possible and happens on occasion but doesn't happen regularly. There were differences of opinion on whether any of the wounds to the boys were contact wounds. The prosecution experts didn't think they were contact wounds.
No they just found Junes and an unknown males DNA. had they not been contact wounds then the twins DNA would never get inside.
"According to Bob Woffinden, a second firearms expert testified that the .22 Anschütz was unlikely to produce backspatter, especially when fitted with a silencer" If Vanezis autopsy is correct and Twins did get contact wounds I am 100% sure its because you will not get drawback from that part of the body specially from a .22 it would have to be from fleshy places with allot of blood flow. Places like the neck, wrists or the chest if the bullet misses the rib bones.
-
No they just found Junes and an unknown males DNA. had they not been contact wounds then the twins DNA would never get inside.
"According to Bob Woffinden, a second firearms expert testified that the .22 Anschütz was unlikely to produce backspatter, especially when fitted with a silencer" If Vanezis autopsy is correct and Twins did get contact wounds I am 100% sure its because you will not get drawback from that part of the body specially from a .22 it would have to be from fleshy places with allot of blood flow. Places like the neck, wrists or the chest if the bullet misses the rib bones.
1) June, Sheila and one or both of the twin's DNA was found in the moderator. Each of the ten tests featured a minor contributor who could have been the same person or all of them could have been different people. Someone for the defense felt that in 2 samples the minor contributor was male. Normally it is not possible to tell the gender from a sample so incomplete it is unclear whether that assessment was well supported or not.
2) Vanezis didn't assess that the twins suffered contact wounds
3) Woffinden was wrong about there being a second firearms expert who testified at the trial for the crown that is why he could not name the alleged witness.
4) Location is key in whether backspatter is likely to occur from a 22LR bullet or any bullet for that matter. Just because it is not likely to occur in a particular location doesn't mean it can't and won't. You find out whether it did or didn't by looking at whether blood is found in the weapon.
The location of Sheila's fatal wound was assessed to be virtually certain to result in drawback because her neck was full of blood- her initial wound caused internal hemorrhaging in her neck. The nature of her skin and blood in that location meant it would occur so long as it was a contact wound if not a contact wound then ordinary backspatter would have resulted. It would not have gone inside the weapon if not a contact wound. The defense could not find anyone who disagreed with this assessment and to this day hasn't found anyone who disagrees with it. That means the only hope the defense has of refuting that the blood in the moderator was drawback from Sheila would be to find evidence that she didn't suffer a contact wound.
Despite the fact that 22LR shots to the head don't usually result in backspatter and contact shots to the head don't usually result in drawback it can and does happen SOMETIMES. Someone here brought up a case in New Zealand where a 22LR contact shot to the head with a moderator ended up resulting in drawback in the moderator.
The defense thus has a quandary. That quandary is that even with a moderator attached the fatal wound is virtually certain to result in drawback. The defense wants to maintain the moderator wasn't used which means the odds of drawback would be even greater. Drawback would be certain if the weapon didn't have the moderator attached. Yet no blood was in the muzzle of the rifle.
So this goes back to what I stated earlier the only hope the defense has would be to find a way to refute that Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound. If they could find a way to establish neither of her wounds were contact wounds that would negate that her blood could have gotten inside as a result of drawback and would help support either it was blood of other victims not her or was planted. Obviously by now the defense would have found an expert to refute the fatal wound was a contact wound if there were evidence to contradict Vanezis' assessment. The defense trial experts would have refuted such if any evidence had been available to use to argue against it.
Because the defense was unable to attack the evidence on such obvious grounds is why they have resorted to desperate stuff on appeal. This is why I laugh when people say just wait till the next submission. They used their best arguments already, whatever crap they come up with in the future if they can actually manage to put a submission together will simply be even weaker than the last. If a former cop actually came forward with allegation like mike asserts that could rock the boat but there is no such person it is just fantasy.
-
Even QC's aren't immune from the odd bout of "domestic abuse",as Michael Mansfield was arrested recently by Cheshire police.
-
1) June, Sheila and one or both of the twin's DNA was found in the moderator. Each of the ten tests featured a minor contributor who could have been the same person or all of them could have been different people. Someone for the defense felt that in 2 samples the minor contributor was male. Normally it is not possible to tell the gender from a sample so incomplete it is unclear whether that assessment was well supported or not.
2) Vanezis didn't assess that the twins suffered contact wounds
3) Woffinden was wrong about there being a second firearms expert who testified at the trial for the crown that is why he could not name the alleged witness.
4) Location is key in whether backspatter is likely to occur from a 22LR bullet or any bullet for that matter. Just because it is not likely to occur in a particular location doesn't mean it can't and won't. You find out whether it did or didn't by looking at whether blood is found in the weapon.
The location of Sheila's fatal wound was assessed to be virtually certain to result in drawback because her neck was full of blood- her initial wound caused internal hemorrhaging in her neck. The nature of her skin and blood in that location meant it would occur so long as it was a contact wound if not a contact wound then ordinary backspatter would have resulted. It would not have gone inside the weapon if not a contact wound. The defense could not find anyone who disagreed with this assessment and to this day hasn't found anyone who disagrees with it. That means the only hope the defense has of refuting that the blood in the moderator was drawback from Sheila would be to find evidence that she didn't suffer a contact wound.
Despite the fact that 22LR shots to the head don't usually result in backspatter and contact shots to the head don't usually result in drawback it can and does happen SOMETIMES. Someone here brought up a case in New Zealand where a 22LR contact shot to the head with a moderator ended up resulting in drawback in the moderator.
The defense thus has a quandary. That quandary is that even with a moderator attached the fatal wound is virtually certain to result in drawback. The defense wants to maintain the moderator wasn't used which means the odds of drawback would be even greater. Drawback would be certain if the weapon didn't have the moderator attached. Yet no blood was in the muzzle of the rifle.
So this goes back to what I stated earlier the only hope the defense has would be to find a way to refute that Sheila's fatal wound was a contact wound. If they could find a way to establish neither of her wounds were contact wounds that would negate that her blood could have gotten inside as a result of drawback and would help support either it was blood of other victims not her or was planted. Obviously by now the defense would have found an expert to refute the fatal wound was a contact wound if there were evidence to contradict Vanezis' assessment. The defense trial experts would have refuted such if any evidence had been available to use to argue against it.
Because the defense was unable to attack the evidence on such obvious grounds is why they have resorted to desperate stuff on appeal. This is why I laugh when people say just wait till the next submission. They used their best arguments already, whatever crap they come up with in the future if they can actually manage to put a submission together will simply be even weaker than the last. If a former cop actually came forward with allegation like mike asserts that could rock the boat but there is no such person it is just fantasy.
But If Jeremy did not commit the murders - he does not know what happened does he? So in theory he is always grasping at straws.For example a purely hypothetical scenario - the silencer was used at some time and had rolled under the bed after being removed. The family found it there but were asked to cover that up by the other story which they were quite willing to go along with.
But Jeremy would know none of this - so how could he use that as an argument?
Don't bother to answer the scenario because as I explained I am not saying that happened - it is to show that Jeremy if innocent would not have control over his arguments to use if he does not know what happened.
-
They must have been contact wounds to have had DNA inside ?
No. It is possible for DNA to get inside via innocent contamination and also a gunshot wound that is near contact. It is also possible during a beating or the like for blood or DNA from another source to get inside though it will not go deep and the quantity would be small.
It is possible for a tiny amount of blood to get inside a barrel at a close contact shot but such blood will generally not travel no more than 5mm inside.
You need a contact wound to get drawback. Drawback results in a much more significant quantity of blood than can result from a non-contact wound and it can travel several inches deep so much deeper than in the case of a non-contact wound.
The only way to get blood deep inside and in significant quantity is through a contact shot. In a non-contact shot most of the spatter will go on the outside only a small amount inside and it cannot travel very deep.
-
But If Jeremy did not commit the murders - he does not know what happened does he? So in theory he is always grasping at straws.For example a purely hypothetical scenario - the silencer was used at some time and had rolled under the bed after being removed. The family found it there but were asked to cover that up by the other story which they were quite willing to go along with.
But Jeremy would know none of this - so how could he use that as an argument?
Don't bother to answer the scenario because as I explained I am not saying that happened - it is to show that Jeremy if innocent would not have control over his arguments to use if he does not know what happened.
Grasping at straws means there is no evidence and yet someone makes an allegation anyway.
Finding the moderator under the bed would still sink Jeremy anyway. Removing the moderator from the gun after she dead is what sinks Jeremy not where the moderator was ultimately found. It is just as impossible for her to have removed it and left it by her side after she was dead. The defense needs to establish the moderator wasn't used to kill her in order for it to have been possible for her to kill herself.
That is why anytime people talk about what he should have done in hindsight I say he needed to remove the moderator before shooting her. Shooting her with it attached and then removing it and setting it down next to her would not have helped him at all.
-
But If Jeremy did not commit the murders - he does not know what happened does he? So in theory he is always grasping at straws.For example a purely hypothetical scenario - the silencer was used at some time and had rolled under the bed after being removed. The family found it there but were asked to cover that up by the other story which they were quite willing to go along with.
But Jeremy would know none of this - so how could he use that as an argument?
Don't bother to answer the scenario because as I explained I am not saying that happened - it is to show that Jeremy if innocent would not have control over his arguments to use if he does not know what happened.
I think they screw on (silencers) - and must be able to withstand strong force to have a bullet pass through them. So can't see how it could have come off.
If Jeremy is not involved, you're right he doesn't know what happened. But what he should know is his side of the story - and that too seems to change.
-
I think they screw on (silencers) - and must be able to withstand strong force to have a bullet pass through them. So can't see how it could have come off.
If Jeremy is not involved, you're right he doesn't know what happened. But what he should know is his side of the story - and that too seems to change.
I was not saying that what happened - and I did not say it fell off.
But if you were innocent then you would try and grasp on to anything within any document to try and clear yourself ( and perhaps this is the case if you were guilty as well )
I was just making the point about why his claims may seem outlandish - but if he does not know anything about what happened then they would be.
And the only thing I have see him possibly change is some timings - as did the police - who had a clock in front of them .
-
Grasping at straws means there is no evidence and yet someone makes an allegation anyway.
Finding the moderator under the bed would still sink Jeremy anyway. Removing the moderator from the gun after she dead is what sinks Jeremy not where the moderator was ultimately found. It is just as impossible for her to have removed it and left it by her side after she was dead. The defense needs to establish the moderator wasn't used to kill her in order for it to have been possible for her to kill herself.
That is why anytime people talk about what he should have done in hindsight I say he needed to remove the moderator before shooting her. Shooting her with it attached and then removing it and setting it down next to her would not have helped him at all.
you did just what I said not to do. try reading the post.
-
I was not saying that what happened - and I did not say it fell off.
But if you were innocent then you would try and grasp on to anything within any document to try and clear yourself ( and perhaps this is the case if you were guilty as well )
I was just making the point about why his claims may seem outlandish - but if he does not know anything about what happened then they would be.
And the only thing I have see him possibly change is some timings - as did the police - who had a clock in front of them .
Jeremy changed the timings years later to fit in a call from Nevill. He argued quite strongly that he did not call the police as late as 03:36 - but now, he's arguing the other way. The CCRC would kick any such claim into touch because of what he'd said in the past.