It's not acceptable to tell a poster six times in a post they are ignoring evidence and on another three occasions they are denying evidence. As far as I am concerned I am not ignoring and/or denying evidence. I an fully familiar with the pathology report which details NB's injuries sustained in the kitchen. I simply interpret the evidence differently and apply different weights to different aspects of the case compared with yourself.
My points are accurate Holly.
Your interpretations are driven by bias nothing more. and they are totally invalid. It is fair game to point out when bias is driving someone's arguments and it is also legitimate to point out when assertions are wrong and totally lacking in logic and factual support.
Part of the way in which appeal courts review findings is they examine whether a rational, objective trier of fact could make such findings based on the evidence presented.
When this standard is applied to your claims there are many problems. You take such as a personal attack but it is not a personal attack it is a matter of fact and it is legitimate to point out.
You said you don't care what evidence and arguments are brought to bear you will never ever believe there was a struggle in the kitchen. Right there you are admitting you don't care about the evidence even as you pretend to give lip service to it. You made up your mind at the outset that Jeremy is innocent. You dismiss or ignore all evidence to the contrary so that you can say he is innocent. You view every aspect of this case based on what best supports your agenda of saying he is innocent.
You take issue with my using the words dismiss and ignore such as saying you ignore the opinions of the experts but that is exactly what you are doing. The experts said that Nevill's wounds suffered in the bedroom were not serious enough to inhibit him from trying to defend himself and trying to disarm the killer and that his injuries combined with the scene demonstrates he put up a spirited defense. The fact his left arm was damaged reduced how effective he could be against the killer it didn't prevent him from trying to put up a defense and from struggling with the killer.
You have repeatedly asserted that in your view Nevill was so weakened from the 4 shots delivered upstairs that that he simply collapsed upon reaching the kitchen and was beaten while he was already incapacitated. you have no support for this position you made it up yourself. You take issues with me pointing out you made it up as opposed to a medical expert doing so. It is fair to point out that you came up with this on your own.
Here is what you just wrote as to your reasoning for him being unable to try to defend himself:
"[A]- 2 facial shots fired at close proximity causing extreme pain and blood loss
- [B.] total incapacitation of left arm
[C] I don't believe NB was in any fit state to defend himself against the perp regardless of gender and stature. NB was a farmer not some fictional hero eg Superman or James Bond. NB was as vulnerable to gunshot wounds as you or me.
[D] I'm also mindful of how potent hollow point ammo is. Yes the cartridges used at WHF were low velocity but the design of the hollow point cartridge is particularly hazardous for those who sustain gunshot injuries. The following YouTube vid describes the hollow point bullet as follows:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaXcXVvRuJ8- It creates serious internal damage
- Expands on impact to almost 3 times its size
- "The expanding effect means that the bullet dumps its energy inside the body damaging more tissue than a normal round nose bullet"
- "Its designed to damage more tissue by opening up somewhat to a flower so it has a larger wound channel.
- "A large wound has a greater chance of hitting an organ, cutting nerves or severing an artery and so stopping the target".
Let's carefully analyze what you just wrote.
A) You said that the pain and blood loss from the 2 face wounds would prevent Nevill from being able to try to defend himself. In the past you said he collapsed as soon as he entered the kitchen because these injuries were so severe. What is your basis for these assertions? You made the up yourself no medical expert assessed such. The medical experts assessed that if these wounds were left untreated for a long period of time he could bleed to death from them. They made no assessment that the blood loss would result in rapid incapacitation in fact they found the opposite. They found these wounds would not have resulted in incapactiation and thus he would have had the time to struggle with the killer in the kitchen. So making such a conclusion is not supported by credible evidence and not something a rational trier of fact could find based on the expert evidence presented.
B) You argue that because he could not use his left arm he could not even attempt to struggle with the killer. He had another arm and legs and indeed could have used such parts to try to fight with the killer. The fact his left arm was injured reduces the effectiveness of his fighting ability it doesn't leave him unable to do anything. You made up that he would be unable to try to fight back no medical expert asserted such and from a logical standpoint there is no question someone with a damaged arm can still attempt to fight back. You made the conclusion that he could not even try to find back you are not advancing an argument from an expert. Why is is unfair to point out that you made this up and are not advancing a position of an expert but rather are saying things contrary to what the experts said was possible?
C) You make up the strawman that Nevill would have to be a Superman in order to try to defend himself which again is something you made up not something from the experts. The experts say the wounds were not severe enough to prevent him from struggling with the killer
D) You make up that because hollow points were used this means the injuries would be so great that he would not be in a position to defend himself. No expert opined this you made up this all on your own. It is a totally invalid argument. You look to the actual injuries to see what damage was caused and whether incapacitation occurred. The fact that hollowpoints damage a larger area than a round nose bullet means nothing. A hollowpoint bullet that hits a lip is going to cause far less extensive damage than a round nose bullet through the heart, an eye, the skull or some other vital area. Location of the shot is what is key. It is true that in general a hollowpoint bullet to an area wound cause a larger wound and thus more damage than would a round nose bullet to such area but that doesn't mean the difference will mean squat. He is a scenario where it would make a difference:
Shot to test dummy with round nose bullet results in the bullet passing by a vital blood vessel and just missing it.
Shot to test dummy in same exact spot with hollow point results in a vital blood vessel being hit because the bullet expanded and thus the wound tract was slightly larger than it was with the round nose bullet and the difference was enough to hit the blood vessel. This has no bearing at all on the issue being debated. It makes no difference whether Nevill's wounds wound have been a little less severe had hollowpoints not been used. The only issue is whether the wounds he did suffer were able to incapacitate him and this whole line of argument you engage in is an invalid red herring.
The medical experts assessed the injuries and said they were not serious enough to prevent him from struggling with his killer and assess the evidence establishes he did struggle with his killer.
You do not provide anything to refute that evidence. You have no medical data that proves he would have been rapidly unconscious from the jaw shot nor any assessments from medical people who assess such and refute the medical reasoning of the trial experts. Rather you simply refuse to accept their assessments and make up your own and you make up your own simply because you choose to argue there was no struggle because that is what is needed for you to believe Jeremy is innocent.
With regard to blood on the stock I relied upon information from the CoA doc which makes no mention of this. When you provided documentary evidence providing additional info I was/am happy to accept this but it doesn't change my views. Bottom line is the rifle contained insufficient blood for grouping whereas the blood flake in the silencer measuring 1/4 of an inch was able to!?
That they failed to group it is immaterial. The pertinent issue is that they found blood on the stock and they determined this blood was back spatter that got there from someone who was being beaten being struck with the rifle. It makes no difference whose backspatter it was the killer not just the weapon would be hit with it. But only one person had injuries from the rifle butt, Nevill. So it had to be his blood. You never reassess your positions after they are proven false or evidence you were unaware of challenges them. You made up your positions at the outset of hearing about the case and will not change your views no matter what evidence is brought to bear. You simply dismiss or ignore any evidence that stands in the way of your beliefs.
Compare the SoC where NB was found with the SOC where Reeva Steenkamp was shot (hit with a cricket bat?):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3551257/Oscar-Pistorius-attacked-Reeva-Steenkamp-cricket-bat-shooting-dead-forensic-experts-claim.html
You claimed the bags SC's hands were placed in at SoC were forensically analysed. When I provided DC Hammersley's trial testimony confirming this was not the case you refused to accept it.
Please stick to debating the facts of the case as you see them and do not concern yourself with other posters. Please note how Myster and myself, who don't share the same case related views, are able to debate the case without any aggression, inflammatory language, goading etc. In future please refrain from any personal comments of any description eg You are .... or You ...
A little over two years ago this is what you posted about me on the Amytville forum:
"The main Jeremy supporter on the red board is Holly (who exchanges letters with Bamber) but she doesn't post much in detail anymore because I pretty much smashed her claims to pieces. So things will probably get dull there too now. If the blue board would approve my membership then some real sparks would fly but I don't see that happening."
http://www.amityvillefaq.com/truthboard/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1771&start=3087
I do stick to the facts you hide from many of them (those that dispute the narrative you like to present) Hammersley didn't do the testing of the swabs and bags the lab did. His claims are not of any consequence it is hearsay. Your claim that all the GSR wiped off her hands onto the bags in the meantime is ridiculous you want o pretend her hands were moving all over transferring GSR. some of the facts I mentioned were that they failed to test the hair sample. The strongest legal argument the defense could make was that the hair sample was the best sample because GSR stays in the hair far longer than on skin. his is what the defense should have petitioned to be tested in hopes of finding something. I present all the sides of an issue I am not an advocate for one side or the other. That is one reason I like debating outside of work. In work I am forced to be an advocate while outside of work I can just objectively look at things.
Let's discuss some of the facts you keep hiding from to try to keep the pretense you are posting alive:
Fact: The bullet that grazed Nevill and the spent casing associated with this shot were found in the master bedroom.
Fact: The wound left a channel that ran left to right across Nevill's arm right above his elbow and then the bullet grazed Nevill's left side. This could only be accomplished with the killer standing to the left of Nevill somewhere in between the 8:45 and 9:45 positions.
You ignore these facts and you assert inspite of them that Nevill was shot while he was walking down the stairs with the killer in the 9 O'clock position. What else can one call it but ignoring the facts?
It is fair to point out that if he was grazed by a bullet while walking down the stairs that the bullet would be found on the stairs or even on the ground level. It is fair to point out that the graze happened int he room where the bullet was found. Even though this has been pointed out to you countless times you refuse to even address it let alone consider it. How else can this be characterized other than you ignoring this fact?
It is fair to point out that it is absolutely impossible to achieve the trajectory of the shot while someone was walking down the stairs because the killer was to the left of Nevill not directly behind him. You just ignore such ad say you believe he was shot from behind. Your believe is not supported by anything and is contrary to the evidence. It is fair to point this pout.
Fact: Nevill all wounds to Nevill deliver upstairs were from the left side. All 3 entrance wounds were on the left side and the trajectories of the bullets after entering such wounds were left to right.
Fact: When walking up the stairs Nevill's right side was facing the bedroom and thus it is impossible for someone to shoot him in the left side as he was coming up the stairs.
Nevill being shot in the bedroom with June is very damning to Jeremy's claim that he received a distress call. To try to pretend the distress call happened you and other supporters say Sheila shot June in the bedroom and then Nevill heard and came running up the stairs and was shot. This was not a theory that was arrived at by following the evidence where it leads but rather was invented in order to correspond with Jeremy's claims.
After coming up with such theory you have tried to find evidence you can point to in support of it. Sheila shooting June and only June then going to her room makes no sense so you don't allege such even though that is the only thing you could argue in order for her to shoot Nevill as he comes up the stairs. You ignored that the left side could only be targeted from Sheila's door. you ignore that and just pretend that he could have been shot from the master bedroom. If a jury found that it is the sort of thing that could be challenged because no rational trier of fact could find such in light of the evidence. By pointing this out I am sticking to the facts.
My criticisms or your methodology and positions are fully valid and are not personal attacks. Saying you have poor grammar or are a dummy would be launching personal attacks. I criticize your approach to this case and stances taken in this case, that is fair game. When people approach a case with an agenda it is fair to point that out.
Let's be honest here of what is going on at the end of the day. I made points that you don't want to believe but have been accepted by the courts as true and that you have no way to refute. You respond by saying you don't care you are going to believe what you want to believe and you don't like anyone pointing out that in order to believe such you have to resort to ignoring evidence that proves you wrong. You want to pretend your views are valid interpretations of the evidence.
There are some unknowns in this case where there are multiple interpretations possible but the key issues we keep debating are not among them. When, where, how and why the wounds to Nevill's back were caused is unknown. There are numerous different speculations as to such. In contrast there is evidence proving the initial attack was on Nevill and June in the master bedroom. There is no question the 4 casings associated with these shots were in the bedroom as well as the bullet that grazed Nevill. There is no question that Nevill was not fully upright when shot in the shoulder and arm. The trajectory of the casings and location of the casings corresponds to where they would be expected with him shot while sitting in the bed. This is why the prosecution presented this scenario and why the defense failed to challenge it. Your desire to challenge this is not because the evidence fails to support this scenario. You choose to challenge it because you advocate on behalf of Jeremy and it is unfavorable to him. Even when you fail to find sufficient evidence to challenge some facts you don't care and refuse to accept them anyway. You don't want to face any criticism for so doing that is the bottom line. But it is fair to criticize such.
