ECHR ..... now - Killers' life terms 'breached their human rights'

[lookout]

Extravagant ?.Over-spending.? If one of my daughters had come to me telling me that she owed £40,000 to a drug-dealer,,I'd have been beside myself,,so it's little wonder that both her parents were feeling ill.... Once dealers are involved,,it's a slippery slope and there's no turning back.

In 1985,as we know,£40,000 was a fortune,more so now,,and the sheer thought of lives being in danger if this amount wasn't paid was enough to have sent the whole family insane.If Sheila hadn't gone " beserk with a gun ",as sure as fate somebody else would have done. !
That was a case on its own if the family had been threatened,,yet nobody bothered to investigate that matter,,which may quite well have been relevant to the case.   I wonder who the cheque was made out to,,and also the " young man " who Neville wouldn't turn his back on. ( we know that remark could have had a double meaning )
If only Neville had spoken out,poor man,,so proud.

Sheila,herself was such an unhappy soul who must have felt as though she had nobody. Both Sheila and Jeremy were used.!!

[Nickos]

Hi Nickos

The majority are swayed in all MoJ's  .  Two were savvy enough to see there was enough reasonable doubt despite the judge's bias and/or ignorance in his summing up 

In JB's case easy peezy to achieve a majority verdict when the judge led the jury to believe that SC's blood was in the silencer.

Hi NN, The majority (if not all) are also swayed in bonafide convictions, as in JB's case (not just MOJ's) 

I believe there was some doubt in the Jury’s verdict on the case. The Jury returned a majority verdict (rather than unanimous) as the Jury wanted to make sure a murderer did not get off, whilst also showing they did have reservations.

I think imo that it was agreed between the Jury members that 10 would vote guilty and two not (as the Judge had indicated he would take a majority verdict in this case).

[Nickos]

Hi Susan

I think Nickos is pretty smitten with you; I wouldn't want to interfere with a love thing 

Susan - how did they find out about us 

[susan]

Nickos x I think we have been under surveillance with the helicopter but must watch that little Nun as she wants every male on the forum and her a Nun kinky or what

[killingeve]

Hi NN, The majority (if not all) are also swayed in bonafide convictions, as in JB's case (not just MOJ's) 

I believe there was some doubt in the Jury’s verdict on the case. The Jury returned a majority verdict (rather than unanimous) as the Jury wanted to make sure a murderer did not get off, whilst also showing they did have reservations.

I think it was agreed between the Jury members that 10 would vote guilty and two not (as the Judge had indicated he would take a majority verdict in this case).

Hi Nickos

In JB's case the jury were IMO swayed primarily on dodgy evidence, ie the silencer, that would never get near a court of law today    Plus unreliable witnesses 

I'm not too sure about the collective nature of a jury's decision making and verdict.  I thought each individual juror is duty bound to reach his/her verdict based on their overall interpretation of the evidence presented at trial 

As the jury were struggling to reach a verdict and seeking further clarification from the judge re the 'blood evidence' the judge said he would accept a majority verdict and 10 : 2 was reached.  I belive the two who returned verdicts of 'not guilty' did so genuinely believing JB innocent.

[killingeve]

Susan - how did they find out about us 

Hi Nickos

I'm afraid the intensity of your passion for Susan is there for all to see between the lines of your posts  despite your obvious case related differences 

[killingeve]

Nickos x I think we have been under surveillance with the helicopter but must watch that little Nun as she wants every male on the forum and her a Nun kinky or what

Hi Susan

I feel spoilt for choice by all the delightful male posters on the Jeremy Bamber forum especially so after my sheltered existence hitherto    I have to say I was especially fond of Mr Hartley but sadly he disappeared 

[Steve_uk]

Hi Steve_uk

You started off having only a vague recollection of the DB case 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3738.msg150011.html#msg150011

Yes..and now I know more.http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/

[Nickos]

Hi Nickos

In JB's case the jury were IMO swayed primarily on dodgy evidence, ie the silencer, that would never get near a court of law today    Plus unreliable witnesses 

I'm not too sure about the collective nature of a jury's decision making and verdict.  I thought each individual juror is duty bound to reach his/her verdict based on their overall interpretation of the evidence presented at trial 

As the jury were struggling to reach a verdict and seeking further clarification from the judge re the 'blood evidence' the judge said he would accept a majority verdict and 10 : 2 was reached.  I belive the two who returned verdicts of 'not guilty' did so genuinely believing JB innocent.

Hi NN, on the silencer evidence I agree, but I believe the silencer evidence was slipped in to get the right result (noble cause). Surely Rivlin must have known that the silencer had been discovered and handled by the relatives prior to trial.

If he did it must have been a no brainer to raise this with the Jury.

If he didn't - why not!!

Either way Rivlin let this go - as with a lot of other things.

I certainly understand your point on how a jury should reach its verdict – it’s just amazingly coincidental imo that the Judge stated he would accept a majority verdict – and low and behold he got a 10:2 majority. Where does a majority start – I believe it is at 10?

So, 11:1 Guilty 10:2 Guilty 9:3 Not Guilty

[Nickos]

Hi Nickos

I'm afraid the intensity of your passion for Susan is there for all to see between the lines of your posts  despite your obvious case related differences 

Some things just can't keep people apart  , but Susan has better come round to my way of thinking or there’ll be trouble   

[susan]

Nickos x  nothing will keep us apart but I have a feeling in the not too distant future you will be swinging in the same hammock as me nothing like a little swinging

[Nickos]

Nickos x I think we have been under surveillance with the helicopter but must watch that little Nun as she wants every male on the forum and her a Nun kinky or what

Susan x, are you being harassed by a large chopper? - if so, call the police!!?

Dial 999 - not the local bobbies, they're useless

[Steve_uk]

Hi NN, on the silencer evidence I agree, but I believe the silencer evidence was slipped in to get the right result (noble cause). Surely Rivlin must have known that the silencer had been discovered and handled by the relatives prior to trial.

If he did it must have been a no brainer to raise this with the Jury.

If he didn't - why not!!

Either way Rivlin let this go - as with a lot of other things.

I certainly understand your point on how a jury should reach its verdict – it’s just amazingly coincidental imo that the Judge stated he would accept a majority verdict – and low and behold he got a 10:2 majority. Where does a majority start – I believe it is at 10?

So, 11:1 Guilty 10:2 Guilty 9:3 Not Guilty

There would have been nothing worse than Jeremy holding a press conference at the Hilton Hotel Park Lane between the sheets with his latest conquest Anji Greaves,only for him in the following weeks and months to start blabbing down the pub about how he killed five members of his family..

[Caroline R]

Hi NN, on the silencer evidence I agree, but I believe the silencer evidence was slipped in to get the right result (noble cause). Surely Rivlin must have known that the silencer had been discovered and handled by the relatives prior to trial.

If he did it must have been a no brainer to raise this with the Jury.

If he didn't - why not!!

Either way Rivlin let this go - as with a lot of other things.

I certainly understand your point on how a jury should reach its verdict – it’s just amazingly coincidental imo that the Judge stated he would accept a majority verdict – and low and behold he got a 10:2 majority. Where does a majority start – I believe it is at 10?

So, 11:1 Guilty 10:2 Guilty 9:3 Not Guilty

There is nothing noble about just 'slipping in' dodgy evidence!!

[Nickos]

There is nothing noble about just 'slipping in' dodgy evidence!!

It's a phrase initially coined by a judge some time ago. I guess the term noble is when it is truly believed the "evidence" is used to get the right result.

I still believe the right result was reached in the Bamber case.

Rivlin must have known that the silencer had been discovered and handled by the relatives prior to trial, after all the trial was over a year after the murders. 
 
I wonder how Rivlin tackled this in court - he must have had his opportunity to undermine the silencer evidence - but did he?