in all cases there was 1 piece of forensic that was brought into qustion the forensic evdence agianst bamber is the silencer.
so apart from the silencer what forensic evidence was there.
There is a forensic evidence library thread.
There is a forensic evidence library.
so apart from the silencer what forensic evidence was there.
Given that Jeremy staged the scene and had everyone (well almost everyone) believe that Sheila was responsible, had time to destroy or wash his clothes etc. AND that his presence at WHF wasn't unusual - what forensic evidence would you imagine there to be? Also, what forensic evidence shows that Sheila was responsible?
Circumstantial evidence is used to convict lots of offenders or would you be happy for anyone to walk free when no forensic evidence links them to the case, even though such evidence may be compelling?
but in other cases when forensic evdence has be called int qustion there has ben a retrial.
but in other cases when forensic evdence has be called int qustion there has ben a retrial.
Not in either Susan May's case nor Eddie Gilfoyle's.
but in other cases when forensic evdence has be called int qustion there has ben a retrial.
Only where a case has been built that shows it is questionable. If they haven't got enough to prove the silencer wasn't used, then that's a problem. We can all have an OPINION but we can't prove it wasn't used, just as we can't prove Nevill didn't call the police.
You can't have a retrial over more than a hundred pieces of incriminating forensic evidence Nugs. You know that.
Pretending it doesn't exist just shows total bias.
you cant even state what those are.
as i said you cant even say what those are.
Not in either Susan May's case nor Eddie Gilfoyle's.
so what made barry and sion so specail.
There is a forensic evidence library.
As I'd said------------full of emptiness.
But it wasn't the unanimous decision that one would have expected for such a crime was it ?yes thats true they were just members of the public and just like us on here their opinions were divided.but good point
But it wasn't the unanimous decision that one would have expected for such a crime was it ?
the retesting has already caled the silencer evdence into qustion 2 medical experts have called into qustion the dna calls it into qustion.
the fact that its thought thats its thought to be junes blood not sheilas calls it into qustion.
because the jury were because had the jury known it at the time it could have led them to a diffrent conclusion.hindsight is allways a good thing
had the defence known that at the time they could have mounted a better argument.
had the proscution known this at the time they might not have admited it as evdence.
Ah yes, How can we forget Adams compelling forensic evidence library?
behold!
(http://www.nwbible.org/sites/default/files/2012-07-19_0011.jpg)
the case of sion jenkins there were were forensic experts who said the evdece agianst him sound but he still got his retrial.good point i have allways felt that bas---d got away with murder
jb did such a good job that morning that it cant be proved one way or the other if he did it or not.so it was left to 12 men n women to decide his fate and they did.that what happens when one tries to be too clever
Similar to you're forensic evidence breakthrough. Which you refuse to elaboarate on as 'it will give the crown more time to prepare'.your posts are excellent adam i have learnt alot from them.keep it up
And similar to you're 'detailed' 2016 breakdown of how Sheila committed the massacre. Which you bottled out of posting. Despite releated requests.
Actually they are not similar. My Forensic evidence library has 27 thread links to the forensic evidence which convicted Bamber.
It was created for Lookout as she kept asking the same question. Which is understandable with Lookout. You, Lookout and Nugs now refuse to accept the evidence. What a team.
good point i have allways felt that bas---d got away with murder
your posts are excellent adam i have learnt alot from them.keep it up
thats not really the point the piont is the double standards.the point is every case is different .some getaway with it and some like jb dont.sods law
your posts are excellent adam i have learnt alot from them.keep it up;D
your posts are excellent adam i have learnt alot from them.keep it up
Yeah------anything containing my name in an insult is right up your street. Strange how you suddenly appeared,but you're very guarded whoever you are ! Don't underestimate me.
not at all lookout i enjoy your posts too.ive got nothing personal against you you allways give a good account of things
Yeah------anything containing my name in an insult is right up your street. Strange how you suddenly appeared,but you're very guarded whoever you are ! Don't underestimate me.
You're starting to sound as if you're suffering the very paranoia you accuse others of, Lookout.
Thanks. The forensic evidence library puts a lot of the forensic evidence in one place.
No,I haven't got paranoia. Just pissed off with Adam's remarks.
adam cut it out
No,I haven't got paranoia. Just pissed off with Adam's remarks.
No,I haven't got paranoia. Just pissed off with Adam's remarks.
adam cut it out
Adam looks like someone's broke into your forensic library and stolen everything!
Oh wait hang on........ its been like that all along! False alarm no need to worry 8)
(https://davidbcapes.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/empty-shelves-at-princess-marina-library.jpg)
adam cut it outWhat did he cut out?
You have to accept the forensic evidence Lookout. I kept supplying it to you and then you kept asking the same question. So the library was created.i personally think the library is excellent any ones not sure of something then it can be found and verified in one place.must be good for the forum doubters and believers
You are perfrctly entitled to post on any of the threads in the library.
What did he cut out?i meant stop upsetting lookout
I have reported this to the moderators.
Similar to you're forensic evidence breakthrough. Which you refuse to elaboarate on as 'it will give the crown more time to prepare'.
And similar to you're 'detailed' 2016 breakdown of how Sheila committed the massacre. Which you bottled out of posting. Despite repeated requests.
Actually they are not similar. My Forensic evidence library has 27 thread links to the forensic evidence which convicted Bamber.
It was created for Lookout as she kept asking the same question. Which is understandable with Lookout. You, Lookout and Nugs now refuse to accept the evidence. What a team
i meant stop upsetting lookout
I'm not even posting to her.good point adam its what i said a few posts earlier
Supporters have a problem with the Forensic Evidence Library. Before they could pretend the silencer was only forensic evidence. No would have the time to disagree and post all the other forensic evidence. Although muggins Adam did a couple of times.
With a lot of the forensic evidence now in the library, it is easy to answer when someone says 'what other evidence is there'. As Nugs asked on page one.
I'm not even posting to her.
Supporters have a problem with the Forensic Evidence Library. Before they could pretend the silencer was only forensic evidence. No would have the time to disagree and post all the other forensic evidence. Although muggins Adam did a couple of times.
With a lot of the forensic evidence now in the library, it is easy to answer when someone says 'what other evidence is there'. As Nugs asked on page one.
I'm not even posting to her.
Supporters have a problem with the Forensic Evidence Library. Before they could pretend the silencer was only forensic evidence. No would have the time to disagree and post all the other forensic evidence. Although muggins Adam did a couple of times.
With a lot of the forensic evidence now in the library, it is easy to answer when someone says 'what other evidence is there'. As Nugs asked on page one.
i think one of the problems being it doesnt exist.
Adam iv looked through your library. what isle is the actual alleged forensic evidence kept? they all seem empty! did I miss an isle?
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/article-1286440107475-0b7f7c80000005dc-574006_636x572.jpg)
soin jenkins forenic evdence qustioned gets retrial.
barry geordge forensic brought into qustion gets retrial.
jeremy bammber forensic evedence brought in to qustion conviction upheld.
well when advances in technology bring that evdence into qustion yes.
and thats what normaly happens.
dna suggests that its not sheilas.
they can't test for DNA because in 1985 there were precautions taken to preserve DNA because they didn't know about it. That's why the COA ruled in Jeremy's favour to suggest that June's DNA most likely got there from contamination. I'm not sure what tests you imagine they could do to prove the silencer wasn't used?
Adam looks like someone's broke into your forensic library and stolen everything!There was plenty in it but the police, overseen by DS/DC? Soames of Special Branch destroyed it in 1996. It's almost as if they had something to hide ::)
Oh wait hang on........ its been like that all along! False alarm no need to worry 8)
(https://davidbcapes.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/empty-shelves-at-princess-marina-library.jpg)
There was plenty in it but the police, overseen by DS/DC? Soames of Special Branch destroyed it in 1996. It's almost as if they had something to hide ::)
thats not the pint dna calls into qustion weather it was sheilas blood in the sleincer
that counted as new evdence wich in most cases would have led to a retrial.
thats not the pint dna calls into qustion weather it was sheilas blood in the sleincer
that counted as new evdence wich in most cases would have led to a retrial.
There was plenty in it but the police, overseen by DS/DC? Soames of Special Branch destroyed it in 1996. It's almost as if they had something to hide ::)
In 2001 the CCRC referred JB on the basis of new DNA evidence in the silencer.
In 2011 the CCRC denied a referral even thou JB had new evidence the silencer was never even used. Evidence the CCRC couldn't even challenge.
The double standards are as clear as day
Before I joined, this was a pro Bamber forum. Mike the pied piper.
The silencer was the one piece of forensic evidence everyone accepted. And attacks were made on it. Supporters were not going to look for incriminating forensic evidence.
There is now at least a hundred pieces of incriminating evidence.
yes you can its normally what happens.
No, they couldn't challenge the suggestion of contamination, not that it had never been used.
No. The Barry George and Sion Jenkins cases only had one piece of forensic evidence. Their lawyers managed to put doubt on these after years of effort.
Barry George getting released but no compensation after a failed appeal. Jenkins having two new trials where the jury could not reach a verfict.
The Bamber case has a mountain of forensic (and circumstantial) evidence.
You have had ZILCH influence on ANYONE on this forum other than to be a complete irritant!If anything, he's made me want to believe that Bamber is innocent! ;D
If anything, he's made me want to believe that Bamber is innocent! ;D
Sorry Ad! ;)
well adam i think certanly say youve had an effect on me.
Why do you support Bamber when it is so obvious he is guilty ?
In 2001 the CCRC referred JB on the basis of new DNA evidence in the silencer.
In 2011 the CCRC denied a referral even thou JB had new evidence the silencer was never even used. Evidence the CCRC couldn't even challenge.
The double standards are as clear as day
I don't recall any of you're posts. And don't believe you've created any threads. But feel free to show me something worthwhile from you. Sorry Neil.
Anyway, when I joined it was a pro Bamber forum. Everyone passionate Bamber supporters. Some of them for decades. Mike the pied piper whose word was gospel as he had met Bamber in prison.
After a ferocious fight from supporters -
Susan changed stance and said my posts influenced her.
Caroline changed stance and gave an incredibly weak reason about a last harvest.
Jane J changed stance and refused to give a reason.
Alias annonced she was now 'undecided'.
Grahame left the forum saying 'he has to concede defeat to his betters on the case' (Thread available).
Four other posters sent me PM's praising my posts.
Lookout was offerred the chance to PM me and change stance, but after 30 years wanted to stay loyal to Bamber.
Mike has not changed at all. But just posts on his own threads so wouldn't have read my posts.
I don't recall any of you're posts. And don't believe you've created any threads. But feel free to show me something worthwhile from you. Sorry Neil.My mind was made up long before you arrived here. You wouldn't know if I started threads or not, as you weren't here. I do take
Anyway, when I joined it was a pro Bamber forum. Everyone passionate Bamber supporters. Some of them for decades. Mike the pied piper whose word was gospel as he had met Bamber in prison.
After a ferocious fight from supporters -
Susan changed stance and said my posts influenced her.
Caroline changed stance and gave an incredibly weak reason about a last harvest.
Jane J changed stance and refused to give a reason.
Alias annonced she was now 'undecided'.
Grahame left the forum saying 'he has to concede defeat to his betters on the case' (Thread available).
Four other posters sent me PM's praising my posts.
Lookout was offerred the chance to PM me and change stance, but after 30 years wanted to stay loyal to Bamber.
Mike has not changed at all. But just posts on his own threads so wouldn't have read my posts.
If its so obvious why do you have such a hard time convincing people?
Yes. It was a ferocious fight from supporters. Some who had been supporters for 30 years. Others who were writing to Bamber. Others joined the forum after watching one documentary and were brainwashed on here.To my shame, I have been reading the posts on here daily, for a good few years now. I've not noticed anyone acknowledging that you have altered
But I didn't make forensic evidence breakthrough claims and then not say what it was. Or refuse to say how the massacre was committed. The evidence was discussed.
To my shame, I have been reading the posts on here daily, for a good few years now. I've not noticed anyone acknowledging that you have alteredtheirthey're stance.
NO ONE HAS CHANGED THEIR STANCE BECAUSE OF YOU!
Well that's a surprise. Well Susan did.Perhaps Susan will confirm this.
People that joined the forum were usually already Bamber supporters. Being on a pro Bamber forum just made them feel more justified in their support. The incriminating forensic and circumstantial evidence was never discussed. Mike being the main poster who was never challenged.
What's banning got to do with this thread ?
Anyway Harters is the most banned poster I believe. Other posters have received permanent bans.
Being banned for a day or two doesn't really mean anything. It just means one moderator doesn't like what you have posted. It does not mean they are right. It's no secret one moderator does not like me. The other moderators will automatically agree to any ban as they can't be bothered to check.
You should be banned for this post as it's goading. But won't be and you are again confident enough to invite me to report you. I will PM NGB and ask him why former moderators and senior posters seem to be immune from action.
I don't know why you are so upset. It's no secret you changed stance and refused to say why. Thread created.
Well you officially spend more time than anyone else on here. Virtually all day every day. How you spend you're retirement time is up to you. I spend most of my free time off this forum. So not sad and lonely. Unlike you.
The glaring difference between you and H., Adam, is that H is always welcomed back with open arms and doesn't keep referring back to his bans.
I'd also point out that it's not so much about the amount of time one spends off forum, but the quality. From how you write -a litany of disrespectful sniping and goading, alternating with wingeing- I'm prepared to bet my life is very much more satisfying in that area than your own.
Our moderator does a fine job handling your numerous complaints, especially as you make it abundantly clear you have little regard and no respect for her decisions. Again, it says far more about your own character than anyone else's. Catch you later Adam. Enjoy your day.
Perhaps Susan will confirm this.
I guess Hartley, Vidvic, John, Shona and Andrea, amongst others, were all posting before your time.
I originally came here several years ago somewhat sceptical but with an open mind, I really wanted Jeremy to be innocent oif such a dreadful crime but over time I came to see that at the end of the day it iscxalmost certain he did it.Are you saying that it was only once Adam had educated you, that you were finally persuaded of Bambers guilt? ;D
soin jenkins forenic evdence qustioned gets retrial.
barry geordge forensic brought into qustion gets retrial.
jeremy bammber forensic evedence brought in to qustion conviction upheld.
Of course it was challenged, if they agreed with Jeremy about the silencer, he wouldn't be locked up now. The US tests were rejected because they weren't complete, therefore, they were challenged.
Are you saying that it was only once Adam had educated you, that you were finally persuaded of Bambers guilt? ;D
If those of us named haven't come with any forensic evidence it points to there being NONE to start with.
How can such a subject be discussed when the " said " evidence isn't there ? Make it up like everyone else has ???
The evidence of the wounds on Shelias neck was not challenged and remains unchallenged to this day. The CCRC came up with a few excuses, some reasonable but they can be adequately answered.
However they argued that the scratch marks in the kitchen showed the silencer was used, therefore argued it was used on the night.
The decision was a Joke IMO.
every case is different you cant bunch jenkins geoge or others with bambers case
It matters little, the forensic evidence in relation to the wounds does not point to a suicide. Any fool can see that!good point john the rifle was at an angle to sc and not straight as it would be had she pulled the trigger
Why do you insist on promoting that particular myth lookout? The forensic evidence is huge.
It matters little, the forensic evidence in relation to the wounds does not point to a suicide. Any fool can see that!
Why are you making things up?
So huge that nobody can list it. ::) It's no myth,I can assure you. But there's safety in numbers,isn't there John ?
Why are you making things up?
Thank-you for the above information but I'm perfectly certain that there will be another expert who totally concurs with John's beliefs. Indeed, I believe there already has been such.
Jeremy's supporters constantly throw things/information? into the middle but it seems that thus far all the add ons have been rejected. 30 years ago a jury looked at all the available information and enough of them, to make it count, decided that Sheila didn't shoot herself.................OR her family.
I'm not afraid to post my views publicly under my own name, are you?
That's not how forensic pathology works, specially when it comes to firearms. No pathologist has excluded suicide based on the gunshot wounds. To make a certainty one way or another would be foolish.
What I posted above were trial transcripts. What the jury saw 30 years ago as we now know is not the whole story. Evidence post trial is rejected by the courts not necessarily because it is wrong but because they are unwilling to concede to the possibility they got things wrong. specially in this case.
"Like all criminal-justice bureaucracies, the British one is extremely reluctant to admit possible mistakes"http://www.germanjoys.eu/2012/09/free-jeremy-bamber-perhaps.html (http://www.germanjoys.eu/2012/09/free-jeremy-bamber-perhaps.html)
Their wording, though, is likely to have been ambiguous. I don't recall that any pathologist stood in the witness box and and said it was beyond doubt that she shot herself.
That's not what Vanezis said. He said the shots was entirely consistent with her taking her own life but you cant determine exactly one way or another.
Professor Knight then sais the idea of someone else doing it seems "extraordinary"
Contrary to Johns claim that the wounds mean any fool can work out she didn't shoot herself
venzis said there was nothing in his conclusions that rulled out suicide or murder i belive.
That's not what Vanezis said. He said the shots was entirely consistent with her taking her own life but you cant determine exactly one way or another.the docters and patholygist were idiots and fell for jb running commentary .take a look at the angles thanks to lemonhead for this image
Professor Knight then sais the idea of someone else doing it seems "extraordinary"
Contrary to Johns claim that the wounds mean any fool can work out she didn't shoot herself
So it appears that no one has been prepared to say, without a shadow of doubt, it was suicide. Add in all the other variables and it looks like murder.
why did jb defence not mention the figure at the window in court
they dont need to the fact they agrea it could of been makes the conviction unsafe be any normal standard of brittish justice.the jury took all this in considaration and found him guilty
why did jb defence not mention the figure at the window in court
They didn't have the police log books or radio notes.but thats jb and his defence teams fault.had it happened then they should have asked for any logs relating to the case .why did they not ask.the fact is that jb did not mention this to his defence team why.because it never happened.there was no one at any window of whf
I have read somewhere that it was brought up at his first appeal in 1988 but was argued to be a trick of the light.
They didn't have the police log books or radio notes.
I have read somewhere that it was brought up at his first appeal in 1988 but was argued to be a trick of the light.
That's not what Vanezis said. He said the shots was entirely consistent with her taking her own life but you cant determine exactly one way or another.
Professor Knight then sais the idea of someone else doing it seems "extraordinary"
Contrary to Johns claim that the wounds mean any fool can work out she didn't shoot herself
how could scratch marks in the kitchen prove a silencer was used thats a total joke.
the false sighting was all part of jb master plan to deflect blame somewhere else ofcourse it couldnt have been him if he was standing outside with police and someone was at the window .so he would have us beleave
ok in barry geordges case the evdence was more or less non existent in the first place but the jenkins is very silmlar in the use of foensic evdence.
at the trail the proscution cliamed that the blood on his clothes was irfutable proof of guilt.
it later turned out to be noting of the sort.
the same as the silencer in this case.
And part of his alibi, if someone was alive inside, it couldn't have been him who killed everyone.correct very very cunning
but thats jb and his defence teams fault.had it happened then they should have asked for any logs relating to the case .why did they not ask.the fact is that jb did not mention this to his defence team why.because it never happened.there was no one at any window of whf
But Bamber saw it himself. Most sources say he was the one who spotted it. So he could have told his defence.
That was the only forensic evidence in the Sion Jenkins case. The Bamber case has hundreds.clever killer adam and very evil man.the splatter he claimed was a bubble of blood from dying daughters mouth that had burst and sprayed his shirt.telling point is he told police he went to shut the sunroof of his car after finding his daughter dying.perfect excuse for any traces of his daughters blood found in his car.because he killed her than took the others shopping.very cunning
Jenkins said something about the blood ending up on his clothes was to do with him going towards his dead daughter. Jenkins was a clever man and got a retrial. Juries twice unable to reach a verdict.
Jenkins also had the option of claiming it was a random burglar/mad man. Bamber didn't.
Its no good Jeremy just standing in court saying he saw it, the prosecution would just say he is lying.
They would need police material to back it up, that they didn't have.
How can she have shot herself with the silencer on ?
How?would the rifle not be found with her big toe inserted or near it had she used this action to pull the trigger her toenails were intact
She didn't shoot herself with the silencer on. but for argument sake the only possible way with it attached would be like this
How?
She didn't shoot herself with the silencer on. but for argument sake the only possible way with it attached would be like this
Then how did it end up so neatly and suggestively across her chest?
That is just your interpretation. I believe Vanezis has since changed his mind and I note the word used by Professor Knight was "extraordinary" NOT "impossible".
would the rifle not be found with her big toe inserted or near it had she used this action to pull the trigger her toenails were intact
The photos we see of the rifle sitting neatly on Sheila are staged in my opinion, that is not how the rifle would have been found had Sheila shot herself twice. That is not how the first police officers to the scene found it. The idiots thought she had shot herself and positioned the rifle accordingly for the sake of the photos.just goes to show what a good job jb did in convincing police about what was going on .it was a very important part of his plan to be there with police and not lying in bed at his cottage.
The photos we see of the rifle sitting neatly on Sheila are staged in my opinion, that is not how the rifle would have been found had Sheila shot herself twice. That is not how the first police officers to the scene found it. The idiots who put the rifle back on her body thought she had shot herself and repositioned the rifle accordingly for the sake of the photos.john we cant be sure which postion the rifle was found.
john we cant be sure which postion the rifle was found.
I agree but if Sheila had shot herself the rifle would have fallen away to the side. Could be the numpty who shot her laid the rifle on her without realising this.i see your point
I originally came here several years ago somewhat sceptical but with an open mind, I really wanted Jeremy to be innocent of such a dreadful crime and not yet another victim of police corruption but over time I came to see that iin the final analysis it came down to him or Sheila. The amount of forensic evidence is substantial and any unbiased reading of it clearly points away from Sheila, I'm afraid that leaves only one other suspect and that is Jeremy. Add further circumstantial evidence and the testimony of several witnesses and it becomes clear that Jeremy had a history of criminal behaviour, hated his adopted family and had been scheming to get rid of them for some time.Quite right John and that someone or something has never said a lot after Bambers conviction?
My own view is that something or someone changed him while he was in New Zealand, he came home with only one thought and that was to get rich and return. The rest as they say is history.
The rifle which was " found " on Sheila's body had flown through the air and landed there after two armed officers had seen it on a windowsill through their telescopic sights.The rifle was spotted between 07.30 and 09.30 before both Jeapes and Brown,both of who referenced the sighting in their statements.we have been through this before the claim you make is not true because from where the police were they could only see the top 6 to 8ins of the rifle barrel which could not have been made out from where they were it could just as easy a pipe or broom handle .it was immpossible to say it was a rifle from the distance and angle they were at
If JB was supposed to have killed everyone,how did the said rifle end up on Sheila's body if she had been killed before 03.30 as stated by the prosecution ?
BTW,the two officers who saw the rifle at the window were at separate locations.
The rifle which was " found " on Sheila's body had flown through the air and landed there after two armed officers had seen it on a windowsill through their telescopic sights.The rifle was spotted between 07.30 and 09.30 before both Jeapes and Brown,both of who referenced the sighting in their statements.
If JB was supposed to have killed everyone,how did the said rifle end up on Sheila's body if she had been killed before 03.30 as stated by the prosecution ?
BTW,the two officers who saw the rifle at the window were at separate locations.
we have been through this before the claim you make is not true because from where the police were they could only see the top 6 to 8ins of the rifle barrel which could not have been made out from where they were it could just as easy a pipe or broom handle .it was immpossible to say it was a rifle from the distance and angle they were at
Except they didn't say it was a rifle, they said they saw something with COULD be a rifle. Give that they were told that someone had gone crazy with a rifle, it's not surprising that they were on the lookout for rifle shaped objects!thank you caroline .no need for me to lookup their statement but maybe lookout should learn how to read them correctly
Here it is Sami - she clearly states that she saw what 'appeared' to be a rifle.
thank you caroline .no need for me to lookup their statement but maybe lookout should learn how to read them correctly
I can read,thank you very much. I'm not the illiterate one here !!
She also states that 'there was no sign of movement in the house'thank you caroline good work . appearing to be and actully being a rifle are two different things.
thank you caroline good work . appearing to be and actully being a rifle are two different things.
iam not saying you cant read iam saying when you write down what youve read your economical with the truth
I can read,thank you very much. I'm not the illiterate one here !!
thank you caroline good work . appearing to be and actully being a rifle are two different things.
but quite a few did .in this case they said jb was the killer how much more committed do you want they didnt say he jb appeared to be the killer they said jb was the killer
It's police language-----" appeared to be ". Like someone who's rat-arsed " appeared to be drunk ".
You've got a lot to learn. A cop will never commit himself-----------ask yourself why.
Then how did it end up so neatly and suggestively across her chest?
seriously do I have to explain this?yes but the paths the bullets took show clearly that the rifle was NOT between her legs but was at an angle and to the right of her body no shots were straight through the neck from in front of her
1. Person sits up with the rifle muzzle end on their neck and the stock end between their legs
2. With one hand by the trigger and the other hand round the barrel
3. Once they are dead or dying they will fall back, the rifle then goes down with the body due to gravity and partially directed by the individuals grip on the barrel but mainly due to gravity.
yes but the paths the bullets took show clearly that the rifle was NOT between her legs but was at an angle and to the right of her body no shots were straight through the neck from in front of her
theres no way sc fired those 2 shots she would have had to hold the rifle at an impossible angle
It's police language-----" appeared to be ". Like someone who's rat-arsed " appeared to be drunk ".
You've got a lot to learn. A cop will never commit himself-----------ask yourself why.
Of course she didn't/
Prove it.
Of course she didn't/
Prove she did!
The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim
So you can't? Of course I knew that. Jeremy is claiming to be innocent and as it is he not me who's claims are in question, the burden of proof is all his. This is a forum, not a court and not everything that is known can be discussed here.
Because years later people like you will try and distort what they said.
Of course she didn't/
Prove it.where is the gunshot residue on sheilas nightie where is the gun oil from handling bullets on sheilas hands when the lab people loaded that rifle as a test their hands were covered in gun oil.take a look at the photo lemonhead kindly gave to me and see the path the bullet took.also where is the blood on sc nighty or do you think firing 25 shots some at point blank range there would be no back splatter what about the life and death struggle in the kitchen with a bleeding nb would sc not have even a few spots of smudges of blood on the front of her nighty.now prove jb didnt do it
who told you that?the picture lemonhead sent me told me that or even showed me that
Prove it.its between the 2 of them i dont have to prove jb did it only that sc did not do it .jb was cunning enough to make sure no forenics were found on him to prove he did it .but was not smart enough to realise people could in the future show sc couldnt have done.that only leaves him.childkillers dont get much symthapy from the courts
So JB purposely put himself in the frame with everything he's alleged to have done,or not done ?ive given my answer in above posts
This is how it reads from a guilty point of view. His actions,behaviour,dress,spending,holidays,etc etc.
Just as if !
ive given my answer in above posts
So JB purposely put himself in the frame with everything he's alleged to have done,or not done ?
This is how it reads from a guilty point of view. His actions,behaviour,dress,spending,holidays,etc etc.
Just as if !
whats the above got to do with this case
Rubbish. Not so long ago in America,a child of 3 shot his mother ( dead ) after he'd found her gun at the backseat of the car they were travelling in.
where is the gunshot residue on sheilas nightie
where is the gun oil from handling bullets on sheilas hands
take a look at the photo lemonhead kindly gave to me and see the path the bullet took.
also where is the blood on sc nighty or do you think firing 25 shots some at point blank range there would be no back splatter.
what about the life and death struggle in the kitchen
So you admit that his "actions, behaviour, dress, spending, holidays, etc etc" put him in the frame? ;D
Of course he didn't deliberately put himself in the frame, his arrogance did.
I haven't admitted anything. I was reiterrating what those who say he's guilty,say. Seemingly more concerned about behaviour and all the rest of it than getting down to the job of finding out who REALLY did it.
As for being " arrogant ",that's not a hanging offence either. Imagine being imprisoned for life just because you weren't seen as grieving ?
ELEY subsonic rimfire ammunition used non conventional propellants rendering such tests meaningless, They would come back negative is any situation. Even if JB did commit the crime you would still expect GSR on the nighty because you have two shots fired in very close proximity right above the nightie then you have a gun that has fired 25 shots placed onto of her chest.explain nb injurys never mind 1 report youve dug up there are others that will say oppisite to the above page you [posted any test regarding splatter must be done with a similar rifle and not a handgun.i will check and see about oil residue and what tests the lab did on this rifle .and i cant agree with you on the amount of gunshot residue would be on the firer or some stanmding near a rifle being fired.i beg to deffer that lying a rifle on top of a body would cause the same amount of dsr
Here is part of page 208 of the book Forensic Science From the Crime Scene to the Crime Lab by RICHARD SAFERSTEIN, PH.D. Forensic Science Consultant, Mt. Laurel
(http://s11.postimg.org/ewxixnk1v/gsu1.jpg)
However, hand swabbing or the application of an adhesive cannot be
used to detect firings of most .22-caliber rim-fire ammunition. Such ammunition’s
primer may contain only barium or neither barium nor antimony
Here is an extract of page 101 of Current methods in forensic gunshot residue analysis by
A. J. Schwoeble and David L. Exline forensic scientists at RJ Lee Group
(http://s14.postimg.org/v2w82kir5/gsu2.jpg)
The manufactures of Remington rimfire ammunition is ELEY LTD
(http://s21.postimg.org/ykwtni7on/gsr3.jpg)
Now I have obtained a copy of the 1983 patent for that type of ammunition listing the ingredients
however I still cannot be sure its the exact production of the ammo used at whf
(http://s15.postimg.org/b49yyixy3/gsr4.jpg)
The ELEY ammunition uses beeswax as lubricant not traditional gun oil.
Lemonheads photo is not accurate at all.
A .22 calibre weapon produces very little back spatter. See the images below
(http://s32.postimg.org/pj3d4zsud/backspatter22.png)
Here is an experiment carried out with a handgun using a 9mm. As you can see if this was rifle the length between the shooter and the victim will be too far to land
(http://s32.postimg.org/5gulp40jp/backspatterhandgun.png)
Also the nightie was never tested for micro splatter, had they not destroyed it modern tests could be done.
I am sceptical as to whether such a thing took place in the kitchen. There is no blunt force blood spatter around Nevilles body, the position of Neville's body is odd for a struggle also, some speculate he may have walked into the kitchen after being shot and injured then began to lose consciousness and collapsed into the position he was found in.
I would like to see NBs autopsy photos and X rays to make a more in depth assessment. before I come to any conclusions.
whats the above got to do with this case
You never do admit anything and that was the response I expected - but I don't think he was convicted for not grieving - he was convicted of murdering five innocent people.
was the 3 yearold bionic or superman i would like to see a 3yold hold up a real gun and have the strenth to pull the trigger
The moral being that a child of 3 can shoot someone dead !! Let alone a 27 year old woman. Age doesn't come into it,a gun is a gun a dangerous weapon in ANYONE'S hands.
was the 3 yearold bionic or superman i would like to see a 3yold hold up a real gun and have the strenth to pull the trigger
I believe the 3 year old in question accidentally shot it's mother. What it didn't do was take a rifle and pump several bullets into the rest of it's family.
i doubt a 3 yearold knows what death is
You never know now it's got a taste of what happens. Even at 3 they know that guns kill ( in the States anyway ) possibly here with the amount of gun crime-------------so easy to use,even for a 27 year old woman in a frenzy.
i doubt a 3 yearold knows what death is
They mightn't know about death,but they know about falling and not getting up again.
American kids are pretty bright. One 7 year old on TV the other night,testified against his mother in a murder case and his testament sent her down for life.
But whatever nationality, a 7 year old is more than double the age, physically and intellectually, of a 3 year old.well observerd jane
well observerd jane
iam just pointing out a good point jane made.why should that get on your wick
Give it a rest ffs ! You're getting on my wick.
Give it a rest ffs ! You're getting on my wick.
well observerd jane
That's a little mean spirited, don't you think, Lookout. Why should anyone NOT be complimented on a good post? It was very generous on Sami's part.
Blimey,don't you start. Since you've managed to see off the rest of the supporters,why not look to yourself to see " mean-spirited " !!
Blimey,don't you start. Since you've managed to see off the rest of the supporters,why not look to yourself to see " mean-spirited " !!
I'm flattered that you think I'm that powerful, Lookout but I have the humility to accept that people will do what they want. Nothing I do -or not- will alter that. Tell me, do you regard yourself as being generous of spirit?
i think she will get along just fine .jane can hold her own her knowledge on the case is excellent.but what has the above got to do with this topic
Generous of spirit is present when you know that you have half a dozen people at the back of you geeing you along. When that isn't there,you are left to fight your own corner.
I wonder how you'd get along in a similar situation ? Not too well I suspect !
i think she will get along just fine .jane can hold her own her knowledge on the case is excellent.but what has the above got to do with this topic
Generous of spirit is present when you know that you have half a dozen people at the back of you geeing you along. When that isn't there,you are left to fight your own corner.
I wonder how you'd get along in a similar situation ? Not too well I suspect !
Generous of spirit is present when you know that you have half a dozen people at the back of you geeing you along. When that isn't there,you are left to fight your own corner.
I wonder how you'd get along in a similar situation ? Not too well I suspect !
Don't start. I wasn't " talking " to you !!
Prime example.
How about telling sami to knock it off every time I post,then I wouldn't have cause to be personal. It takes TWO ! I'm not going to sit back and say nothing when someone has his " knife in " !
Where has Sami been nasty? All he is doing is agreeing with Jane, if he bothers you that much, just don't respond.
::) Another with selective blindness. I've got it on ignore anyway.
what a waste of talent and lives all jb had to do was work on getting his equity card and he could have been the next james bond and the rest would be alive today.even dci miller had to admit. that jb put on a very good performence.now thats talent
Sadly, some don't want to work for self improvement. They just see money and think how much better their lives would be if they were just able to have it - the consquences don't seem to matter.so very true mat excellently put
what a waste of talent and lives all jb had to do was work on getting his equity card and he could have been the next james bond and the rest would be alive today.even dci miller had to admit. that jb put on a very good performence.now thats talent
I don't think he wanted to 'work' Sami - If he had gotten away with it, he'd most likely have been skint within a couple of years.no doubt caroline he wanted a playboy lifestyle and was even discussing sports cars with police outside whf while his family lay dead inside .a very cool and highly dangerous man
no doubt caroline he wanted a playboy lifestyle and was even discussing sports cars with police outside whf while his family lay dead inside .a very cool and highly dangerous man
This quote from Henry VI puts me in mind of Jeremy. (Spoken by Richard III after he kills Henry.)very fitting caroline
"I that have neither pity, love, nor fear. I have no brother, I am like no brother, And this word ‘love’, which greybeards call divine, be resident in men like one another, and not in me! I am myself alone."