The fact jurors didn't question JM's testimony doesn't mean they swallowed it whole or at all. 2/12 didn't swallow it for sure.
At trial jurors were told by the judge:
how he got there and out again whether by the kitchen window or any other means, though of interest, cannot affect the outcome of the case"
The prosecution did not even have to identify the window let alone demonstrate it was possible to exit a window and secure it from within.
Then we come to all the physical evidence which was collected and recorded by way of blood stains, casings, distance of shots, trajectories of shots and wound tracks. All of this data needed going into a shooting reconstruction with jurors taken to WHF to see for themselves:
- did the perp burst into the main bedroom and open fire on June and NB
Or
- did the perp open fire on June in bed and was NB shot as he came up the stairs
In the case you mention of Kenneth Noye jurors were taken to soc and found Noye not guilty.
WHF to this day remains the only criminal case involving a mass shooting unwitnessed by others so the lawyers were inexperienced and completely out of their depths.
I believe the last CCRC application was comprehensively reviewed by CCRC over a lengthy period of time but I remain confident that JB will win a 3rd appeal with his conviction quashed.
They didn't have to identify the window, by Bambers own admission, he could enter via a window.
I don't know how you can't see that a reconstruction doesn't identify the killer?
Kenneth Noye being found 'not guilty' is clearly a problem for your notion that the jury should visit the scene.
