If JB's Conviction Is Quashed At CoA Would You 'Guilters' Consider Him Innocent?

[Adam]

Nevill's call to Chelmsford Police does not match the defence narrative at trial. Nevill would not have had the time to ring them after being shot 4 times & before the kitchen attack. .

Jeremy does not have another scenario. He just says he does not want to think about what happened.   

[Roch]

After having read the opinions of Zoso, I have now read those of Cambridge and Steve. Thanks. In terms of the war for public opinion, for once, the innocent side managed to turn up unfettered. If I was a dyed in-the- wool guilter, I would be gutted by this broadcast. It is a hammer blow against the guilty argument and their longstanding media-grip on the narrative.  It was surprisingly well made on a number of levels. That being said, I believe the failure to address Burrell and Rowe or at least put them in context, will undermine the 999 claim. Hilarious that Babs seems to has remembered her original statement and has now flipped back to the Light.

[Rob_]

After having read the opinions of Zoso, I have now read those of Cambridge and Steve. Thanks. In terms of the war for public opinion, for once, the innocent side managed to turn up unfettered. If I was a dyed in-the- wool guilter, I would be gutted by this broadcast. It is a hammer blow against the guilty argument and their longstanding media-grip on the narrative.  It was surprisingly well made on a number of levels. That being said, I believe the failure to address Burrell and Rowe or at least put them in context, will undermine the 999 claim. Hilarious that Babs seems to has remembered her original statement and has now flipped back to the Light.

I thought the program was petty well done Roch, it was a sledge hammer blow to the prosecution case.

All we need now is for the CT to allow Bill to publish his book.
 

[Adam]

I thought the program was petty well done Roch, it was a sledge hammer blow to the prosecution case.

All we need now is for the CT to allow Bill to publish his book.

Bill publish a book?

Will it be unbiased?

[Bubo bubo]

After having read the opinions of Zoso, I have now read those of Cambridge and Steve. Thanks. In terms of the war for public opinion, for once, the innocent side managed to turn up unfettered. If I was a dyed in-the- wool guilter, I would be gutted by this broadcast. It is a hammer blow against the guilty argument and their longstanding media-grip on the narrative.  It was surprisingly well made on a number of levels. That being said, I believe the failure to address Burrell and Rowe or at least put them in context, will undermine the 999 claim. Hilarious that Babs seems to has remembered her original statement and has now flipped back to the Light.

I have set out why both witness statements from the above are fakes.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12741.msg588497.html#msg588497

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12737.msg588413.html#msg588413

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12282.msg567690.html#msg567690

For brevity I list 2 quotes from these fabrications.

From JR

Check this out. JR says the police were still monitoring the line when she clocked off at 08.00. The log says the line was cut at 07.48.

From Burrell

It is male cow excrement. His record at 03.45 says he heard about the problem at WHF. West and Bonnett and been had been dealing with this from 03.26 and had already had the line checked at 03.42. He says he was in the HQIR which is where Bonnett was working and handling 999 calls. How come he only found out 19 minutes later.

My guess would be that further details would form part of a submission. In constructing a documentary there are two issues which have to be addressed. Time and level of detail. It is impossible to detail all aspects of the case so evidence has to be focused on the basic elements of the point being argued. This makes it easier for viewers with limited previous knowledge. The issues have to edited down to a bare minimum.

Too much detailed information for people with a scant knowledge can lead to confusion of the argument and may lead to some losing interest and tuning out.

[Armchair Detective]

Believe the grounds at the CCRC are -

Nevill calling Chelmsford Police.

999 call.

Inheritance.

Disturbance at the scene.

Nevill's burn marks.

Two silencers.

Complaints against officers.

Sheila's condition.

---------

All these were discussed at trial or at previous CCRC/COA submissions. Except Nevill's call & the 999 call. These have received a PSOR.

The burn marks can be linked to 'disturbance at the scene' as that is the insinuation.

Yep. Going nowhere. I'm surprised any solicitor would dare to put "Nevill's call" before any court, never mind the appeal court. Their credibility would be in tatters. Likewise the "999 call" - it's just desperate nonsense.

I actually think Boyce might be on to something with his AGA experiments, the injuries do appear to be a better approximation than the perfectly round efforts from using a blowtorch on the rifle but as with the bible and as the appeal court pointed out, evidence of a disturbed scene only opens more questions that no half decent defence barrister would put in front of a jury. ie Did the police move the body? and why on earth would they do that? Did NB wake and move himself, only to be finished off on the chair he awkwardly slumped onto or, ladies and gentleman of the jury/appeal court, did the killer move him?  And that all but rules out Sheila, doesn't it.

[Jonathan]

I have set out why both witness statements from the above are fakes.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12741.msg588497.html#msg588497

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12737.msg588413.html#msg588413

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,12282.msg567690.html#msg567690

For brevity I list 2 quotes from these fabrications.

From JR

Check this out. JR says the police were still monitoring the line when she clocked off at 08.00. The log says the line was cut at 07.48.

From Burrell

It is male cow excrement. His record at 03.45 says he heard about the problem at WHF. West and Bonnett and been had been dealing with this from 03.26 and had already had the line checked at 03.42. He says he was in the HQIR which is where Bonnett was working and handling 999 calls. How come he only found out 19 minutes later.

My guess would be that further details would form part of a submission. In constructing a documentary there are two issues which have to be addressed. Time and level of detail. It is impossible to detail all aspects of the case so evidence has to be focused on the basic elements of the point being argued. This makes it easier for viewers with limited previous knowledge. The issues have to edited down to a bare minimum.

Too much detailed information for people with a scant knowledge can lead to confusion of the argument and may lead to some losing interest and tuning out.

Even if you ignore the logs and statements you're still left with Milbank's recent contradictory contributions and his erratic behaviour.

He's known for 40 years that someone phoned him from inside WHF at 6.09am and he's done nothing about it?

No suggestion he shared this information with colleagues who were on site and preparing to enter WHF.

It's nonsense.

[Bubo bubo]

Even if you ignore the logs and statements you're still left with Milbank's recent contradictory contributions and his erratic behaviour.

He's known for 40 years that someone phoned him from inside WHF at 6.09am and he's done nothing about it?

No suggestion he shared this information with colleagues who were on site and preparing to enter WHF.

It's nonsense.

You fail to consider the problem of a police officer turning whistle blower. There may well be others who know stuff but are afraid of what might happen to them if they speak up. There is a possibility of a conspiracy of silence because of the reputational damage that would accrue to EP. If other officers knew what actually happened they would likely loose their excellent pensions and widows of deceased officers may well loose theirs too. It is possible that he knew of his impending death and felt free to open up. He may have been glad that at last he was being asked to tell his part in the tragedy. I believe he said something like 'all this time I was wondering when somebody would talk to me about my knowledge'. I believe HB refers to this in her report or podcast.

I know someone who was very close to a participant in the case. When he died unexpectedly my acquaintance was worried that he had been murdered.

We do not know Milbank's mind and how this incident affected his thinking. We can only go by what he said in a recorded interview.

With regard to not informing his colleagues we do not know if he or more likely a more senior officer did inform the TFG that there may be someone still alive in the house.

Once again this could be due to a conspiracy of silence.

Have you read BR's experience of how he was treated by Ainsley over a controversial incident. It is not an easy read.

[Jonathan]

Having initially gone with murder/suicide you'd have thought a 999 call made from inside WHF at 6.09 would have featured heavily in the case. But it's nowhere to be seen. Just makes no sense.

[Bubo bubo]

Having initially gone with murder/suicide you'd have thought a 999 call made from inside WHF at 6.09 would have featured heavily in the case. But it's nowhere to be seen. Just makes no sense.

We do not know what has been archived from the original case (murder suicide). This has now been put in the British Library and cannot be referenced for 40 years. Disclosure of this information has been requested many times over the years but EP have repeatedly denied the request.

They framed JB. All exculpatory documents have been sifted out of the case against JB and are now out of bounds.

[Zoso]

We do not know what has been archived from the original case (murder suicide). This has now been put in the British Library and cannot be referenced for 40 years. Disclosure of this information has been requested many times over the years but EP have repeatedly denied the request.

They framed JB. All exculpatory documents have been sifted out of the case against JB and are now out of bounds.

The log is clear - they didn't have to archive a 'no call'.

[Bubo bubo]

The log is clear - they didn't have to archive a 'no call'.

Well if that is the case, why have they steadfastly refused to disclose the paperwork for the original case?
For example: Where the family subject to questioning for issues such as an alibi. Are there notes which relate to checking for a third party. Is there any paperwork from the Keneally review which describes why SC is responsible.

[Zoso]

Well if that is the case, why have they steadfastly refused to disclose the paperwork for the original case?
For example: Where the family subject to questioning for issues such as an alibi. Are there notes which relate to checking for a third party. Is there any paperwork from the Keneally review which describes why SC is responsible.

The family never needed an alibi because Jeremy told the police that his father called to tell him Sheila had gone crazy with a gun, not that Ann, David or old man Robert was on the rampage. You don't even believe the paperwork that's in front of you, why do you need more to disbelieve?

[BarefootDanC]

If JB's conviction is quashed it is not going to be based on a 'technicality' or some nonsense such as Aga burns, multiple silencers, NB calling EP, someone calling 999 etc, etc.  As Patrick O'Connor, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, said it will have to be a slam dunk/blockbuster piece of evidence.  So will those who believe JB guilty consider him innocent if the CoA quashes his conviction?

Suppose the case was refers to the Court of Appeal based on "the five experts who say Sheila was shot without the silencer on", if the Court of Appeal accepted the evidence, which is a very big if and concluded that the blood in the silencer may have been a mixture of the parents blood (the defence case at trial), I would still think that Jeremy was very probably guilty based on the rest of the evidence.

With 40 years having passed, a re-trial maybe impossible.

[Adam]

Suppose the case was refers to the Court of Appeal based on "the five experts who say Sheila was shot without the silencer on", if the Court of Appeal accepted the evidence, which is a very big if and concluded that the blood in the silencer may have been a mixture of the parents blood (the defence case at trial), I would still think that Jeremy was very probably guilty based on the rest of the evidence.

With 40 years having passed, a re-trial maybe impossible.

Sheila's 2 shots were described as contact & close range. Either can produce back spatter.

The CT will keep paying experts to claim the silencer was not on the rifle when Sheila was shot. Which would mean Jeremy was aware beforehand of back spatter & that the rifle was too long for Sheila with silencer attached. So put it away after killing the other people & before killing Sheila.

It would mean the blood is a mixture of June & Nevill's. Which is possible as they were shot 15 times.

If that is enough for a technicality, not many guilters will change stance.