Forensic evidence. Was there really none ?

[Holly Goodhead]

I'm also adopted myself as it goes. I don't think its of any importance of this case. thou I could be wrong

Sef Gonzales, Brian Blackwell and the Manendez Brothers to name a few killed their parents and other family members. None of them where adopted.

Sef Gonzales before he was suspected sang the song 'One Sweet Day' infront the whole church at this families funeral! What a freak! you could not make it up

I think you might be mistaken David: 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034

[scipio_usmc]

I think you might be mistaken David: 

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034

Since you have nothing to refute the evidence that Sheila didn't even load a gun let alone fired one and that she can't have shot herself then moved herself flat, put the mdoerator away and put the bible in a pool of her blood you have an enromous problem.

You want to skip the physical evidence, skip Julie's testimony and just ASSUME that Sheila did it so you can then advance your anti-adoption agenda.

You are not fooling anyone and just making your self look bad in the process.

[Holly Goodhead]

Just when you mention disinheriting, that could very well have been the trigger for Jeremy.  With the twins growing up fast there was every likelihood that they would also have inherited which would see Jeremy's share diluted even further.

There was every likelihood that JB would have gone on to have a family of his own and I am sure NB and June would have ensured all their grandchildren were treated equally.

Grandparents often leave their grandchildren a legacy but the bulk of the estate normally goes to children. The reason for this is that grandparents usually have no idea how many grandchildren they might end up with post will (although this could obviously be changed) and post death, so the fairest way is seen as the bulk of the estate split equally between children.  In the case of the Bamber family SC might well have had further children and JB might well have had a  family of his own.

[John]

There was every likelihood that JB would have gone on to have a family of his own and I am sure NB and June would have ensured all their grandchildren were treated equally.

Grandparents often leave their grandchildren a legacy but the bulk of the estate normally goes to children. The reason for this is that grandparents usually have no idea how many grandchildren they might end up with post will (although this could obviously be changed) and post death, so the fairest way is seen as the bulk of the estate split equally between children.  In the case of the Bamber family SC might well have had further children and JB might well have had a  family of his own.

I don't think he would have lasted that long Holly.  It is not unusual for inheritance to skip a generation and that could very well have been what was on the cards in this family.

Jerry wanted it all and he wanted it NOW! 

 

[Holly Goodhead]

Since you have nothing to refute the evidence that Sheila didn't even load a gun let alone fired one and that she can't have shot herself then moved herself flat, put the mdoerator away and put the bible in a pool of her blood you have an enromous problem.

You want to skip the physical evidence, skip Julie's testimony and just ASSUME that Sheila did it so you can then advance your anti-adoption agenda.

You are not fooling anyone and just making your self look bad in the process.

If the above is as  strong as you claim it is then why did the CCRC refer the case to the CoA in 2002?  Why not say:

 'ok her DNA might not have been in the silencer but hey SC couldn't load a gun, move herself flat, put the moderator away, and put the bible in a pool of her blood?  And, and, and what about JM's testimony and, and, and the physical evidence?' 

"Agenda"...what may I ask is yours?  A man serving a life sentence, with as far as I am aware no light at the end of the tunnel, and yet you wish to spend copious amounts of time reinforcing the prosecution's position  &%+((£

Closed adoptions reached their peak in 1968 and are pretty much non-existent now.

[adam]

If the above is as  strong as you claim it is then why did the CCRC refer the case to the CoA in 2002?  Why not say:

 'ok her DNA might not have been in the silencer but hey SC couldn't load a gun, move herself flat, put the moderator away, and put the bible in a pool of her blood?  And, and, and what about JM's testimony and, and, and the physical evidence?' 

"Agenda"...what may I ask is yours?  A man serving a life sentence, with as far as I am aware no light at the end of the tunnel, and yet you wish to spend copious amounts of time reinforcing the prosecution's position  &%+((£

Closed adoptions reached their peak in 1968 and are pretty much non-existent now.

The relatives and COA were very critical of the CCRC referring the case to the COA.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't think he would have lasted that long Holly.  It is not unusual for inheritance to skip a generation and that could very well have been what was on the cards in this family.

Jerry wanted it all and he wanted it NOW!

If you mean that NB and June were effectively going to disown JB, and I don't see any evidence of this at all, then what about any children JB may have had?  Are you saying effectively NB and June would disown them as well?

Inheritance usually skips a generation as in the RB/PB scenario, when for example, they claimed they already had a significant inheritance tax liability and did not wish to add to their estate, but that was not the case with SC and JB ie they had no significant assets of their own and were much younger.   

[scipio_usmc]

If the above is as  strong as you claim it is then why did the CCRC refer the case to the CoA in 2002?  Why not say:

 'ok her DNA might not have been in the silencer but hey SC couldn't load a gun, move herself flat, put the moderator away, and put the bible in a pool of her blood?  And, and, and what about JM's testimony and, and, and the physical evidence?' 

"Agenda"...what may I ask is yours?  A man serving a life sentence, with as far as I am aware no light at the end of the tunnel, and yet you wish to spend copious amounts of time reinforcing the prosecution's position  &%+((£

Closed adoptions reached their peak in 1968 and are pretty much non-existent now.

1) Her DNA should not have been in the moderator because her blood was already removed in 1985 and 1986 and tests in 1998-99 revealed no blood remaining.  What matters is whether the blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 was hers.

2) Despite her DNA not supposed to be there it was. The court had no need to bother deciding whethe rit was or wasn't so said maybe it was maybe it wasn't but from the scientific standpoint enough markers matched to say it was her DNA.  The defense expert intentionally chose to ignore scientific standards to say maybe it was her maybe it wasn't in order to try to give the defense some false hope.

3) Since her DNA was there despite no blood remaining it means her DNA was transferred by contamination.

Why do people bother to point out these facts and others?  Because we care about the truth and facts.

Why should we stand by wathcing Jeremy supporters lie and distort in an effort to pretend he is the victim of an MOJ when the facts and evidence say otherwise?

 

[Holly Goodhead]

1) Her DNA should not have been in the moderator because her blood was already removed in 1985 and 1986 and tests in 1998-99 revealed no blood remaining.  What matters is whether the blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 was hers.

2) Despite her DNA not supposed to be there it was. The court had no need to bother deciding whethe rit was or wasn't so said maybe it was maybe it wasn't but from the scientific standpoint enough markers matched to say it was her DNA.  The defense expert intentionally chose to ignore scientific standards to say maybe it was her maybe it wasn't in order to try to give the defense some false hope.

3) Since her DNA was there despite no blood remaining it means her DNA was transferred by contamination.

Why do people bother to point out these facts and others?  Because we care about the truth and facts.

Why should we stand by wathcing Jeremy supporters lie and distort in an effort to pretend he is the victim of an MOJ when the facts and evidence say otherwise?

A recent thread has comprehensively covered all aspects of DNA and I don't propose to add to it:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg209101#msg209101

Why would you care if a bunch of mavericks on a couple of forums that about 0.000000000000000000001% of the population read think JB is the victim of a MoJ?  The people you need to worry about are those at the CCRC and CoA. who are actually capable of overturning JB's conviction.  If as you say the facts and evidence say otherwise, ie JB is not a MOJ, then its game, set and match surely?

[scipio_usmc]

A recent thread has comprehensively covered all aspects of DNA and I don't propose to add to it:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5861.msg209101#msg209101

Why would you care if a bunch of mavericks on a couple of forums that about 0.000000000000000000001% of the population read think JB is the victim of a MoJ?  The people you need to worry about are those at the CCRC and CoA. who are actually capable of overturning JB's conviction.  If as you say the facts and evidence say otherwise, ie JB is not a MOJ, then its game, set and match surely?

Why do you care about posting BS on forums? 

I don't care what you or other Jeremy supporters choose to believe. I do however care whether Jeremy supporters' lies fool others and the best way to prevent such is to present the truth so that people can see all the issues and make their own informed choice of whether to believe the truth or decide to irrationally believe the crap Jeremy supporters spew.

The fact I care about the truth being out there is not an odd thing to wonder about.  I like truth as should all people.  What is odd is why Jeremy supporters like yourself are so desperate to convince others to drink the same koolaid.