UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: scipio_usmc on February 25, 2014, 10:07:18 PM
-
Moreover even if she had a psychotic episode, would she have committed the murders and then killed herself?
Jeremy Bamber’s defenders insist that she definitely had an episode and killed everyone but what evidence is there that this is the case? They don’t require any evidence proving it happened instead they just make excuses that it could have happened and that evidence proving she did it could have been washed away or missed.
As a practical matter psychotic episodes rarely result in harm or suicide. Those that do are usually because of a lack of treatment. It is almost unheard of for someone being treated to have an episode resulting in murder or suicide let alone both. The only harm Sheila is known to have caused during an episode was to herself by smashing herself into a wall while she was delusional and flipping out. Her problems started when she was divorcing. It is common for trauma like that to effect women. It creates depression and brings about more stress and problems. Because of this she was being treated. She had flare ups from not taking her medication and thus began receiving injections instead. She received her injections on time and thus had her medication in her system when she was autopsied.
Jeremy’s defenders resort to a number of things. First they talk about things that happened years prior, prior to her being successfully treated or when she failed to take her medication. All these things prove is that without treatment she could have episodes. They fail to prove that she would have been likely to kill during an episode, which again is a very rare occurrence. Next they have no way to establish she stopped taking her medication, indeed she was taking it and had it I her system. This is a major problem because it is pretty much unheard for people who have been treated successfully to kill or commit suicide unless they stop taking their medication and everyone around them misses the warning signs until it is too late. They stop taking their medication they have outbursts that get more severe and eventually escalate.
What evidence is there that Sheila had outburst or episodes anytime recently? None at all the episodes spoke of were years past and doctors who saw her saw her improving. What about people noticing any changes with more psychotic provocation? None noticed, the best that Jeremy’s defenders could come up with is the claim that anytime she came home from visiting her parents she was depressed because she was sick of her mother preaching to her that she was sinning by sleeping around and partying. On the very night of the murders a relative spoke to Sheila over the phone and she was quiet and withdrawn not agitated. It is unlikely she simply suddenly developed a psychotic episode at 3AM and immediately upon the onset decided to go on a rampage killing everyone in their sleep and then to kill herself.
Murder, suicide and murder-suicides all result from different things. Psychotic episodes that result in murder are usually from a delusion that someone is out to harm the person including seeing the person as the devil. Most of the time it is men who commit murders and even-murder suicides. The percentage of killers who kill during a psychotic episode who ware women is very small. In a few cases the killers had delusions that the victim had the devil inside and said they were trying to kill the devil to save the victim so the victim could live and the killers were deluded into thinking the victims could survive. In a few the victims claimed the victim was the devil. In most cases though the victim had some other irrational belief of why the victim was a threat and they had to kill the victim before the victim killed them. Jeremy Bamber defenders suggest that she saw her father as the devil and that she had to kill him. Jeremy asserts (but there is no truth he is telling the truth) that Sheila was arguing with her father because he wanted her to give up custody of the kids (at first he suggested Nevill wanted to give them up for adoption but after learning of a letter from the children’s father changed to asserting Nevill wanted the father to be given custody) . This alone makes me wonder about the veracity of his claim since the adoption part was totally unnecessary and seemed to have been made up by him till he found a tale that was more believable. Moreover, why would she be so docile over the phone if she had been agitated? Even if she had a psychotic episode where she saw her father as the devil and needed to kill him to protect her children then why would she kill everyone else as well including them? It doesn’t fit.
In any event she had taken her medicine and it was in her system. Jeremy’s supporters suggest that because her medication had been reduced from 200MG to 100MG that this is why she had a psychotic episode. They suggest it was too low a dosage. First of all, studies show very little difference in effectiveness between 200MG and 100MG dosages. There was a very slight chance the change would not be effective enough. It it were not working then there would have been signs. The chance of her suddenly getting an episode out of the blue in the middle of the night and immediately getting up and taking action to kill everyone is simply not consistent with what happens. People will deteriorate over time before resorting to action. The lack of any warning immediate signs coupled with her taking her medication means there simply is no evidence she was at risk for a psychotic episode of the sort alleged and it still would not likely result in murdering everyone and then killing herself.
Most murder suicides are committed by men. Most of those with mental disorders who commit murder suicide are also male. Depression is the main cause of women killing themselves. They feel sorry for themselves and do not want to live anymore. Instead of just killing themselves they kill their kids because they are jealous of them or blame them for problems or do not want their kids taken care of by strangers. Severe depression resulting from her not taking her medication could potentially culminate in a mother decided to kill her kids and herself. But killing her parents as well would not be associated with this. Killing off an entire family is brought about by more than just depression.
So basically Jeremy’s defenders are claiming her medication just instantly stopped working and she immediately acted out to commit a psychotic murder against her father seeing him as the devil and a threat to her and her kids, killed her mother for some other reason like general hatred and even though was killing her beloved father to protect her children decided to kill them herself anyway alone with killing herself. Even for someone who stopped taking their medication this sort of mixing together would be unlikely. You don’t see a mother decided to kill herself and her kids because of severe depression doing also deciding to kill someone she sees as a treat to her relationship with her kids. It doesn’t fit. He actions of killing a mother out of hatred also doesn’t fit that is more of a rational desire than out of delusional views of a threat. No one can say the medicine was not working and there was a progressive depression that was getting worse by the day at best annoyance of being preached to about sleeping around.
When you factor in the preplanning required to commit the murders and the fact that there was no evidence Sheila committed the murders then things get even worse. The phone precautions are things that were preplanned and executed beforehand. In a psychotic episode she would be even more likely to accidentally hurt herself and break her nails not less so. It is suggested that in a crazy frenzy even a 5’7” waif could beat Nevill severely. Even taking care though a 5’7” female would receive some damage to her hands while beating him, especially while tightly gripping the rifle and bashing it against him so hard that it broke. Her nails and hands would have to have received some damage in the process. Moreover she certainly would have elevated levels of lead on her hands as well as gunshot residue on her hands and clothing. Yet it is suggested that somehow she managed to be careful enough not to receive any damage while beating Nevill and struggling with him over the gun. Moreover it is claimed she washed up and changed her clothes before killing herself. What person in severe depression and having a psychotic episode takes a shower, changes her clothes, and puts away a suppressor so no one knows it was used before finally killing herself? It is a ludicrous suggestion but we are told this is definitely what happened.
What evidence is there that this definitely happened? What physical evidence establishes this definitely happened? Jeremy says Nevill told him it was happening so that is definitely how the murders went down and the only way to explain her having no evidence on her body is she washed up and changed so it had to happen though it makes no sense at all. Conveniently, since Jeremy made sure police did not go in right away so he and his supporters could claim she had enough time to take a shower and wash up before the cops went in and somehow they all missed the final bullet shots. Otherwise the bogus claim is that police washed her before swabbing for gunshot residue. The only excuse for her clothing though is that she changed.
-
I didn't really know where to post this but thought here was as good as anywhere 8-)(--)
I hadn't realised that L'Wren Scott, model, fashion designer and partner to Sir Mick Jagger, who committed suicide on Monday was adopted. Various reasons have been given for her state of mind ranging from her floundering business and associated debts to Mick Jagger ending the relationship. The latter appears untrue. However a former lover cited adoption as the reason:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/people/2014/03/20/lwren-scott-hated-adopted-life/6642301/
I couldn't help thinking about similarities with SC's life:
- both adopted into deeply religious families.
- both models
- both appear to have had debts at time of death (SC supposedly a drug debt but unsure if there's any truth in this)
- both acquired kinda stage names: L'wren/Luann and Sheila/Bambi
- both appear to have struggled psychologically with being adopted
-
Though a big difference is that L'Wren wasn't murdered by her brother 8(0(*
-
Though a big difference is that L'Wren wasn't murdered by her brother 8(0(*
According to press reports L'wren had a good relationship with her adopted brother but not so close with her adopted sister.
I have always had a good relationship with my adopted brother and personally this is how I think it was with Sheila and Jeremy. They spent most of their formative years apart at their respective boarding schools and obviously didnt share the blood ties but despite this it appears they got on well and actively sought out the company of one another.
-
I didn't really know where to post this but thought here was as good as anywhere 8-)(--)
I hadn't realised that L'Wren Scott, model, fashion designer and partner to Sir Mick Jagger, who committed suicide on Monday was adopted. Various reasons have been given for her state of mind ranging from her floundering business and associated debts to Mick Jagger ending the relationship. The latter appears untrue. However a former lover cited adoption as the reason:
http://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/people/2014/03/20/lwren-scott-hated-adopted-life/6642301/
I couldn't help thinking about similarities with SC's life:
- both adopted into deeply religious families.
- both models
- both appear to have had debts at time of death (SC supposedly a drug debt but unsure if there's any truth in this)
- both acquired kinda stage names: L'wren/Luann and Sheila/Bambi
- both appear to have struggled psychologically with being adopted
First of all what evidence is there that Scott struggled psychologically because of her adoption? Even Sheila didn't struggle psychologically because of her adoption, her failed marriage and post natal depression took care of that.
As for their financial situation how can you compare a business that lost hundreds off millions of pounds to a rumor of a minor drug debt?
It looks like a variety of things came to a head.
1) She was going to turn 50 and feared Jagger would break up with him because he said he would only be with women under 50
2) She desperately wanted a family of her own but Jagger didn't want to have any kids with her. She was now too old to have children and regretted her decision.
3) Instead of improving her company ended up losing hudreds of millions of pounds.
She was depressed because of all these things. She didn't have kids to help take her mind off he rproblem the lack of a family of her own was part of her problem. Her business was her life and it was in the toilet. Many people in her place would struggle on but some like her would give up and commit suicide.
Note that she didn't kill Jagger and then commit suicide. Her depression resulted in her taking her own life.
Sheila was murdered along with her parents by her brother. He wasn't a murderer because he suffered from adoption problems. He murdered because he was lazy and greedy.
Adults who were adopted as children don't always have mental issues. Those that do have mental issues about abandonment or not being wanted rarely end up killing themselves or others as a result. Most suicides or murders are driven by things that are universal- greed, heartbreak, financial ruin, a loss of some other kind etc.
Suicide crosses the mind of a large number of people. Those who act on it ususally don't have a strong support system.
Murder-suicide is a different animal.
This case didn't involve suicide of any kind though just murder for the oldest reason in the world- greed.
-
First of all what evidence is there that Scott struggled psychologically because of her adoption? Even Sheila didn't struggle psychologically because of her adoption, her failed marriage and post natal depression took care of that.
As for their financial situation how can you compare a business that lost hundreds off millions of pounds to a rumor of a minor drug debt?
It looks like a variety of things came to a head.
1) She was going to turn 50 and feared Jagger would break up with him because he said he would only be with women under 50
2) She desperately wanted a family of her own but Jagger didn't want to have any kids with her. She was now too old to have children and regretted her decision.
3) Instead of improving her company ended up losing hudreds of millions of pounds.
She was depressed because of all these things. She didn't have kids to help take her mind off he rproblem the lack of a family of her own was part of her problem. Her business was her life and it was in the toilet. Many people in her place would struggle on but some like her would give up and commit suicide.
Note that she didn't kill Jagger and then commit suicide. Her depression resulted in her taking her own life.
Sheila was murdered along with her parents by her brother. He wasn't a murderer because he suffered from adoption problems. He murdered because he was lazy and greedy.
Adults who were adopted as children don't always have mental issues. Those that do have mental issues about abandonment or not being wanted rarely end up killing themselves or others as a result. Most suicides or murders are driven by things that are universal- greed, heartbreak, financial ruin, a loss of some other kind etc.
Suicide crosses the mind of a large number of people. Those who act on it ususally don't have a strong support system.
Murder-suicide is a different animal.
This case didn't involve suicide of any kind though just murder for the oldest reason in the world- greed.
Oh Skipio you respond with such fervent ardour 8**8:/:
The evidence L'Wren Scott struggled psychologically with being adopted is based on the link I posted above which quotes her ex-lover. I rather think an ex-lover is going to have a better understanding of her mind set than tabloid speculation over her floundering business/associated debts and not having a family of her own.
Her business debts according to the press amounted to circa £3.6 million (not the hundred of millions you quote) against her partner's net worth of £200 million. SC may have had a small drug debt but its all relative eg against her family's net worth circa £436k.
Perhaps she was unable to have children biologically. If it was that important then I am sure she would have delivered with or without Jagger's input 8(0(*
In his dreams he may not have wanted to be with a woman over 50 but in reality he is now 70 and without wishing to sound ageist or rude well past his sell by date. He was lucky to have a partner two decades his junior. He was hot to trot when he was younger but I wouldn't want to wake up beside him now that's for sure. He is very wrinkly.
If you want to use smokescreens with SC's mental health eg failed marriage and post-natal depression be my guest but I think you will find most modern day mental health professionals would see these as consequences of the underlying issues rather than causes.
I agree adult adoptees don't always have mental issues. In fact most don't, but the FACT is most don't have an adoptive mother who becomes mentally ill so much she requires in-patient psychiatric care as a result of her decision to adopt her first child. Regardless of this FACT all the studies show that adoptees, throughout their lives, are at greater risk of mental health issues than their non-adopted peers, including suicide/ideation. If you can find some evidence to the contrary please post it.
You clearly believe JB guilty so does it not strike you as a little odd that his adoptive mother and adopted sister both suffered with serious mental illnesses and JB is serving a life sentence for murdering his entire immediate adoptive family. There can be no genetic propensity towards mental illness, personality disorders etc. We know JB and SC come from good genetic backgrounds.
Sheila's Birth Family
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2532.0.html?PHPSESSID=01ba1d3b1ea695efd7af04d3b16c4b7b
Jeremy's Birth Family
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=281.msg4830#msg4830
Where is the evidence JB was lazy and greedy? If this was the case why would Michael Deckers and Malcolm Waters, owners of Sloppy Joes, not only employ JB but also have him living with them? I would suggest the reason for this is that JB was an asset to the business. He has carried this work ethic into prison by working out in the gym, studying and working on his case. Its all very well saying well he has nothing else to do but there are I am sure plenty of guys that sit around causing trouble, trying to get hold of drugs, watching tv, playing pool and cards etc.
-
Where is the evidence JB was lazy and greedy? If this was the case why would Michael Deckers and Malcolm Waters, owners of Sloppy Joes, not only employ JB but also have him living with them? I would suggest the reason for this is that JB was an asset to the business. He has carried this work ethic into prison by working out in the gym, studying and working on his case. Its all very well saying well he has nothing else to do but there are I am sure plenty of guys that sit around causing trouble, trying to get hold of drugs, watching tv, playing pool and cards etc.
For crying out loud.. I've just read this and had to rub my eyes in disbelief ! 8-)(--)
Since when has this been called work ?!! For his own self-interest only I'm afraid.
Pity they don't re-introduce breaking up rocks for hardcore, or chain gangs like they have in the U.S... then he could do some really useful WORK !
-
For crying out loud.. I've just read this and had to rub my eyes in disbelief ! 8-)(--)
Since when has this been called work ?!! For his own self-interest only I'm afraid.
Pity they don't re-introduce breaking up rocks for hardcore, or chain gangs like they have in the U.S... then he could do some really useful WORK !
Hello Myster. He does do really useful WORK by way of transcribing books into braille and assisting illiterate prisoners with reading and writing ?{)(**
I know from personal experience of working out in the gym and running over decades that it takes a lot of hard work, motivation and discipline to keep it up day in and day out. I will readily admit the number one reason is vanity 8(>(( followed by a sense of well-being, but I am also less likely to suffer medical conditions due to obesity and/or inactivity. The point I was endeavouring to make with regard to JB is that if he was/is lazy, as many claim, he would surely just slob around the prison doing the absolute bare minimum. By keeping himself fit he is also less likely to be costing the tax-payer further by requiring medical treatment.
-
Oh Skipio you respond with such fervent ardour 8**8:/:
The evidence L'Wren Scott struggled psychologically with being adopted is based on the link I posted above which quotes her ex-lover. I rather think an ex-lover is going to have a better understanding of her mind set than tabloid speculation over her floundering business/associated debts and not having a family of her own.
Her business debts according to the press amounted to circa £3.6 million (not the hundred of millions you quote) against her partner's net worth of £200 million. SC may have had a small drug debt but its all relative eg against her family's net worth circa £436k.
Perhaps she was unable to have children biologically. If it was that important then I am sure she would have delivered with or without Jagger's input 8(0(*
In his dreams he may not have wanted to be with a woman over 50 but in reality he is now 70 and without wishing to sound ageist or rude well past his sell by date. He was lucky to have a partner two decades his junior. He was hot to trot when he was younger but I wouldn't want to wake up beside him now that's for sure. He is very wrinkly.
If you want to use smokescreens with SC's mental health eg failed marriage and post-natal depression be my guest but I think you will find most modern day mental health professionals would see these as consequences of the underlying issues rather than causes.
I agree adult adoptees don't always have mental issues. In fact most don't, but the FACT is most don't have an adoptive mother who becomes mentally ill so much she requires in-patient psychiatric care as a result of her decision to adopt her first child. Regardless of this FACT all the studies show that adoptees, throughout their lives, are at greater risk of mental health issues than their non-adopted peers, including suicide/ideation. If you can find some evidence to the contrary please post it.
You clearly believe JB guilty so does it not strike you as a little odd that his adoptive mother and adopted sister both suffered with serious mental illnesses and JB is serving a life sentence for murdering his entire immediate adoptive family. There can be no genetic propensity towards mental illness, personality disorders etc. We know JB and SC come from good genetic backgrounds.
Sheila's Birth Family
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,2532.0.html?PHPSESSID=01ba1d3b1ea695efd7af04d3b16c4b7b
Jeremy's Birth Family
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=281.msg4830#msg4830
Where is the evidence JB was lazy and greedy? If this was the case why would Michael Deckers and Malcolm Waters, owners of Sloppy Joes, not only employ JB but also have him living with them? I would suggest the reason for this is that JB was an asset to the business. He has carried this work ethic into prison by working out in the gym, studying and working on his case. Its all very well saying well he has nothing else to do but there are I am sure plenty of guys that sit around causing trouble, trying to get hold of drugs, watching tv, playing pool and cards etc.
The only smokescreen is coming from you. You do anything in your power to avoid discussing the actual facts of the case and instead go off on made up nonsense to divert attention.
This thread is about weighing the claim that Sheila murdered her family in a psychotic episode. Because there is not even a shred of evidence to suggest this actually occurred like Jeremy claimed you instead go off about her adoption though it has no bearing at all.
You seem to have your own issues because you were adopted and project your own problems onto others. Worse you try to use that as a basis to suggest Sheila did it instead of delaing with the facts. You have no shred of evidence that Sheila owed a dime to drug dealers yet suggest it is a reason she might have taken action to kill herself.
I didn't say a debt of hundreds of millions I said loss. The press report I read didn't bother to use decimals so the 3.99 million pound loss looked like 399 million. The business debts were actually between $6 and 7 million US. The loss has been growing instead of improving and she needed to mortgage her apartment which Jagger bought for her because she couldn't afford it. Her business was burning cash at an alarming rate. What happens when your business has negative cash flow? If people stop loaning you money then you have to sell company assets, can't function anymore and go out of business. If they still keep loaning money then your debt grows. SHe was looking at even more debt in the future.
Jagger didn't want anymore kids he refused to have a family with her. She confided to friends she was upset that she skipped having a family to be with him. She wanted a family and now it was too late. She regretted picking a man significantly older who already had a family and didn't want more kids. She was scared he would leave her after she turned 50 and even if he didn't he is still likely to die much sooner than her leaving her alone. She gave up on life for all of these reasons. There is not a shred of evidence her adoption caused her to commit suicide.
Again though this is your smokescreen as you try to suggest a parallel between her and Sheila to suggest Sheila did it. Anything to avoid discussing the evidence because the evidence demonstrates Jeremy is guilty and for some reason you insist on pretending he didn't do it.
Jeremy's only concern was money not his family. He didn't care about them enough to go there befor epolice. He didn't care enough to press police to go inside to save them. Indeed he knew they were already dead because he killed them. He lied repeatedly about Sheila using the weapons in the house though later admitting he never saw her use any weapons as an adult. He changed his tune after one of the people he claimed she went shooting with denied it. I can go on and on. But you want to avoid discussing all this damning evidence so you can try your hand at the pretense that he didn't do it and had no reason to do it.
Each time you run from debating the evidence though it proves you lost the debate and know you did and simply are attempting to divert.
-
Very well said scipio. And there's a difference between debating the facts as they occured /analysing new evidence that arises to uncover a possible miscarriage of justice... and fangirling over a murderer because ee wuz fit in his twenties.
Work ethic my arse!
-
Very well said scipio. And there's a difference between debating the facts as they occured /analysing new evidence that arises to uncover a possible miscarriage of justice... and fangirling over a murderer because ee wuz fit in his twenties.
Work ethic my arse!
His supporters constantly suggest, "maybe this happened".
To constitute reaosnable doubt it is not enough to suggest something is possible. You have to provide evidence to suggest it did happen and or that it would make sense. The things suggested are never reaosnable let alone supported by evidence.
For instance, it is not reasonable that someone who decided to commit murder suicide would murder her family then change her clothes and take a bath to wash away all the evidence that she carried out the murders and even hide evidence like the suppressor before shooting herself. It makes no sense, is unreasonable and is not supported by any physical evidence. Saying it is theoretically possible to change clothing and wash away evidence is not enough. One has to provide evidence there is a probability it happened.
In every single case a lawyer can claim in theory the prosecution tampered with evidence. That doesn't rise to reaosnable doubt. A lawyer must detail with specificity what was doctored and provide some evidence to suggest the claim is true.
It is not reasonable to suggest his cousins knew her blood type, found a cousin with the same blood type, sprayed the blood inside the suppressor and took the suppressor and rubbed it all around the mantle, and even managed to locate one of Nevill's hair strands to set up Jeremy. One has to provide actual evidence and his supporters can't because it didn't happen and is ridiculous.
His supporters always ignore his own actions and lies. They refuse to address them no matter how many times you bring them up. At best they can convince some ignorant people of his innocence but have no hope of convincing those who are aware of the facts thus no chance of convincing a court.
-
The fact that he does things to keep himself active in prison isn't necessarily a sign of a strong work ethic. Lots of prisoners do this to occupy their mind and hopefully make the time go by quicker.
And maybe Jeremy is doing good work for the blind as a subconscious effort to attempt to redeem himself for his actions which put him in prison?
I do admire Holly's tenacity and attention to detail, not to mention the fact she usually tries to back her claims up with evidence. But the fact is that Jeremy's actions after the murders are not consistent with a grieving relative. Apparently he was too upset to identify the bodies. But not too upset to see his solicitor to find out about how to get his inheritance. Ann Eaton's statements show a man who was obsessed with selling off everything of value he could get his hands on, a matter of days and weeks at most after the loss of his entire family. I understand that in time he would have had to do this but a grieving relative simply would not have put the wheels in motion so soon. This to me is evidence of his greed, along with of course his robbery of the caravan park. What was his motivation in each of these cases if not greed?
And why Sheila would have left her bloodstained clothes in a bucket to soak after committing the murders? If she was going to kill herself why would she be keen to make sure her clothes could be cleaned afterwards? Who did she think would benefit from this considerate behaviour? Well, she may have killed four innocent people in cold blood but at least she made it easier to get the bloodstains out of clothes she was never going to wear again! Just admit that it makes much more sense that the clothing would have been left soaking in buckets prior to the murders.
-
Very well said scipio. And there's a difference between debating the facts as they occured /analysing new evidence that arises to uncover a possible miscarriage of justice... and fangirling over a murderer because ee wuz fit in his twenties.
Work ethic my arse!
There are virtually no known facts/evidence based on the FACT that initially the soc was treated as 4 murders/1 suicide. Those that believe JB guilty seem to think that their views/perceptions etc are 'evidence' of guilt. In reality they carry no more weight than those that hold opposing views.
JB was convicted on one key aspect of the case and that was the silencer. Even then the jury returned a majority verdict of 10-2. Take the silencer out of the equation and he would have walked. The silencer is imo unreliable due to the way in which it was found and subsequently handled prior to arriving at FSS.
Quite frankly all the so-called circumstantial evidence, and that's what it is, re the bike, phone calls, fights in the kitchen, SC's nails, whether or not SC know how to load and fire a gun, broken lampshade and stock, blood on feet and hands or not, JB's behaviour after the tragedy, blah, blah doesn't prove a thing. It only proves JB's guilt in your mind as that's how your mind interprets the information. It is not how my mind interprets the information and a growing army of JB supporters. It is akin to religion. Some are non believers; others believe in various Gods. They cant both be right either a God(s) exists or doesn't. The non believers can't prove they are right no more than the believers can prove they are right. Its simply a matter of perception based on many factors.
JB and his growing army of supporters did not invent the words miscarriage of justice 8(0(*
JB's work ethic or lack of was not on trial. I was simply responding to Scipio's claim that JB murdered his family because he was lazy and greedy. Something you also seem to believe is true Lindyhop? If this is the case how did he maintain employment at Little Chef and Sloppy Joes? EP went into JB's background with a fine toothcomb and I am sure had there been any conduct issues by way of antagonising customers, inability to work as part of a team with managers and colleagues, absenteeism, lateness, dishonesty (hand in till) we would have heard about it. Are you able to provide an example of JB's laziness?
-
The fact that he does things to keep himself active in prison isn't necessarily a sign of a strong work ethic. Lots of prisoners do this to occupy their mind and hopefully make the time go by quicker.
And maybe Jeremy is doing good work for the blind as a subconscious effort to attempt to redeem himself for his actions which put him in prison?
I do admire Holly's tenacity and attention to detail, not to mention the fact she usually tries to back her claims up with evidence. But the fact is that Jeremy's actions after the murders are not consistent with a grieving relative. Apparently he was too upset to identify the bodies. But not too upset to see his solicitor to find out about how to get his inheritance. Ann Eaton's statements show a man who was obsessed with selling off everything of value he could get his hands on, a matter of days and weeks at most after the loss of his entire family. I understand that in time he would have had to do this but a grieving relative simply would not have put the wheels in motion so soon. This to me is evidence of his greed, along with of course his robbery of the caravan park. What was his motivation in each of these cases if not greed?
And why Sheila would have left her bloodstained clothes in a bucket to soak after committing the murders? If she was going to kill herself why would she be keen to make sure her clothes could be cleaned afterwards? Who did she think would benefit from this considerate behaviour? Well, she may have killed four innocent people in cold blood but at least she made it easier to get the bloodstains out of clothes she was never going to wear again! Just admit that it makes much more sense that the clothing would have been left soaking in buckets prior to the murders.
Thank you Goatboy for the kind words above. I do try my best ?{)(** I was abandoned and rejected by Blue; not a nice feeling for an adopted person. And I am rather out on a limb here on Red but hey ho I keep plugging away.
I have attached a link re Grief Counselling and extracted the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grief_counseling
Grief counsellors feel that everyone experiences and expresses grief in their own way, often shaped by culture. They believe that it is not uncommon for a person to withdraw from their friends and family and feel helpless; some might be angry and want to take action. Some may laugh
Please see the last sentence "Some may laugh". I don't think JB did laugh but many seem to think his behaviour afterwards was inappropriate when in fact any grief counsellor will confirm there is no right or wrong way to react. I believe at times JB was distressed and at other times was very matter of fact.
If the buckets were unrelated and down to an accident with a period why would SC or June not have placed them in a more discrete location eg the scullery or whatever they referred to the room as that looked like a general dumping ground. Why leave buckets in a busy kitchen where they could get knocked over. It doesn't seem very pleasant or hygienic either with the table set for breakfast?
I am also reminded of the tampon applicator left in the lounge? Females simply do not leave empty tampon applicators anywhere other than down the loo. AE expresses amazement about this in her WS. I am making reference to this as it illustrates bizarre happenings.
-
Thank you Goatboy for the kind words above. I do try my best ?{)(** I was abandoned and rejected by Blue; not a nice feeling for an adopted person. And I am rather out on a limb here on Red but hey ho I keep plugging away.
I have attached a link re Grief Counselling and extracted the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grief_counseling
Grief counsellors feel that everyone experiences and expresses grief in their own way, often shaped by culture. They believe that it is not uncommon for a person to withdraw from their friends and family and feel helpless; some might be angry and want to take action. Some may laugh
You carry on plugging away, Holl, you're doing a grand job. Maybe some of Jeremy's growing band of supporters will jump on and help you soon! 8(0(*
-
You carry on plugging away, Holl, you're doing a grand job. Maybe some of Jeremy's growing band of supporters will jump on and help you soon! 8(0(*
8((()*/
Tch they lack the metal! Too cowardly to combe over here with the hard core guilty camp. All they do is chastise young Adam and feel smug in the process. They moan about Adam starting up threads and yet if he didn't the forum would come to a standstill. How many threads have the regulars on there started up? I can tell you the answer is almost sweet fa. The stats speak for themselves. Some of them have huge post counts and almost zero threads started. They want others to do the work and initiate threads and then have the audacity to chastise Adam because it doesn't suit.
There's no doubt this forum is the place to be for serious debate on a range of topics. Its well managed in terms of organisation and moderation. A big thank you to John and the mods 8((()*/ 8@??)( Oh and all of us for contributing 8@??)(
-
I hope I'm not going to get into trouble for posting this here 8)-)))
Hey Adam I know you read Red and I have to say well done...your thread entitled "The bedroom phone, phone calls and Neville" reached 195 pages and surpassed the previous highest entitled "Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF at 125 pages which was one that I kicked off. 8@??)( 8((()*/
-
There are virtually no known facts/evidence based on the FACT that initially the soc was treated as 4 murders/1 suicide. Those that believe JB guilty seem to think that their views/perceptions etc are 'evidence' of guilt. In reality they carry no more weight than those that hold opposing views.
JB was convicted on one key aspect of the case and that was the silencer. Even then the jury returned a majority verdict of 10-2. Take the silencer out of the equation and he would have walked. The silencer is imo unreliable due to the way in which it was found and subsequently handled prior to arriving at FSS.
First of all the silencer is just the icing on the cake. Even absent the silencer he could have been convicted and you have no way to establish what convinced each individual juror.
In any event it was not unreliable according to court rules and was likely viewed as reliable by the jury. Your contention that a cousin's blood was planted is patently ridiculous. How would they know what her blood type is? Most people don't even know their own blood type let alone adopted cousins. I don't know the blood type of anyone in my family and only know mine because it is printed on my dog tags. Did the cousins lead police to the scratcheds on the mantle? No the police investigated and matched up the paint on their own. There is no evidence to suggest anyone took the suppressor and scratched the mantle on purpose to pretend it was used during the murders. Was blood dripped inside? No it was sprayed just like back spatter would spray. There was absolutely nothing at all to render the findings unreliable.
Factor in that the rilfe was always used and stored with the suppressor attached and that it would make no sense to remove the suppressor to use it to shoot at rabbits or to murder people and you have even less reaosn to question it. Someone using it to murder people would want it to be as silent as possible. You have made one bogus claim after the next including the bogus claim that the suppressor would not make much difference sound wise. That is false, the suppressor reduces the report significantly. It would not make much difference if the ammunition used was not subsonic. The sonic boom would still make a loud echo. But because the ammo was subsonic this took care of the sonic boom and the only issue was the report. The report would be loud without the suppressor but barely noticeable from other rooms with the suppressor. Using the suppressor the killer didn't have to worry about waking up people in different rooms or worry about someone outdoors hearing.
So:
1) There was reason to use the suppressor
2) The weapon was usually stored with the suppressor attached
3) Jeremy lied stating the gun was normally stored without the suppressor because it didn't fit in the closet. In fact it did fit with the suppressor attached. Why did he lie? The only reason to lie is he wanted people to believe the suppressor had not been used. If it truly wasn't used then why did he need to lie about this?
Similarly, he initially stated he hadn't touched the weapon the week prior to murders. He claimed the first time he touched it in more than a week was when he took it out to shoot rabbits that very night. He claimed when he took it out tha tit was missing the suppressor and scope. Taking them off to shoot rabbits would make no sense thus he claimed they had already been removed by someone else when he retrieved it.
After it turned out that the last person to put the rifle away said it had the scope and suppressor attached just like he found it, Jeremy changed his story. He suddenly claimed he had used multiple times the week prior to the murders and that sometimes he found it with the suppressor and scope attached but other times they were not attached. He claimed his father removed them some times. This change was specifically to try to refute that the gun had the scope and suppressor attached and they were removed by the killer at some point. Why would Jeremy change his testimony except to thry to throw off investigators because he wanted to try to dispute that the suppressor had been used? He changed his testimony because he knew the suppressor was a weak link and needed to lie to pretend it had not been used.
Quite frankly all the so-called circumstantial evidence, and that's what it is, re the bike, phone calls, fights in the kitchen, SC's nails, whether or not SC know how to load and fire a gun, broken lampshade and stock, blood on feet and hands or not, JB's behaviour after the tragedy, blah, blah doesn't prove a thing. It only proves JB's guilt in your mind as that's how your mind interprets the information. It is not how my mind interprets the information and a growing army of JB supporters. It is akin to religion. Some are non believers; others believe in various Gods. They cant both be right either a God(s) exists or doesn't. The non believers can't prove they are right no more than the believers can prove they are right. Its simply a matter of perception based on many factors.
JB and his growing army of supporters did not invent the words miscarriage of justice 8(0(*
There are genuine examples of miscarriages of justice. This is not such an instance and that is why you and the rest of his supporters are unable to proved even a shred of evidence to support his guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is just as good as direct evidence. The circumstantial evidence in this case is overwhelming and you failed miserably at denting any of the points that have identified as proving his guilt.
The suppressor and other similar evidence only proves that Sheila didn't kill herself and didn't commit the murders. Such evidence doesn't estbalish who the real killer was. Jeremy's own actions and claims are what prove he committed the crimes as opposed to some other party.
Jeremy telling Julie his intentions and filling her in each step of the way helped sink him.
Jeremy making up the claim that Nevill called him helped sink him. Nevill did not touch the phone or he would have gotten blood on it and even had he been able to dial he was not able to speak because of the wounds he suffered. If by some miracle he had been able to speak he would have stated that he and June had been shot and to send medical help. Had the phone gone dead as claimed then it would have been hung up. Instead the line was left open which means at best the killer could have knocked it out of his hands and the person on the other side would have heard the scuffle and shots the phone would not have been disconnected. Jeremy didn't consider this and lied claiming the phone went dead. Later on he suggested he had heard the scuffle and instead hung up himself to call police.
How could Jeremy know anything happened and make up being called by Nevill unless he were involved in the murders? He gave himself away by phoning police and claiming what he did.
He further indicted himself by refusing to go there until police already had arrived and showing absolutely no concern for their safety. He didn't try to enter, he didn't try to get police to enter to check on their safety. He did the opposite he did everything he coudl to scare police from entering. He knew where a spare key was kept but never gave it to police out of fear they would use it to try to sneak in. He blatantly lied telling them that Sheila had fired every weapon in the house and was proficient with them.
He called Julie a second time to tell her not to go to work because police would need to speak to her about the deceased. He did so before police entered the house and found out they were dead. How would he know they were dead unless he was involved?
The bullets used had not been obtained from the box he claimed because there were too many bullets in it for such box to have been used. I can go on and on, his whole tale crumbled upon looking at the circumstantial evidence.
You can ignore this evidence all you like. It doesn't make him less guilty it just makes you out as the likes of a child covering his/her ears, closing her eyes and trying to ignore reality because reality pains you.
-
First of all the silencer is just the icing on the cake. Even absent the silencer he could have been convicted and you have no way to establish what convinced each individual juror.
In any event it was not unreliable according to court rules and was likely viewed as reliable by the jury. Your contention that a cousin's blood was planted is patently ridiculous. How would they know what her blood type is? Most people don't even know their own blood type let alone adopted cousins. I don't know the blood type of anyone in my family and only know mine because it is printed on my dog tags. Did the cousins lead police to the scratcheds on the mantle? No the police investigated and matched up the paint on their own. There is no evidence to suggest anyone took the suppressor and scratched the mantle on purpose to pretend it was used during the murders. Was blood dripped inside? No it was sprayed just like back spatter would spray. There was absolutely nothing at all to render the findings unreliable.
Factor in that the rilfe was always used and stored with the suppressor attached and that it would make no sense to remove the suppressor to use it to shoot at rabbits or to murder people and you have even less reaosn to question it. Someone using it to murder people would want it to be as silent as possible. You have made one bogus claim after the next including the bogus claim that the suppressor would not make much difference sound wise. That is false, the suppressor reduces the report significantly. It would not make much difference if the ammunition used was not subsonic. The sonic boom would still make a loud echo. But because the ammo was subsonic this took care of the sonic boom and the only issue was the report. The report would be loud without the suppressor but barely noticeable from other rooms with the suppressor. Using the suppressor the killer didn't have to worry about waking up people in different rooms or worry about someone outdoors hearing.
So:
1) There was reason to use the suppressor
2) The weapon was usually stored with the suppressor attached
3) Jeremy lied stating the gun was normally stored without the suppressor because it didn't fit in the closet. In fact it did fit with the suppressor attached. Why did he lie? The only reason to lie is he wanted people to believe the suppressor had not been used. If it truly wasn't used then why did he need to lie about this?
Similarly, he initially stated he hadn't touched the weapon the week prior to murders. He claimed the first time he touched it in more than a week was when he took it out to shoot rabbits that very night. He claimed when he took it out tha tit was missing the suppressor and scope. Taking them off to shoot rabbits would make no sense thus he claimed they had already been removed by someone else when he retrieved it.
After it turned out that the last person to put the rifle away said it had the scope and suppressor attached just like he found it, Jeremy changed his story. He suddenly claimed he had used multiple times the week prior to the murders and that sometimes he found it with the suppressor and scope attached but other times they were not attached. He claimed his father removed them some times. This change was specifically to try to refute that the gun had the scope and suppressor attached and they were removed by the killer at some point. Why would Jeremy change his testimony except to thry to throw off investigators because he wanted to try to dispute that the suppressor had been used? He changed his testimony because he knew the suppressor was a weak link and needed to lie to pretend it had not been used.
There are genuine examples of miscarriages of justice. This is not such an instance and that is why you and the rest of his supporters are unable to proved even a shred of evidence to support his guilt.
Circumstantial evidence is just as good as direct evidence. The circumstantial evidence in this case is overwhelming and you failed miserably at denting any of the points that have identified as proving his guilt.
The suppressor and other similar evidence only proves that Sheila didn't kill herself and didn't commit the murders. Such evidence doesn't estbalish who the real killer was. Jeremy's own actions and claims are what prove he committed the crimes as opposed to some other party.
Jeremy telling Julie his intentions and filling her in each step of the way helped sink him.
Jeremy making up the claim that Nevill called him helped sink him. Nevill did not touch the phone or he would have gotten blood on it and even had he been able to dial he was not able to speak because of the wounds he suffered. If by some miracle he had been able to speak he would have stated that he and June had been shot and to send medical help. Had the phone gone dead as claimed then it would have been hung up. Instead the line was left open which means at best the killer could have knocked it out of his hands and the person on the other side would have heard the scuffle and shots the phone would not have been disconnected. Jeremy didn't consider this and lied claiming the phone went dead. Later on he suggested he had heard the scuffle and instead hung up himself to call police.
How could Jeremy know anything happened and make up being called by Nevill unless he were involved in the murders? He gave himself away by phoning police and claiming what he did.
He further indicted himself by refusing to go there until police already had arrived and showing absolutely no concern for their safety. He didn't try to enter, he didn't try to get police to enter to check on their safety. He did the opposite he did everything he coudl to scare police from entering. He knew where a spare key was kept but never gave it to police out of fear they would use it to try to sneak in. He blatantly lied telling them that Sheila had fired every weapon in the house and was proficient with them.
He called Julie a second time to tell her not to go to work because police would need to speak to her about the deceased. He did so before police entered the house and found out they were dead. How would he know they were dead unless he was involved?
The bullets used had not been obtained from the box he claimed because there were too many bullets in it for such box to have been used. I can go on and on, his whole tale crumbled upon looking at the circumstantial evidence.
You can ignore this evidence all you like. It doesn't make him less guilty it just makes you out as the likes of a child covering his/her ears, closing her eyes and trying to ignore reality because reality pains you.
Scipio if you care to take a look at the judge's summing up and questions from the jury during deliberations you will see that this centred around the silencer and seeking clarification re the blood being a "perfect match" to SC's and/or an "intimate mix" of NB's and June's. Another distinct possibility was contamination but Jeremy's defence barrister, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, made a monumental mistake in not presenting this as a realistic and distinct possibility to the jury.
As far as I am aware I have never posted up that any of JB's extended family deliberately contaminated the silencer. I certainly think the fact that the relatives found the silencer and then tampered with it should have rendered the exhibit as unsafe. We know a razor blade was used with it. We also know that buckets of blood stained clothing were hanging around. The fact that Geoffrey Rivlin did not make this crystal clear to the jury is beyond my comprehension.
I am also unhappy about the fact that the blood samples taken by the pathologist were not sent direct to FSS for analysis but went to EP first. I would hope that the samples were in tamper proof vials with a clear paper trail? We here almost daily about police wrongdoing. Systems and controls must be in place to ensure protection for all concerned. I am sure most police officers are entirely honourable but not all are.
I have no real idea about the scratch marks. Peter Sutherest, a photographic expert with some 50 years experience, seemed to think the scratch marks appeared AFTER the tragedy. It seems odd that JB would not notice blood, albeit a small amount, paint and a hair on the silencer. If these things were noticeable to others why not JB?
You seem to forget that the CCRC referred JB's case to COA (circa 3% of applications) based on the silencer/blood evidence. If the rest of the 'circumstantial evidence' was strong then this would negate the silencer/blood evidence. It didn't. The 'circumstantial evidence' is very, very weak and little more than rubbish dreamt up by the late Robert Boutflour's warped mind. Sadly he was able to exert undue influence on EP and JB found himself in a very vulnerable position.
I feel very confident that if some wrongdoing has occurred with JB's conviction that it will come to light. These things always do eventually. They often take decades as with Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, and the many high profile MoJ's that the UK has witnessed over recent years.
-
Scipio if you care to take a look at the judge's summing up and questions from the jury during deliberations you will see that this centred around the silencer and seeking clarification re the blood being a "perfect match" to SC's and/or an "intimate mix" of NB's and June's. Another distinct possibility was contamination but Jeremy's defence barrister, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, made a monumental mistake in not presenting this as a realistic and distinct possibility to the jury.
You are not a lawyer, I am. I have tried both criminal and civil cases, you have not. I therefore am in a significantly better position than you understand the legal issues involved. A lawyer can't present evidence or testify. A lawyer makes a case through testimony of others and by presenting documents and other evidence from others.
Jury deliberations are private. Unless a jury decides to talk afterwards we have no idea what the most significant thing was in their eyes. Often it is minor things that convince a jury. Things that others who do not hear the evidence never even hear about because the press presents only the big picture. I have presented a whole host of evidence that implicated Jeremy and you have no basis to say which each individual juror found most significant. Nor can you say that absent the suppressor they still would not have convicted him since there was more than enough evidence anyway absent the suppressor. Julie Mugford's testimony was arguably the most damning of all. Her account is corroborated by the fact he called her and told her not to go to work before police even found his family dead. He knew they were dead before the cops. The bogus Nevill phone call is more evidence to corroborate her claims. I would have convicted him on the basis of this evidence.
Rivlin had no basis to argue there was contamination. He had no experts to testify that there was a natural way that Sheila's blood or alternatively June and Nevill's blood would be innocently transferred into the suppressor. What are the chances that both June and Nevill bled into the suppressor at the same exact time other than while they were murdered? If one bled in and then the other later it means the blood of the first would have dried and the blood would not have mixed and would have given distinct patterns. That is what the defense expert said even. The only way for the mixing would be for wet blood of 1 to mix with the wet blood of the other. Worse yet how would blood of both not merely drip in a little but be sprayed on the first 7 baffles? There is no natural contamination process that would account for such. Your claim that this is a real possibility is flat out wrong and to get such a claim in court a lawyer needs to find an expert who will assert the fact and be able to back up with science why such is the case.
You are not in a court so you can make any foolish claim you like. There is no record for the claim to be stricken from and you can't be held in contempt. In court there are rules in order to get evidence admitted. The purpose of these rules is so that only reliable information is put before the court. That means first party witnesses not witnesses who heard a rumor through the grapevine. It means experts using solid science and applying the evidence in the case to such known scientific principles. The only option Rivlin had based on his own witness and the prosecution's witness was to play up the remote possibility that the blood was June and Nevill's and thus that it is possible that the suppressor was used to kill them but was removed before Sheila shot herself. It's not a strong arugment but it is the best that can be made under the circumstances.
As far as I am aware I have never posted up that any of JB's extended family deliberately contaminated the silencer. I certainly think the fact that the relatives found the silencer and then tampered with it should have rendered the exhibit as unsafe. We know a razor blade was used with it. We also know that buckets of blood stained clothing were hanging around. The fact that Geoffrey Rivlin did not make this crystal clear to the jury is beyond my comprehension.
I am also unhappy about the fact that the blood samples taken by the pathologist were not sent direct to FSS for analysis but went to EP first. I would hope that the samples were in tamper proof vials with a clear paper trail? We here almost daily about police wrongdoing. Systems and controls must be in place to ensure protection for all concerned. I am sure most police officers are entirely honourable but not all are.
You are doing a dance. You are saying that you are not accusing anyone of tampering with the evidence you simply believe it should not not be allowed to be used. You are being hypocrital. You are complaining about court rules being too strict yet too lax all at the same time.
Where would cousins or even police get blood to plant inside the suppressor or to transfer into it by accident? No one who found or handled the silencer had any means to plant that blood. The blood was there before the lab got it so the lab can't have planted it or transferred it by accident.
Time to quit your dancing and to put up or shut up. Explain to everyone on this board right now how the blood could have gotten accidentally transferred into the suppressor by the family or by police. Furthermore tell us all whether you believe that it was actually accidentally transferred.
Your dance involves you claiming it should not have been admitted. Rules of evidence are not relevant to what you believe. You have 3 choices:
1) You believe the blood sprayed into the suppressor during the murders
2) You believe the blood was transferred there by someone. If this is the case explain who transferred it and how and what evidence you have to support your belief.
3) You believe it was planted by family or police. Explain who you think planted it, how they could have accomplished such and what evidence you have to support your belief.
-
Had to break it up into 2 posts, the last paragraph didn't fit so I just included the whol last point here instead of just the last paragraph. They need to up the word limit by a few hundred.
I have no real idea about the scratch marks. Peter Sutherest, a photographic expert with some 50 years experience, seemed to think the scratch marks appeared AFTER the tragedy. It seems odd that JB would not notice blood, albeit a small amount, paint and a hair on the silencer. If these things were noticeable to others why not JB?
Peter Sutherest has been thoroughly discredited. He looked at photos that didn't show the underneath of the mantle where the scratches were. He looked at photos that showed the mantle from a distance so the scratches would not have shown up even if they had been on top instead of underneath. Unless you are dealing with closeups photos are worthless unless damage is severe.
A severe dent in a car will show up in a photo. Scratches and paint rubs only show up in closeups at the right light, angle and so forth. That is why there are so many unhappy ebay buyers. They look at a photo that fails to show damage that is actually present.
People who examined the suppressor very carefully found paint and a small amount of blood. Perhaps JB didn't inspect it very carefully. Perhaps he didn't think of inspecting it very carefully because he thought putting it in the closet and saying it had not be attached when he left it out would be sufficient for police not to test it. At first that is indeed what happened. He probably had no idea at all they could tie paint on it to the mantle. Few peopel would think of such. He probably had no idea about back spatter being possible. The only blood that ended up being successfully tested was that back spatter. Even after the prosecution cleaned the suppressor so no blood was visible, the defense was still able to lift blood and to test it successfully. That blood came back as being from Sheila's group or remote possibility of a mixture of June and Nevill's. For all you know he did wash it but didn't do so good enough since not even the prosecution was able to remove it all.
You suggest that Jeremy would have cleaned it fully so if it was used in the murders then it must have been Sheila who used it and then put it away.
1) Are you suggesting Jeremy is infallible? Jeremy made a host of mistakes before and after. He placed a box of ammo containing 30 cartridges in the kitchen, lied claiming it was either full or only missing a couple of cartridges and that this is the ammo that was used in the murders. If you subtract 25 cartridges away from a full box of 50 there would be 25 cartridges. There were 5 extra cartridges in the boxwhich means the killer can't have used solely this box and might not have used any from this box. The killer had to go to the closet to get additional ammo. In the closet was an ammo carrier that the killer obviously used so that the killer didn't have to keep running back to the kitchen to reload. The ammo box in the kitchen was obviously staged. This is one of those mistakes Jeremy could never come up with a lie to explain away.
Jeremy had to leave the phone off the hook in order to answer for it to keep ringing at his place so that he could answer when he arrived home. Instead of saying that his father dropped the phone and he heard a scuffle so he hung up and called police he claimed the phone call was disconnected meaning it was hung up at WHF. When this inconsistency was brought to his attention he suggested he did hear scuffling on the other end and changed his claims to match the evidence. He didn't plan perfectly he made numerous mistakes. The claim he would not have made the mistake of leaving evidence behind on the suppressor doesn't constitute reasonable doubt. If it did then no one would be convicted because all killers who are caught make mistakes by leaving evidence behind that enables their capture.
Meredith Kercher's killer didn't bother to flush so left his DNA in the toilet, a bloody handprint, his DNA inside her and all over her. He washed the blood off his hands in the bathroom and took the knife he used to murder her with him but didn't clean up the aforementioned evidence. Why not? He didn't see the print and figured no one would have his DNA profile to match to the scene. Indeed they didn't have his DNA profile on record so could not get a match that way. They matched his print though which they had on file because he was an immigrant and then after arresting him they took a DNA sample and matched it to the scene. But for that hand print he would have escaped liability most likely. It only takes one mistake for things to crumble.
2) What is more likely:
A) Jeremy using the suppressor and ammo carrier so he could reload on the spot. Then after finishing the murders placing the ammo carrier and suppressor in the closet in the same box side by side not noticing the paint/blood or noticing it but figuring it would make no difference, especially since he would tell police nothing about it at all and put it in the closet so they would not even know it existed let alone look for it. Then placing the box of 30 cartridges in the kitchen to pretend Sheila found the gun and ammo all out for her use as she had a psychotic episode or
B) Sheila having a psychotic episode, finding the gun and ammo in the kitchen, deciding to go in the closet and get the suppressor out and installing it, taking 5-8 extra cartridges from the closet (to carry in her hands since she had no pockets) despite the magazine already being fully loaded and having 47-50 rounds already with the weapon (counting those loaded in the magazine), committing the murders during the course of which she went down to reload in the kitchen multiple times because she didn't bother to use the ammo carrier in the closet or carry the box of ammo upstairs, then after murdering everyone going downstairs to put the suppressor away in the closet because she wanted to clean up yet still leaving the box of cartridges exactly where Jeremy left them instead of putting them away with the suppressor.
Situation A is not only plausible but happens all the time. Scenario B makes no sense at all whatsoever. Going to the closet to get the suppressor to install first demonstrates intentional planning and having control over oneself not psychotic rage. Worse yet even if she did go to the closet, get the suppressor and install it, why would she fetch 5-8 rounds to bring with her to the kichen if there were a box with 47-50 rounds already there? The box was supposedly right next to the loaded magazine so she would have to have to notice it. Instead of bringing this box upstairs with her she supposedly left it in the same place that Jeremy put it and thus had to run up and down the stairs to reload. This makes sense when there was a bandolier full of cartridges in the closet she could have used so the shells would be with her? If not opting for the bandolier then the next natural thing to do would be to take the whole box up with you and place it at your side before aiming and opening fire. It is one thing not to foresee paint being able to be matched to specific scratches and proving something significant. It is another not to foresee needing to carry extra ammo.
Do you honestly believe that situation B happened and if so why and what evidence do you have to suggest it is likely as opposed to A being most likely what went down.
You seem to forget that the CCRC referred JB's case to COA (circa 3% of applications) based on the silencer/blood evidence. If the rest of the 'circumstantial evidence' was strong then this would negate the silencer/blood evidence. It didn't. The 'circumstantial evidence' is very, very weak and little more than rubbish dreamt up by the late Robert Boutflour's warped mind. Sadly he was able to exert undue influence on EP and JB found himself in a very vulnerable position.
I feel very confident that if some wrongdoing has occurred with JB's conviction that it will come to light. These things always do eventually. They often take decades as with Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, and the many high profile MoJ's that the UK has witnessed over recent years.
I'm not forgetting anything. The simple fact the CCRC made a referral is wholly meaningless. It doesn't establish that there was no valid case against Jeremy. The truth is that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that is why you run at every turn from that evidence. Anytime I present the circumstantial case you run away screaming is it unfair for me to present the circumstantial case as a whole. You want to pick apart each detail individually because you have to make contradictory claims to deal with them all. To deal with one aspect you claim ... happened. To deal with another you change what supposedly happened.
The simple truth is that Jeremy did it and I have presented evidence proving he did it. You can't dent that evidence so you dance around it instead and make up implausible what-ifs and suggest these what-ifs somehow amount to reasonable doubt. They don't which is why he was convicted and every single appeal he has filed has been rejected. There is a direct appeal process that he lost. Next there is a collateral appeal process which involved the CCRC and Court of Appeals. He lost those bids as well because solid evidence convicted him.
You can claim he is innocent and was railraoded all you like. Just making a claim means nothing, talk is cheap. What evidence can you bring to the table to support your claims? The simple truth is none. You make ridiculous unsubstantiated allegations and that is it. You intentionally ignore the facts and evidence.
How many times have you made the bogus claim that the only sure contact wound was to Nicholas even though I pointed out repeatedly that Vanezis determined the only wound that for sure a contact wound was Sheila's fatal wound. He is the one who examined the bodies and the one who could actually make this determination. The defense did not challenge his findings and the trial court as well as all the appellate decisions quoted and relied on those findings. Nor did they challenge Vanezis' findings that the location and nature of the fatal shot was, "virtually certain" to produce back spatter. You deny this is the case but have not one shred of evidence to back your claim up. You have no scientific evidence related to gunshot wounds to location where she was shot. You simply produced the made up claim back spatter is rare. You don't even produce anythign that could convince people on a message board let alone something that could be used by a defense attorney to convince an appeal court.
Personally I don't even think you believe Jeremy is innocent. I suspect you know he is guilty but some some reason you want to pretend he isn't. That is why you dance around the questions of whether the suppressor evidence was planted or not. You know that you have no evidence to establish it was planted and no vlaid reason to believe it was. So you completely avoid whether the evidence on the suppressor was planted or not and instead just say it should not be considered reliable because of some speculative chance something was planted and should not be used. That suggests you know it wasn't planted and that Jeremy did it but want us to ignore the evidence and not count it anyway.
Whether you believe Jeremy did it or not doesn't matter though because what you honestly believe is meaningless. What matters is what evidence you can bring to bear to establish he didn't do it. You haven't been able to bring any nor have you been able to produce any evidence to challenge any of the evidence tha tproves his guilt. You have simply made the claim it was a weak case against hism without proving it was a weak case. I demonstrated how powerful the case against him was by discussing the actual evidence in great detail. You did not dent my points but instead ran away claiming you don't know how to split up quotes and don't want to discuss the whole thing. Kind of funny that you attack a lawyer as inept who had to worry about an entire case and rules of court to get evidence in when you have no rules to worry about and still can't come up with a shred of anything to make out Jeremy's innocence.
Thank you for the wonderful laugh today when you posted about Muslim suicide bombers washing their bodies because after they blew themselves up not enough of their bodies would be left for morticians to wash and you suggested that this is why Sheila took a bath and changed her clothes before killing herself.
Sheila was not Muslim so what Muslims do is not relevant. What matters is what people of her religion do. People of her religion do not believe bodies and clothes go to heaven but rather only spirits do. At any rate her body was not blown up. The Coroner washed her body and she was buried in different clothing than she was found in.
Moreover, people of her religion do not see murder or suicide as a good thing that will result in going to heaven. They are mortal sins that result in going to hell. So she had no reason to believe she woudl go to heaven for her actions. The bottom line is that your suggestion she washed herself before killing herself so that she would not be dirty with microscopic gunshot residue and likewise changed her clothes so that they would not be dirty with microscopic GSR and perhaps some blood spatter makes little sense. You not only have no evidence that she did such- no evidence her hair was wet or dried in a manner indicating she washed it then died and it dried while she was dead. No evidence she was washing the gown, shirt or any other garments that covered her upper body and would have gotten GSR and she didn't even have panties on instead she had a tampon in her. That doesn't sound all that proper as a way to go to heaven if she thought her clothes were going with her. In any event the rationale you gave aplied to Muslims and you produced nothing that makes any sense at all as to why she would change and wash let alone evidence she actually had done so.
How do you explain away no injuries to her during the scuddle with Nevill? You ignore reality and say the scuffle never happened.
You need to do alot better if you want your positions to have even a shred of credence.
-
You are not a lawyer, I am. I have tried both criminal and civil cases, you have not. I therefore am in a significantly better position than you understand the legal issues involved. A lawyer can't present evidence or testify. A lawyer makes a case through testimony of others and by presenting documents and other evidence from others.
Jury deliberations are private. Unless a jury decides to talk afterwards we have no idea what the most significant thing was in their eyes. Often it is minor things that convince a jury. Things that others who do not hear the evidence never even hear about because the press presents only the big picture. I have presented a whole host of evidence that implicated Jeremy and you have no basis to say which each individual juror found most significant. Nor can you say that absent the suppressor they still would not have convicted him since there was more than enough evidence anyway absent the suppressor. Julie Mugford's testimony was arguably the most damning of all. Her account is corroborated by the fact he called her and told her not to go to work before police even found his family dead. He knew they were dead before the cops. The bogus Nevill phone call is more evidence to corroborate her claims. I would have convicted him on the basis of this evidence.
Rivlin had no basis to argue there was contamination. He had no experts to testify that there was a natural way that Sheila's blood or alternatively June and Nevill's blood would be innocently transferred into the suppressor. What are the chances that both June and Nevill bled into the suppressor at the same exact time other than while they were murdered? If one bled in and then the other later it means the blood of the first would have dried and the blood would not have mixed and would have given distinct patterns. That is what the defense expert said even. The only way for the mixing would be for wet blood of 1 to mix with the wet blood of the other. Worse yet how would blood of both not merely drip in a little but be sprayed on the first 7 baffles? There is no natural contamination process that would account for such. Your claim that this is a real possibility is flat out wrong and to get such a claim in court a lawyer needs to find an expert who will assert the fact and be able to back up with science why such is the case.
You are not in a court so you can make any foolish claim you like. There is no record for the claim to be stricken from and you can't be held in contempt. In court there are rules in order to get evidence admitted. The purpose of these rules is so that only reliable information is put before the court. That means first party witnesses not witnesses who heard a rumor through the grapevine. It means experts using solid science and applying the evidence in the case to such known scientific principles. The only option Rivlin had based on his own witness and the prosecution's witness was to play up the remote possibility that the blood was June and Nevill's and thus that it is possible that the suppressor was used to kill them but was removed before Sheila shot herself. It's not a strong arugment but it is the best that can be made under the circumstances.
You are doing a dance. You are saying that you are not accusing anyone of tampering with the evidence you simply believe it should not not be allowed to be used. You are being hypocrital. You are complaining about court rules being too strict yet too lax all at the same time.
Where would cousins or even police get blood to plant inside the suppressor or to transfer into it by accident? No one who found or handled the silencer had any means to plant that blood. The blood was there before the lab got it so the lab can't have planted it or transferred it by accident.
Time to quit your dancing and to put up or shut up. Explain to everyone on this board right now how the blood could have gotten accidentally transferred into the suppressor by the family or by police. Furthermore tell us all whether you believe that it was actually accidentally transferred.
Your dance involves you claiming it should not have been admitted. Rules of evidence are not relevant to what you believe. You have 3 choices:
1) You believe the blood sprayed into the suppressor during the murders
2) You believe the blood was transferred there by someone. If this is the case explain who transferred it and how and what evidence you have to support your belief.
3) You believe it was planted by family or police. Explain who you think planted it, how they could have accomplished such and what evidence you have to support your belief.
Skipio I believe the silencer evidence was unreliable due to the way it was found. However you are right I am not a lawyer but I know a man who is a non-practicing UK criminal barrister and this is what he said about Geoffrey Rivlin presenting contamination to the jury.
"JB was effectively told by Rivlin what line should be followed by the defence at trial. JB in reality had very little say in the matter. The Bar Code of Conduct would not have prevented Rivlin from presenting the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct on the part of prosecution witnesses since there was a sufficient evidential basis to do that (albeit with care). However Rivlin opposed that strategy because he thought the prosecution case was tenuous and an acquital was anticipated upon the basis of reasonable doubt. He did not want to cloud the issue by basing the defence upon a proposition which required the jury to disbelieve family members and some police officers. With hindisight (and some would say even without the benefit of hindsight) this strategy was wrong."
"There was opportunity and there were also admissions about the attempt to unscrew the silencer and the use of a razor blade to scrape blood. There was evidence of blood stained clothing removed from the house. There was sufficient to permit cross examination about this and if the possibilities had been explored in cross examination it would have been possible to present this to the jury as a possibility to be considered."
"You misunderstand the rules of evidence and the Bar Code of Conduct. There was nothing to stop Rivlin going down this route, it was a tactical decision which in my view was wrong. Rivlin did not need to rest his entire defence upon the possibility of deliberate or accidental contamination of the silencer, he only needed to lay the basis for presenting it to the jury as a possibilty. Instead he conceded that that the silencer must have been fitted to the rifle at some stage in the shootings and that concession was extremely damaging to JB."
"Bridget, you are really digging a deeper hole for yourself now. A reasonable ground can be an inference which may be drawn from the surrounding circumstances. In this case just dealing with the silencer evidence: i) JB denied being responsible for the murders therefore the defence case was that Sheila had to be responsible, ii) the rifle was discovered by police without the silencer fitted, iii) the silencer was subsequently said to have been found by a relative days later in a box in the cupboard under the stairs, iii) the silencer was removed from WHF, examined and handled by several of the relatives and retained by them for several days, iv) the FSS found blood inside the silencer which was either Sheila's or, less likely, a mixture of Nevill's and June's, v) items of Sheila' bloodstained underwear were removed by a relative from WHF, vi) although possible, the suggestion that Shela had used the rifle with the silencer fitted initially then removed it, placed it in the box in the cupboard and then shot herself, was an unlikely scenario, vi) the only other explanation for the presence of the blood inside the silencer was contamination, either accidental or deliberate.
Against that background Rivlin would have been perfectly entitled to raise the suggestion of contamination, even deliberate contamination, because that was an inference which might be drawn from the evidence. I would go further and say that if Jeremy had insisted Rivlin would have been under an obligation to put such allegations to witnesses and he would have been in breach of the Code of Conduct if he had refused to do so.
There was a high profile case in the 1970s, an IRA bomb trial at the Old Bailey. The head of my chambers was appearing for one of the accused. The evidence against him was that his fingerprints had been discovered on a timer found at the address used by the bombers. The defendant's instructions were i) that he was not involved in the bombing, ii) that he had never seen the timer and had certainly not touched it and had never been at the address where the timer was found. There was no doubt that the fingerprints were a perfect match for the defendant. In the light of those instructions the only basis upon which defence counsel could challenge the prosecution case was by directly alleging that the police had planted the figerprints. He demonstrated that it was possible to take a lift of a finerprint on a glass using sellotape, then deposit it on another surface. The deendant was not surprisingly convicted but counsel had done what he was obliged to deo. The trial judge was the notorious Mr Justice Melford Stephenson. He was of a similar view to Bridget in that he claimed that defence counsel who had pursued this defence had done so without reasonable grounds. He directed that their fees be cut and he reported them to the Bar Counsel. Defence counsel appealed the fees order and sought a ruling from the Bar Counsel. The Bar Counsel robustly supported the position of defence counsel, in a blistering criticism of the judge. The fees reduction was also overturned.
The above example is of a case where the evidential basis for the defence presented was far lower than existed in JB's case in relation to the possibilty of contamination of the silencer.
I do know what I am talking about Bridget, trust me!"
LUCID ISN'T HE SCIPIO?
-
Skipio I believe the silencer evidence was unreliable due to the way it was found.
Just as I predicted you did more dancing and avoided addressing the specific questions put to you.
I asked you simple enough questions.
Scipio: "Rules of evidence are not relevant to what you believe. You have 3 choices:
1) You believe the blood sprayed into the suppressor during the murders
2) You believe the blood was transferred there by someone. If this is the case explain who transferred it and how and what evidence you have to support your belief.
3) You believe it was planted by family or police. Explain who you think planted it, how they could have accomplished such and what evidence you have to support your belief."
You hid from these questions because you can't point to anything specific to suggest the blood was planted by police or the cousins or that it could accidentally find itself inside the suppressor by innocent transfer somehow. Nor anything to establish the cousins were absolute masterminds by scraping the suppressor all around the underside of the mantle hoping that police would A) take the suppressor from them and test it B) successfully figure out on their own that the paint came from underneath the mantle and 3) be able to prove conclusively the paint came from the mantle. You refuse to commit to any theory of how the blood could have surreptitiously gotten inside or the paint on it. Instead you just make a generalized claim it could have somehow happened other than during the murders and thus is unreliable. That is not good enough for this board let alone a court.
We are not in court and yet you must explain how you believe the evidence got there other than during the murders in order to establish that it is a reasonable possibility.
In court you have to go an extra step and have a witness claim he believes such and to explain how the claim has a reasonable possibility based on solid scientific principles. On TV they show lawyers making statements while questioning witnesses but in the real world the lawyer statements come during opening and closing arguments only. When it comes to witnesses we have to ask actual questions not give diatribes. To prove a witness wrong we have to call a witness to rebut their claims not like on TV where a lawyer rattles things off that were never admitted into evidence to challenge the witness.
However you are right I am not a lawyer but I know a man who is a non-practicing UK criminal barrister and this is what he said about Geoffrey Rivlin presenting contamination to the jury.
"JB was effectively told by Rivlin what line should be followed by the defence at trial. JB in reality had very little say in the matter. The Bar Code of Conduct would not have prevented Rivlin from presenting the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct on the part of prosecution witnesses since there was a sufficient evidential basis to do that (albeit with care). However Rivlin opposed that strategy because he thought the prosecution case was tenuous and an acquital was anticipated upon the basis of reasonable doubt. He did not want to cloud the issue by basing the defence upon a proposition which required the jury to disbelieve family members and some police officers. With hindisight (and some would say even without the benefit of hindsight) this strategy was wrong."
"There was opportunity and there were also admissions about the attempt to unscrew the silencer and the use of a razor blade to scrape blood. There was evidence of blood stained clothing removed from the house. There was sufficient to permit cross examination about this and if the possibilities had been explored in cross examination it would have been possible to present this to the jury as a possibility to be considered."
"You misunderstand the rules of evidence and the Bar Code of Conduct. There was nothing to stop Rivlin going down this route, it was a tactical decision which in my view was wrong. Rivlin did not need to rest his entire defence upon the possibility of deliberate or accidental contamination of the silencer, he only needed to lay the basis for presenting it to the jury as a possibilty. Instead he conceded that that the silencer must have been fitted to the rifle at some stage in the shootings and that concession was extremely damaging to JB."
"Bridget, you are really digging a deeper hole for yourself now. A reasonable ground can be an inference which may be drawn from the surrounding circumstances. In this case just dealing with the silencer evidence: i) JB denied being responsible for the murders therefore the defence case was that Sheila had to be responsible, ii) the rifle was discovered by police without the silencer fitted, iii) the silencer was subsequently said to have been found by a relative days later in a box in the cupboard under the stairs, iii) the silencer was removed from WHF, examined and handled by several of the relatives and retained by them for several days, iv) the FSS found blood inside the silencer which was either Sheila's or, less likely, a mixture of Nevill's and June's, v) items of Sheila' bloodstained underwear were removed by a relative from WHF, vi) although possible, the suggestion that Shela had used the rifle with the silencer fitted initially then removed it, placed it in the box in the cupboard and then shot herself, was an unlikely scenario, vi) the only other explanation for the presence of the blood inside the silencer was contamination, either accidental or deliberate.
Against that background Rivlin would have been perfectly entitled to raise the suggestion of contamination, even deliberate contamination, because that was an inference which might be drawn from the evidence. I would go further and say that if Jeremy had insisted Rivlin would have been under an obligation to put such allegations to witnesses and he would have been in breach of the Code of Conduct if he had refused to do so.
There was a high profile case in the 1970s, an IRA bomb trial at the Old Bailey. The head of my chambers was appearing for one of the accused. The evidence against him was that his fingerprints had been discovered on a timer found at the address used by the bombers. The defendant's instructions were i) that he was not involved in the bombing, ii) that he had never seen the timer and had certainly not touched it and had never been at the address where the timer was found. There was no doubt that the fingerprints were a perfect match for the defendant. In the light of those instructions the only basis upon which defence counsel could challenge the prosecution case was by directly alleging that the police had planted the figerprints. He demonstrated that it was possible to take a lift of a finerprint on a glass using sellotape, then deposit it on another surface. The deendant was not surprisingly convicted but counsel had done what he was obliged to deo. The trial judge was the notorious Mr Justice Melford Stephenson. He was of a similar view to Bridget in that he claimed that defence counsel who had pursued this defence had done so without reasonable grounds. He directed that their fees be cut and he reported them to the Bar Counsel. Defence counsel appealed the fees order and sought a ruling from the Bar Counsel. The Bar Counsel robustly supported the position of defence counsel, in a blistering criticism of the judge. The fees reduction was also overturned.
The above example is of a case where the evidential basis for the defence presented was far lower than existed in JB's case in relation to the possibilty of contamination of the silencer.
I do know what I am talking about Bridget, trust me!"
LUCID ISN'T HE SCIPIO?
This supposed attorney who posts on the blue board made some serious mistakes which clearly shows why it is for the best that the attorney is not practicing.
1) The attorney ignored something crucial in the example given. In the example case a witness demonstrated the possibility of a fingerprint being transferred and planted. He didn' just claim it was possible he claimed in detail how it coudl be accomplished. What Witness did Rivlin have who could claim it is possible to transfer blood to the inside of the suppressor during the collection process and explain in detail how the blood could be sprayed onto the first 7 baffles the way his own expert even found the blood had been sprayed? It would be difficult to find someone willing to say such would be possible but worse even if someone were willing to claim such for money he would be torn apart on cross and challenged by prosecution witnesses and the defense's own witness even.
It is not enough to just make the specious claim that anything and everything is possible. You need a witness or other evidence to establish there is a reasonable possibility something could have happened for the possibility to constitute reasonable doubt. If you actually practice in a court you learn that when you make claims it opens the door for the other side to highlight things they otherwise could not or would not. It can sometimes make things worse and backfire tremendously.
The suppressor was not anywhere around Sheila's body when her blood was wet. The contention being made by this supposed lawyer is that the lab could have scraped dry blood and then planted it inside the baffle. That would not account for Rivlin's own forensic expert finding blood on the first 7 baffles. Taking dried blood and dumping it inside would not transfer blood to the first 7 baffles so thoroughly that the blood still remained even after the prosecution removed all the visible blood. The only explanation is that the blood got on all 7 while it was wet. It didn't just drip inside though it sprayed inside touching various baffles in the process. A drip would just touch one area, mist will leave droplets all around inside.
So if he had been Jeremy's lawyer his contamination theory would have been blown apart and in the jury's eyes that would probably hurt all claims the defense makes from that point forward. If a jury has no confidence in a lawyer his client is in big trouble.
Suppose Rivlin hired someone to claim the blood could have been transferred. On cross he would be questioned how it would be possible to transfer it into the suppressor when police didn't collect it when they collected the blood evidence. Moreover, the prosecution would then have someone testify that since the defense's own expert found the blood on the first 7 baffles after all visible blood was removed and that a flake of blood being scraped off her clothing and deposited even on purpose by police would not be able to leave her blood on these baffles in such manner. Then what is left of the defense's claims? They are in tatters.
By writing the following it appears this supposed lawyer doesn't even understand what reasonable doubt is, "However Rivlin opposed that strategy because he thought the prosecution case was tenuous and an acquital was anticipated upon the basis of reasonable doubt" This line of defense that he suggests Rivlin should have used is precisely related to reasonable doubt. The objective of claiming the evidence was planted or contaminated is to establish reasonable doubt. It would have fit perfectly in Rivlin's strategy. Rivlin would have loved to make the claim if he had any way to support it. He had no evidence to support it though. The only way for blood to get on the baffles in the manner discovered by the defense's expert is if the blood had sprayed inside while it was wet. If dried flakes had been planted inside or forced inside accidentally then when those flakes were removed no trace of blood would remain. The blood was wet when it entered the suppressor and in order for it to touch each of the first 7 baffles it sprayed inside it didn't drip. What accidental transfer could account for this? Even doing it on purpose would take quite an effort.
" The Bar Code of Conduct would not have prevented Rivlin from presenting the possibility of dishonest or criminal conduct on the part of prosecution witnesses since there was a sufficient evidential basis to do that (albeit with care)."
What is this sufficient evidentiary basis? It is easy to claim there is a basis on a message board. The lawyer needs to explain what that basis is to prove his claim is true. It isn't true though.
The suppressor was not collected with other evidence so police had no way to contaminate it on the scene. The defense had no evidentiary basis for suggesting it was contaminated in the lab either.
The defense had no evidentiary basis to suggest it was intentionally contaminated by anyone. This lawyer is suggesting that Rivlin should have argued simply that it was possible. In theory it is always possible to plant evidence but that means nothing the theoretical possibility doesn't rise to reasonable doubt. Indeed that leads me to number 2.
2) This lawyer is ignoring that the criminal in the example he gave was convicted. Just saying that in theory it is possible police planted his finger print did not save him. The defense needed to prove at the very least that there was a reasonable possibility it was planted for reasonable doubt to exist. Why should anyone think that if Rivlin made specious claims in the same manner it would have had a better result than the defendant in that case?
It would have had even a worse result because as I explained above the prosecution had a scientific basis to challenge the claim. The suppressor didn't have paint chips in it , it has blood sprayed inside on the first 7 baffles. The prosecution cleaned off all the visible blood and yet substantial traces remained on those 7 baffles. The remaining traces were so substantial that the defense was able to determine each of the first 7 baffles had human blood, was able to lift the traces of blood and even able to determine this blood was Sheila's blood group or a remote possibility it was June and Nevill's blood mixed. If the blood traces were not substantial then no blood type testing would have been possible. If Rivlin argued it was planted or contaminated then his own expert could be used to testify against his claims. That not only is bad for the client but the attorney can face discipline if the attorney had no valid basis for the claim which would be the case if his own witness denied it was likely or possible.
How would that look to a jury? Prosecution and defense experts say that contamination or planting would not be possible unless someone took wet blood and sprayed it inside. It is reaosnable to think someone took wet blood and sprayed it inside? That pretty much tells the jury the blood definitely got there from the murder and that the defense can't be trusted because they are trying to distort. It harms credibility and makes Jeremy look guilty.
Rivlin went with what he could argue. The prosecution's own witness agreed that there was a remote possibility the blood was June and Nevill's not Sheila's. He tried to get the witness to agree describe the possibilty in the best light possible for the defense but the witness would not budge much. The best he could get was the admission of a remote possibility and he hoped that was enough to raise doubt in the juror's minds but obviously it wasn't enough.
Be honest Holly. If you were a juror and the defense's own witness was used against them to argue that the blood being found on the baffles after the prosecution already cleaned them proves the blood was sprayed on very finely with substantial force would you really believe it was accidentally transferred? Do you really believe that cops or relatives accidentally sprayed wet blood of the same blood type as Sheilas inside the suppressor?
Do you really believe that cops or relatives intentionally sprayed wet blood of the same blood type as Sheilas inside the suppressor?
If you answer no to both questions then you have no basis at all to believe that Jeremy is innocent and it means you just claim he is innocent knowing that in fact he is guilty. In order for Jeremy to be innocent someone had to have taken wet blood of the same group as Sheilas and sprayed it inside the suppressor either accidentally or on purpose.
This doesn't take into account the paint even. The paint can't have been accidentally transferred, the suppressor would have to be intentionally scraped against the mantle. The police didn't have the suppressor with them at the house so how could they scrape the suppressor against the mantle when they visited to try to figure out what the paint was from? Obviously the cousins are the only ones in a position to do that. Maybe if the cousins had suggested it had scratched the mantle that would be suspicious. They didn't though they had no idea if the paint held any significance. How would they be sure the police would not only be able to figure out they scraped the mantle with it but know the police had the scientific skill to match the paint conclusively? But Rivlin should have told the jury it was a possibility though he had no evidentiary basis to suggest it happened just to suggest this is possible and this was supposed to sway the jury to acquit? This would not sway the jury anymore than the possibility of a fingerprint being transferred swayed the jury in the cited case and worse yet Rivlin would look foolish to the jury claiming such so it would hurt his credibility for the remainder of the case.
Another thing is that it is hard to claim Jeremy was railroaded when police initially bought his BS and the shoddy collection procedures actually worked in his favor. How do you argue police were out to get him and were staging evidence when they treated the scene as murder suicide based on his say so? The sloppy procedures you are complaining of were the result of not suspecting Jeremy. That tend to negate a claim they were biased against him and trying to set him up. Indeed they failed to follow usual procedures like seizing the clothing he was wearing and documenting any damage to his body. Some police say they saw some marks on his hands but this was never documented so they could not try to use such as evidence.
If there was a gray hair attached to the suppressor the loss of it hurt the prosecution not the defense. The supposed sloppy procedures were to Jeremy's advantage so it is hard to claim he was the victim of a police conspiracy. This is another reason why making the specious claim would have been a waste of time and harmed the credibility of the defense. Perhaps even more important, the prosecution was not permitted to tell the jury that a gray hair had been attached to the suppressor. If the defense brings up the issue of the lost gray hair then guess what- the jury gets to learn about it from the defense. So they get to hear there was a gray hair attached and have more reason to think it was used during the murders. That is a classic mistake. It is a mistake which happens with more frequency than should be the case. A number of times evidence that I was not allowed to raise ended up getting admitted anyway because of stupid adversaries who opened the door unintentionally. You never want to open pandoras box. You want to make things as uncomplicated as possible for a jury.
Rivlin had crappy facts to work with and in the end that is why he lost.