Is wiggy correct about there being reasonable doubt?

[scipio_usmc]

Wiggy Wrote:"1.  See Julie Mugford immunity thread.

Wiggy Wrote:"2. The silencer and the blood evidence now casts doubt on whether the blood in there was Sheilas."

This is blatantly false. The defense failed to come up with anything to cast doubt on the blood inside being Sheila's.  The prosecution contended it was Sheila's blood because:

1) Sheila is the only one who suffered from a contact wound that would definitely result in drawback
A) this means her blood had to be deposited in the moderator if it was attached when the shot was fired or the rifle if the moderator was not attached when the shot was fired.  SO her blood HAD to be in either the rifle or the moderator
B) No blood was found in the rifle but was found in the moderator proving the moderator was attached when the gun was fired
C) The blood was consistent with Sheila's it was group A and had the AK1 enzyme.

What does this mean? 

It means for sure the fatal shot was not fired without the moderator attached and that her blood had to be in the moderator.  It means even if June and Nevill had suffered from contact shots as well that resulted in drawback then it would mean all their blood was mixed inside. Their blood being found inside doesn't establish that Sheila's wasn't as well.  But if June's blood had been inside then the AK/2 enzyme would have been found.  There is no way for a mixture to not intimately mix unless June was killed much earlier- such a substantial amount of time earlier that her blood dried before Nevill was shot.  It is clear that didn't happen.  Wiggy grossly distorted the scientific evidence to pretend there is a reason to doubt it.

His bias became even more clear when he wrote it should not even have been allowed in court because the family found it. That is not a legal basis to keep it out though.  One has to establish the family planted the evidence inside to keep it out entirely.  There is no such evidence and it is quite clear they didn't.  This is not an effort by someone legal minded like Wiggy is trying to pretend it is a Jeremy supporter simply rendering his desire to help Jeremy by keeping out evidence that he ca't legitimately discredit but wants ignored because it proves Jeremy guilty.

Then there is this joke:

Wiggy wrote"3. Did JB dad make a call to his son.  What evidence did the prosecution bring to disprove this call.
in reading the evidence there is no evidence either way the reason the jury were so easily persuaded that the call may not have happened was that they felt (based on JMs testimony that is was possible that JB was lying) that it was more likely a way of inventing an alibi. However if they knew about JMs immunity and newspaper deal they would not have easily believed her and would have been more likely to take JB at his word"

Wiggy simply makes up the lie that the disbelief hinged on Julie and then resorted to his bogus claim that her story was discredited so there is nothing to doubt his claims of receiving a call.

He ignored all the reasons why the call is doubted:

1) The attack started in the master bedroom where there was no phone because Jeremy had removed it in advance of the murders to make sure no one could use it to call for help before he could kill them.  After this initial attack Nevill could not speak his voicebox was severed so the claim he received a call is not possible.

2) It is not plausible Nevill would have called Jeremy anyway even if he could.  The person best suited to calm Sheila down if she had an episode was Nevill. He was the one she would instantly calm down for.  Jeremy did not get along with her why would he ask Jeremy to come try to calm her down?  He was the largest and strongest member of the family he had as much if not more ability to disarm her than Jeremy and he had the need and opportunity to disarm her.   Why would he call Jeremy and ask Jeremy to come disarm her and hope that Jeremy could arrive in time? 

3) The claim the phone was disconnected by Sheila attacking Nevill to stop him from talking further clearly was a lie.  That was the stage Jeremy set by pretending Nevill used the kitchen phone to call him and then got disconnected as she attacked but it is nonsense.  The attack started in the bedroom.  It is not plausible she allowed him to call from the kitchen then finally broke up the call after he already told Jeremy the problem and then marched him up to the bedroom so she could kill Nevill and June together in the bedroom.

4) Jeremy phoned Julie before the time he claimed Nevill called him.

5) It is impossible for Sheila to have killed herself and the evidence proved she didn't kill anyone else so clearly someone else did it and no way would Nevill phone Jeremy to lie and say Sheila did it instead of identifying the real killer.

6) Jeremy's actions show he didn't really receive a call.  If he had then he would have dialed 999.  He called Julie around 3 then 20 minutes later he looked up phone numbers to call police.  This shows no sense of urgency at all. After looking up 1 station where the phones were unmanned he looked up another and still didn't dial 999.  He had no sense of urgency at the scene either and lied to police telling them Sheila had fired all weapons in the house and was proficient with them.  He even lied about leaving the weapon in the kitchen with extra bullets to pretend Sheila had found a weapon of opportunity.

7) Julie's testimony which is not in the least bit impeached by Wiggy's claims

This is why his claim is not believable.  Te claim the evidence didn't establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is nonsense and that is why the courts refuse to interfere with the verdict.

People are welcome to point Wiggy to this post or to cut and paste and post it on blue.

 34

[Myster]

That's a crafty cut & paste way of getting back on blue, scipio! 

They lost a gem when you were banned. 

[puglove]

That's a crafty cut & paste way of getting back on blue, scipio! 

They lost a gem when you were banned. 

Ho ho!! I always knew that this would happen. Scipio leaves blue, and it immediately reverts to Hinge and Bracket discusssing their blood pressure, and another crazy old bird who put pubes in her dead husband's pocket, and hovers 24/7 over her Pringles-strewn laptop, annoying everyone with "projection" and "IMO" and "Ty" and "are you Tim Bennett?".

All done in the name of Jeremy Bamber, which amuses me muchly!!

 

[Holly Goodhead]

Bet Scipio is missing his long drawn out mass debating sessions on Blue with Mike:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once upon a time there were two good Catholic boys on Blue: Mike and Scipio

They were real so and so's

Fast and furious mass debaters; it was no mean feat

Lie and cheat especially when facing defeat

Although entertaining from the comfort of my favourite seat

Justice will prevail; I remain up-beat

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Myster]

Bet Scipio is missing his long drawn out mass debating sessions on Blue with Mike:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once upon a time there were two good Catholic boys on Blue: Mike and Scipio

They were real so and so's

Fast and furious mass debaters; it was no mean feat

Lie and cheat especially when facing defeat

Although entertaining from the comfort of my favourite seat

Justice will prevail; I remain up-beat

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Carol Ann Duffy's Poet Laureate job is safe. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Carol Ann Duffy's Poet Laureate job is safe. 

Just. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Bet Scipio is missing his long drawn out mass debating sessions on Blue with Mike:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once upon a time there were two good Catholic boys on Blue: Mike and Scipio

They were real so and so's

Fast and furious mass debaters; it was no mean feat

Lie and cheat especially when facing defeat

Although entertaining from the comfort of my favourite seat

Justice will prevail; I remain up-beat

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scipio on a serious note can you confirm for me please if the blood is indicative of medium impact spatter?  Thanks. 

[scipio_usmc]

Bet Scipio is missing his long drawn out mass debating sessions on Blue with Mike:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once upon a time there were two good Catholic boys on Blue: Mike and Scipio

They were real so and so's

Fast and furious mass debaters; it was no mean feat

Lie and cheat especially when facing defeat

Although entertaining from the comfort of my favourite seat

Justice will prevail; I remain up-beat

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My posts to Mike were not long.  I simply posted the facts and how he was lying.  He banned me so no one would point out his lies anymore and he thinks that if no one points them out it means they accept them.  Most people there ignore him it is a very odd dynamic.  He has certain followers like lookout and nugs but for the most part he posts to himself.  When I pointed out his lies he simply changed the subject to something else. You can't really call it a debate or even much of a discussion.

Non-Mike threads were moreso discussions though they also rarely stayed on topic. The concept of having threads to discuss specific issues and stay on that to the best extend possible and create a new thread for a new issue doesn't really happen which makes little sense since threads pop up instantly they don't need to be approved. 

[John]

My posts to Mike were not long.  I simply posted the facts and how he was lying.  He banned me so no one would point out his lies anymore and he thinks that if no one points them out it means they accept them.  Most people there ignore him it is a very odd dynamic.  He has certain followers like lookout and nugs but for the most part he posts to himself.  When I pointed out his lies he simply changed the subject to something else. You can't really call it a debate or even much of a discussion.

Non-Mike threads were moreso discussions though they also rarely stayed on topic. The concept of having threads to discuss specific issues and stay on that to the best extend possible and create a new thread for a new issue doesn't really happen which makes little sense since threads pop up instantly they don't need to be approved.

Mike doesn't like to be challenged about the Bamber case and especially not in his own back yard, one usually gets a f... off or some other choice response for doing so.  He recycles the same old nonsense month after month with little variation.

Long posts tend to be boring for many readers and by the time they reach the end of them the meaning has been lost.  Mike also likes to write long rambling posts one after the other even in one long thread quoting his own posts in new posts, all very odd.

[scipio_usmc]

This response is to David.

1) See Julie Mugford immunity thread.


2) Here is what I wrote:

"Is it true that she likely made up the story so she could testify falsely at trial and then go sell her story?  No one with half a brain would claim such so this argument is also nonsense."

Here is what david wrote:

Here we have Scipio's opinion that claiming someone would lie in court in for a large sum of money is so stupid one would have to posses less than half a brain to make such argument. Yet at the same time Scipio is trying to convince you that someone would murder five members of his family for a large sum of money?   How is this guy allowed to practice law?
----

Killing people to get inheritances and insurance money happens all the time.  Have you ever heard of a case of someone going to police and making up a story so that the person could testify at trial to get such person falsely convicted so that after the conviction the person could get a big payday from a tabloid?   Never?  That is why such a suggestion is so stupid and clearly David is as well since he thinks the suggestion has merit. Mind you we know that she turned down tons of other chances for paid interviews so clearly wasn't after money...

3)  David again turned to pointless allegations by Paul Terzeon that the Appeal Court rejected.  He can't get it through his head that they were rejected because they had no merit.  His allegations in the meantime failed to deal with the points I made:

"That was in 1986. Today the defence has a much better argument Again I refer you to the writing of Paul Terzeon 2002"

What much better argument?  The argument was torn to shreds by the court thus rejected.  The court rejected it for the same exact reasons I posted:

"It means for sure the fatal shot was not fired without the moderator attached and that her blood had to be in the moderator.  It means even if June and Nevill had suffered from contact shots as well that resulted in drawback then it would mean all their blood was mixed inside. Their blood being found inside doesn't establish that Sheila's wasn't as well.  But if June's blood had been inside then the AK/2 enzyme would have been found.  There is no way for a mixture to not intimately mix unless June was killed much earlier- such a substantial amount of time earlier that her blood dried before Nevill was shot.  It is clear that didn't happen.  Wiggy grossly distorted the scientific evidence to pretend there is a reason to doubt it."

Nothing the defense alleged in 2002 addressed any of this.  The court noted that there was no conceivable way for the blood to not intimately mix and the only way it was even possible for there to have been a mixture that was undetected would be if the blood didn't intimately mix. The court expressly addressed the fact that other victim blood being inside the moderator would not mean that Sheila's blood wasn't in there as well. They noted the evidence that Sheila's blood had to be in there because it wasn't in the rifle itself and drawback would occur from her fatal wound.  David keeps ignoring this significant issue. I am a good lawyer precisely because I actually recognize the key issues and arguments and I explicitly address them.  If you ignore them like Jeremy's lawyers did and can't refute the key issues then you lose plain and simple.

4) I have provided great detail about how the murders occurred.  We know for sure the murderer entered the bedroom first and attacked Nevill and June firing no less then 6 shots into June and 4 into Nevill then with the gun empty either Jeremy or Nevill ran to the kitchen with the other in pursuit and caught up to the one being chased in the kitchen where the struggle occurred.  We know for sure this is what happened because the bullet that grazed Nevill was in the bedroom as well as 4 casings.  The 4 wounds were all to Nevill's left profile and he wasn't fully upright when 2 of the shots were fired.  This shows all 4 shots were fired before Nevill moved and was facing the killer straight on. June would not have still been in bed if they were shot int he bedroom at different times. The event only progressed to the kitchen because the gun was empty.  This proves the gun was fully loaded when the killer entered the bedroom and shot them.  It is clear the killer started there.  It is only natural to start there since they posed the biggest threat.

David constantly ignores this Land suggests the boys were shot first in which case the killer coudl not have fired 10 shots at the parents because the gun would not have 10 bullets in it thus proving his claims nonsense.  He ignores such though and simply pretends we have no idea who was shot first and accusines me of just making things up though my rendition is well supported contrary to his fantasy of the boys being killed first:

"There is no proof the attack started in the Master bedroom. Only the killer would no this information for sure, However its most likely the twins where shot first considering the positions they were found in. Had Jeremy received such a call its obvious Neville would have called before he was shot having then gone upstairs and retreated down again from being shot after he called Jeremy."

The final magazine load of 10 shots was used on the boys and Sheila (8 on the boys and 2 on Sheila) resulting int he weapon being empty at the end. The notion the boys were killed first is stupid in addition to obvious nonsense based on the evidence.

5) In response to the following logical reasoning I presented:

It is not plausible Nevill would have called Jeremy anyway even if he could.  The person best suited to calm Sheila down if she had an episode was Nevill. He was the one she would instantly calm down for.  Jeremy did not get along with her why would he ask Jeremy to come try to calm her down?  He was the largest and strongest member of the family he had as much if not more ability to disarm her than Jeremy and he had the need and opportunity to disarm her.   Why would he call Jeremy and ask Jeremy to come disarm her and hope that Jeremy could arrive in time? 

The claim the phone was disconnected by Sheila attacking Nevill to stop him from talking further clearly was a lie.  That was the stage Jeremy set by pretending Nevill used the kitchen phone to call him and then got disconnected as she attacked but it is nonsense.  The attack started in the bedroom.  It is not plausible she allowed him to call from the kitchen then finally broke up the call after he already told Jeremy the problem and then marched him up to the bedroom so she could kill Nevill and June together in the bedroom.

Jeremy phoned Julie before the time he claimed Nevill called him.

It is impossible for Sheila to have killed herself and the evidence proved she didn't kill anyone else so clearly someone else did it and no way would Nevill phone Jeremy to lie and say Sheila did it instead of identifying the real killer.

Jeremy's actions show he didn't really receive a call.  If he had then he would have dialed 999.  He called Julie around 3 then 20 minutes later he looked up phone numbers to call police.  This shows no sense of urgency at all. After looking up 1 station where the phones were unmanned he looked up another and still didn't dial 999.  He had no sense of urgency at the scene either and lied to police telling them Sheila had fired all weapons in the house and was proficient with them.  He even lied about leaving the weapon in the kitchen with extra bullets to pretend Sheila had found a weapon of opportunity."

David responded with this:

Trying to diminish reasonable doubt by mere speculation wont convince a coherent well reasoned person. I want to see the beef show me the documents.

My verdict on Scipios claims [laughing].

---

David failed to address my points substantively because he can't.

Hilariously he said he wants to see the documents.  Did he see any documents proving immunity was granted?  No just an allegation by Jeremy's lawyer which we know was false because the 2002 Appeal makes it crystal clear there was no grant of immunity.

He also ignored the other points made by the court including ignoring that they rejected the other allegations David referred to.  David should take his own advice and actually read the documents. The documents prove me totally correct.

[ edited out inappropriate comments ]

 

 

[david1819]

Your supposed proof Julie was granted immunity is Paul Terezon alleging she was granted immunity.  His allegation was not supported by any evidence and simply a mischaracterization.

Not only did I provide a letter from Paul Terzeon I also provided a letter from the Crown Prosecutor  saying that charges will be dropped so Julie could testify against Jeremy.
You ignored this why? For your own convenience due to that fact you cant put it under scrutiny.

His argument to the Court of Appeals failed miserably. 

3)  Further proof that David isn't nearly as bright as he thinks is that the again turned to pointless allegations by Paul Terzeon that the Appeal Court rejected.

Yes as do many. But it does not imply the defence was wrong. The court of appeal upholds convictions of the innocent all too often. Refusal to quash a conviction does not prove guilt nor does it prove the arguments made are false. It simply means the Judges are not satisfied with what is presented. Victor Nealon, Barry George and Stefan Kiszko all had appeals rejected yet in the later years proven innocence. Hear for example you can read two COA transcrips of innocent peoples defence arguments failing miserably
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/247.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1923.html

Killing people to get inheritances and insurance money happens all the time.  Have you ever heard of a case of someone going to police and making up a story so that the person could testify at trial to get such person falsely convicted so that after the conviction the person could get a big payday from a tabloid?   Never?  That is why such a suggestion is so stupid and clearly David is as well since he thinks the suggestion has merit. Mind you we know that she turned down tons of other chances for paid interviews so clearly wasn't after money...

Yes, Michael Carson did just that in 1994. He told the authorities and testified at trial that Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols confessed to him in gruesome details how they murdered Michael Moore, Steven Branch and Christopher Byers. Michael Carson then sold his story to the Arkansas Sun newspaper. Carson has now admitted it was all a lie he made up. 

"It means for sure the fatal shot was not fired without the moderator attached and that her blood had to be in the moderator.  It means even if June and Nevill had suffered from contact shots as well that resulted in drawback then it would mean all their blood was mixed inside. Their blood being found inside doesn't establish that Sheila's wasn't as well.  But if June's blood had been inside then the AK/2 enzyme would have been found.  There is no way for a mixture to not intimately mix unless June was killed much earlier- such a substantial amount of time earlier that her blood dried before Nevill was shot.  It is clear that didn't happen.  Wiggy grossly distorted the scientific evidence to pretend there is a reason to doubt it."
Nothing the defense alleged in 2002 addressed any of this.  The court noted that there was no conceivable way for the blood to not intimately mix and the only way it was even possible for there to have been a mixture that was undetected would be if the blood didn't intimately mix. The court expressly addressed the fact that other victim blood being inside the moderator would not mean that Sheila's blood wasn't in there as well.

Its never been proven that the blood was Shelia's only DNA could have proved one way or another. I refer you back to the testimony of Mark Webster 29th October 2002 if you want to a good argument on a blood mixture. Also I suggest you read the cross examination of Mr Hayward by Rivlin QC in the 1986 were Mr Hayward admits it may not be Shelias blood.

They noted the evidence that Sheila's blood had to be in there because it wasn't in the rifle itself and drawback would occur from her fatal wound.  David keeps ignoring this significant issue.

No because A. Its never been shown that a .22 would create blood drawback. Malcom Fletcher claims there would be blood in blood in the barrell however he still informs the COA That there is a slim possibility of it not happening. 
B. The rifle was not handled property not by modern standards anyway, The police beliving it was an open and shut case took no care in the handling of the exibits.
C. If the blood was put in the soundmoderator deliberatly then the argument for there being no blood in the rifle barrell falls apart completely.

4) I have provided great detail about how the murders occurred.  We know for sure the murderer entered the bedroom first and attacked Nevill and June firing no less then 6 shots into June and 4 into Nevill then with the gun empty either Jeremy or Nevill ran to the kitchen with the other in pursuit and caught up to the one being chased in the kitchen where the struggle occurred.  We know for sure this is what happened because the bullet that grazed Nevill was in the bedroom as well as 4 casings.  The 4 wounds were all to Nevill's left profile and he wasn't fully upright when 2 of the shots were fired.  This shows all 4 shots were fired before Nevill moved and was facing the killer straight on. June would not have still been in bed if they were shot int he bedroom at different times. The event only progressed to the kitchen because the gun was empty.  This proves the gun was fully loaded when the killer entered the bedroom and shot them.  It is clear the killer started there.  It is only natural to start there since they posed the biggest threat.

you have provided speculation that fits the scene it does not mean that your version is what actully took place. As other senarios also fit the scene. we have discussed this on blue several times already

David constantly ignores this and stupidly suggests the boys were shot first in which case the killer coudl not have fired 10 shots at the parents because the gun would not have 10 bullets in it thus proving his claims nonsense.  He ignores such though and simply pretends we have no idea who was shot first and accusines me of just making things up though my rendition is well supported contrary to his fantasy of the boys being killed first:

First of all i dont have a "Fantasy" of the boys being shot first. I speculate the twins were shot first and its not just me that 'stupidly suggests' this theory.

Investigator Richard Webster and his colleague Bob woffinden believes this also quote
"Taking his father’s rifle, whose ten-bullet magazine he had loaded earlier that evening, he crept upstairs.
It seems almost certain that he shot the children first. He then crossed the landing to his parents’ bedroom."

The final magazine load of 10 shots was used on the boys and Sheila (8 on the boys and 2 on Sheila) resulting int he weapon being empty at the end. The notion the boys were killed first is stupid in addition to obvious nonsense based on the evidence.

The evidence shows the twins were fast asleep when they were shot. To say they were shot last before shelia means they would have to sleep through the shootings in the room across the hall and the altercation in the kitchen. While Jeremy was fighting Neville in the kitchen why did Shelia not attend to protect the twins inevitably waking them.

5) In response to the following logical reasoning I presented:

It is not plausible Nevill would have called Jeremy anyway even if he could.  The person best suited to calm Sheila down if she had an episode was Nevill. He was the one she would instantly calm down for.  Jeremy did not get along with her why would he ask Jeremy to come try to calm her down?  He was the largest and strongest member of the family he had as much if not more ability to disarm her than Jeremy and he had the need and opportunity to disarm her.   Why would he call Jeremy and ask Jeremy to come disarm her and hope that Jeremy could arrive in time? 

Again you speculate and so overconfident in yourself it seems fact to you. did you know the family and the ins and outs of their relations to one another? No

He failed to address my points substantively because he can't.

Well I can and I did. For someone who never admits they are wrong and never contemplates being wrong it would easily seem that way.

[scipio_usmc]

Yes as do many. But it does not imply the defence was wrong.
The Court expressly found the defense claims were wrong.  They found the defense allegations lacking in proof, lacking in common sense and without merit.  It was not a close call they got killed on every single allegation they made. It wasn't a decision like in the Kercher case where the judges simply made up nonsense or decided to validate nonsense to justify convicting Knox and Sollecito, it was a well reasoned opinion that no one to this day has been able to credibly attack.  Irrational Jeremy supporters attack it but come up with nothing rational to do so with.

The court of appeal upholds convictions of the innocent all too often. Refusal to quash a conviction does not prove guilt nor does it prove the arguments made are false. It simply means the Judges are not satisfied with what is presented. Victor Nealon, Barry George and Stefan Kiszko all had appeals rejected yet in the later years proven innocence. Hear for example you can read two COA transcrips of innocent peoples defence arguments failing miserably
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/247.html

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/1923.html

Yes, Michael Carson did just that in 1994. He told the authorities and testified at trial that Jason Baldwin and Damien Echols confessed to him in gruesome details how they murdered Michael Moore, Steven Branch and Christopher Byers. Michael Carson then sold his story to the Arkansas Sun newspaper. Carson has now admitted it was all a lie he made up.

You resort to the same worthless nonsense other Jeremy supporters do.  You avoid dealing specifically with the issues at hand to try saying other cases mean Jeremy's case is in doubt.  What critical witness is this case changed their testimony after the conviction?  None so what relevance is it that in other cases key witnesses changed their story and then an appeal courts acted on such?  It has nothing to do with this case at all.

Its never been proven that the blood was Shelia's only DNA could have proved one way or another. I refer you back to the testimony of Mark Webster 29th October 2002 if you want to a good argument on a blood mixture. Also I suggest you read the cross examination of Mr Hayward by Rivlin QC in the 1986 were Mr Hayward admits it may not be Shelias blood.

It was proven it was Sheila's blood.  Just because you will accept nothing short of DNA evidence means nothing courts are more ration than you.

Hayward said there was a very remote chance it wasn't her blood.  That's not enough to rise to reasonable doubt particularly in the face of the following irrefuted evidence:

1) that Sheila suffered a contact wound which would result in drawback
2) that neither her blood nor any blood was found in the rifle
3) that blood was found in the moderator proving it was used to commit the murders
4) that Sheila is the only one who the blood could have come from alone
5) that if any of the removed blood had been June's then AK2-1 would have been detected because Ak-1 was detected and is less hardy than AK2-1 so if AK-1 still remained then so would Ak2-1. 
6) that if there was an intimate mixture of blood there would be no way not to know this; if it didn't intimately mix there would be a small chance not to recognize it.
7) that testing was done and there was no way for blood not to intimately mix in the moderator unless there was a very significant gap in time between the time multiple victims were shot and the blood of the first victim dried before the blood of the second victim got inside.
8) That it is unlikely any of the wounds suffered by Nevill or June were contact wounds and only contact wounds can result in drawback.

That is the evidence presented at trial which in total proves it was Sheila's blood.  This evidence has not been contracted to this day.  To this day the defense is unable to refute that Sheila suffered from a contact wound that would have resulted in drawback.  The significant implication of this is that her blood would be in the rifle if it had been used without the moderator or in the moderator if the moderator were used.  It was not in the rifle so the moderator had to be used. 

Webster didn't even try to refute this and didn't address this problem at all.  The Appeal court expressly noted the defense failed to deal with this problem.

Webster admitted straight out to the Court that the DNA testing was worthless because it had zero ability to establish whose blood was removed from the moderator in 1985 and 1986 by the prosecution and defense experts at most it could establish whose blood still remained after such.  BUT no blood was detected in the moderator so there was no way to prove that anyone's blood remained it it.  He discussed how the DNA inside might have been through contamination and may not be blood based so had no ability to assess whose blood had been inside it.  Thus he admitted the DNA testing was meaningless.

Webster testimony to the court was little more than a joke. He stated he speculated the flake was not a flake of blood but rather a flake of soot that some blood got on.  This the court laughed at.  Next he said that he speculated Juen and Nevill's blood were inside but didn't intimately mix. He had ZERO support for his speculation that it is possible for blood to not intimately mix in a moderator.  The support he tried to present dealt with blood not intimately mixing on cloth a totally different situation that didn't apply to a metal surface. His other supposed support was a case he screwed up royally.  He claimed it featured one thing but when the court looked into it, it wound up the case didn't have the proposition he claimed.

The only thing new brought out was that Lincoln though Hayward dissolved the flake then divides the solution into 5 parts and tested each part.  In reality he cut the flake into 5 pieces then dissolved each portion and ran tests on each of the 5 solutions.  Webster failed to establish that this difference changed anything. Indeed it didn't change anything.  If June's AK2-1 had been present in the flake then it would have been detected in one of the 5 solutions. That is why Webster failed to even allege to the court that it changed anything which in turn resulted in the following notation by the Court:

"In one respect Dr Lincoln was in error. Whether that error was from something said by Mr Hayward or simply from an assumption made by Dr Lincoln cannot now be ascertained and matters not. The error was to suggest that the whole of the blood flake was dissolved and the resulting solution was used for all the tests. In fact what had happened was that the flake had been divided into a number of parts and each part had then been used for a separate group test. Thus the tests were not done on liquid drawn from the same solution made from the whole flake but on separate solutions each made from distinct parts of the flake. We have no means of knowing whether correction of this error would in any way have altered Dr Lincoln's view. "

The ONLY thing Webster offered to the court was his unsupported theory that he thought it might be possible for blood to not intimately mix but he lacked the ability to test his theory to establish it is actually possible and had no evidence that anyone else had established it possible. In the meantime he had no answer as to why her blood wasn't in the rifle if she had been shot with the rifle sans moderator given her second wound was a wound that would result in drawback.   

The bottom line is very simple the only way for the moderator not to have been used to kill Sheila is if police/the lab concealed the finding of her blood in the rifle and her blood or blood with the same exact properties as hers was planted in  the moderator. 

This is why steadfast Jeremy supporters like Mike insist blood was planted and the finding of blood int he rifle muzzle concealed.  Of course they have no a shred of evidence to establish such allegations though.

No because A. Its never been shown that a .22 would create blood drawback. Malcom Fletcher claims there would be blood in blood in the barrell however he still informs the COA That there is a slim possibility of it not happening.

This is a perfect example of how you make up nonsense.  Did any experts at trial or any of the appeals testify that a .22LR weapon would lack the ability to cause drawback?  No!  This nonsense is made up by Jeremy supporters.  This is not testimony coming from any experts.  Why didn't they have any experts claim this?  Because they couldn't find any who would say it is not possible for 22LR weapons to cause drawback.  No experts are willing to assert such because it is documented fact that drawback has been found inside 22LR weapons and also in moderators that were attached to 22LR weapons.

Fletcher stated it was a remote possibility for blood to be a mixture and go undetected as a mixture BUT he didn't think that was the case here because:

1) the only way for that to happen would be if blood did not intimately mix and he tested to see if it would be possible for blood to not intimately mix in the moderator but his testing revealed it wasn't possible
2) because there were no wounds on the other victims that would result in drawback so their blood would not be found inside
3) because if the moderator had not been used then her blood would have been found in the rifle

So he said this is why he saw the remote possibility as not the case.

B. The rifle was not handled property not by modern standards anyway, The police beliving it was an open and shut case took no care in the handling of the exibits.

That doesn't undermine the blood evidence in any way it just creates the ability for DNA contamination.

C. If the blood was put in the soundmoderator deliberatly then the argument for there being no blood in the rifle barrell falls apart completely.

No mental midget.  Both the planting of blood in the moderator and the concealing of blood found in the rifle muzzle would be necessary.  In the meantime the defense has no evidence of either and thus didn't make any allegation to the COA that blood was planted.  It would be unethical to make such an allegation without evidence and such an allegation means nothing anyway without evidence.  The fact that it is theoretically possible for blood to have been planted and the finding of blood inside was concealed doesn't establish reasonable doubt.  To establish reasonable doubt one must establish it is reasonably likely that such wrongdoing occurred.

you have provided speculation that fits the scene it does not mean that your version is what actully took place. As other senarios also fit the scene. we have discussed this on blue several times already

First of all i dont have a "Fantasy" of the boys being shot first. I speculate the twins were shot first and its not just me that 'stupidly suggests' this theory.

Your claims don't fit the scene and make no sense at all.  In order for your claims to fit the scene June and Nevill would have needed to be shot far less times in the bedroom attack because Jeremy would have had fewer bullets to use if he shot the boys first then went in the master bedroom.

You stupidly suggest he feared the boys waking up if he shot his parents first but didn't fear his parents waking up if he shot the boys first.  Kids generally sleep sounder and it was known that June was a light sleeper.  Logically he would prefer killing the parents and facing awake boys with few bullets remaining then to kill the boys and face parents with few bullets remaining. 

I follow the evidence where it leads whereas you ignore common sense to make up he would shoot the boys first and then ignore the evidence that proves that didn't happen.

The parents didn't wake up and jump out of bed and confront him after he shot the boys.  He started his attack in their room.  He began by shooting June as she was lying down and then began shooting Nevill as he was getting up. After running out of ammo one of the men ran downstairs with the other in pursuit.  In the kitchen is where the pursuer caught up and then the struggle happened as a result.  Nevill was beaten with the butt of the rifle, rendered unconscious then the killer reloaded the gun and shot him 4 times in the head killing him.  After this the killer reloaded the magazine fully using 8 of the ten bullets on the boys and 2 on Sheila. There is no question this is what happened.

Investigator Richard Webster and his colleague Bob woffinden believes this also quote
"Taking his father’s rifle, whose ten-bullet magazine he had loaded earlier that evening, he crept upstairs.
It seems almost certain that he shot the children first. He then crossed the landing to his parents’ bedroom."

Their irrational opinion simply means they are not very bright.  They also as one point suggested he wore a scuba
suit and were unaware the [hone was moved from the bedroom prior to the murders.  How does ignorant opinion undermine evidence? 

The evidence shows the twins were fast asleep when they were shot. To say they were shot last before shelia means they would have to sleep through the shootings in the room across the hall and the altercation in the kitchen. While Jeremy was fighting Neville in the kitchen why did Shelia not attend to protect the twins inevitably waking them.

Again you speculate and so overconfident in yourself it seems fact to you. did you know the family and the ins and outs of their relations to one another? No
In some situations yes people do laugh to mask their lack of intellect but in this case i am simply laughing at you becuase it warrents laughter


Well I can and I did. For someone who never admits they are wrong and never contemplats being wrong it would easily seem that way.

Yes i have seen the documnets from the CPS and Essex police, I have shown you these before yet you continue to ignore them as reading them would lead you to realise your wrong
 

The children's room shared no walls with the master bedroom.  The walls according to Jeremy supporters are very thick.  The silenced weapon is not loud.  Why would they wake up under these conditions? 

You prefer suggesting the parents didn't wake up from the boys being shot and he even fully reloaded the gun before going in their room?  Nonsense.

The main thread was the parents not the boys and that is why Jeremy killed them first. 

[ moderated ]

[david1819]

It was proven it was Sheila's blood.  Just because you will accept nothing short of DNA evidence means nothing courts are more ration than you.

Hayward said there was a very remote chance it wasn't her blood.  That's not enough to rise to reasonable doubt particularly in the face of the following irrefuted evidence:

1) that Sheila suffered a contact wound which would result in drawback
2) that neither her blood nor any blood was found in the rifle

You ignore the fact that had shelia killed herself and fired a second shot via vervous reflex or other body movement its possible the first shot was the contact wound,
hence the second partial contact wound would expel any drawback out the barrell.

3) that blood was found in the moderator proving it was used to commit the murders
4) that Sheila is the only one who the blood could have come from alone
5) that if any of the removed blood had been June's then AK2-1 would have been detected because Ak-1 was detected and is less hardy than AK2-1 so if AK-1 still remained then so would Ak2-1. 
6) that if there was an intimate mixture of blood there would be no way not to know this; if it didn't intimately mix there would be a small chance not to recognize it.
7) that testing was done and there was no way for blood not to intimately mix in the moderator unless there was a very significant gap in time between the time multiple victims were shot and the blood of the first victim dried before the blood of the second victim got inside.
8) That it is unlikely any of the wounds suffered by Nevill or June were contact wounds and only contact wounds can result in drawback.

That is the evidence presented at trial which in total proves it was Sheila's blood.  This evidence has not been contracted to this day.  To this day the defense is unable to refute that Sheila suffered from a contact wound that would have resulted in drawback.  The significant implication of this is that her blood would be in the rifle if it had been used without the moderator or in the moderator if the moderator were used.  It was not in the rifle so the moderator had to be used. 

Again you rely on evidence that has not only been poorly handled and lacks a chain of custody. It has passed through the hands of those with a major financial interest in securing a conviction.

Webster testimony to the court was little more than a joke

Your entitled to your opinion on Websters work.

This is a perfect example of how you make up nonsense.  Did any experts at trial or any of the appeals testify that a .22LR weapon would lack the ability to cause drawback?  No! 

Yes.
Transcript PMS/10 page 58): Malcom Fletcher "The most likely explanation for the blood being in the sound
    moderator is that it was fitted to the gun at the time the contact wound to Sheila
    Caffell's neck was fired. There is a very very slight possibility that I am wrong in my
    opinion, but I don't think so"

The bottom line is very simple the only way for the moderator not to have been used to kill Sheila is if police/the lab concealed the finding of her blood in the rifle and her blood or blood with the same exact properties as hers was planted in  the moderator. 

This is why steadfast Jeremy supporters like Mike insist blood was planted and the finding of blood int he rifle muzzle concealed.  Of course they have no a shred of evidence to establish such allegations though.

For steadfast Jeremy supporters conspiracy theory is the final refuge for them, that we can agree on.

Both the planting of blood in the moderator and the concealing of blood found in the rifle muzzle would be necessary.
In the meantime the defense has no evidence of either and thus didn't make any allegation to the COA that blood was planted.
It would be unethical to make such an allegation without evidence and such an allegation means nothing anyway without evidence.  The fact that it is theoretically possible for blood to have been planted and the finding of blood inside was concealed doesn't establish reasonable doubt.  To establish reasonable doubt one must establish it is reasonably likely that such wrongdoing occurred.

They have the peer reviewed report by Pathologist Dr David fowler and the experiments carried out by Firearms Expert Philip Boyce, both coming to the same conclusion that the silencer was not attached.
They also have the report by Professor Marco Meloni and Dr Cavelli claiming Jeremy was outside at the time of Shelia's death 

If all these experts are correct then that would mean a substantial conspiracy has taken place.


[ moderated ]

What credentials do you have in biology, medical pathology or firearms? None

What qualifies you to be an expert witness to challenge the above claims? Nothing!

Not even the court of Bongo Bongo land would have you as an expert witness on such matters. Any arguments you make on these subjects carry no professional legitimacy and you are no authority on the subjects. [ moderated ]

Your claims don't fit the scene and make no sense at all.  In order for your claims to fit the scene June and Nevill would have needed to be shot far less times in the bedroom attack because Jeremy would have had fewer bullets to use if he shot the boys first then went in the master bedroom.

You stupidly suggest he feared the boys waking up if he shot his parents first but didn't fear his parents waking up if he shot the boys first.  Kids generally sleep sounder and it was known that June was a light sleeper.  Logically he would prefer killing the parents and facing awake boys with few bullets remaining then to kill the boys and face parents with few bullets remaining. 

As I have discussed with you before, I believe Jeremy fired one shot at Daniel then one at Nicholas then entering his parents room fires the remaining eight rounds - four at June four at Neville. Then beats Neville to death or near death in the kitchen. Reloads the weapon (not necessarily full 10 rounds) then proceeds to shoot Shelia. Now Jeremy begins staging the scene to look like a psychotic rampage empties the remainder of the magazine shooting Neville three more times in the kitchen then reloads again shooting the corpses of June and the Twins to make it look like a deranged psychotic Shelia. For Jeremy committing the crime the only logical answer for the excessive gun fire specially at June and the Twins is to stage the scene making it look unplanned and random.

Your version although possible does not convince me for several reasons.

A) How could the twins have slept through the gunfire and inevitable screaming?
B) How could Shelia have slept though it? Your argument that children sleep differently is not valid for Shelia.
C) Why does Shelia not attend to her Children while Neville and Jeremy are fighting downstairs,
In the mist of such Chaos Shelia's first instinct would be to check on children and as a result have woken them up, This did not happen since they died asleep.

[Holly Goodhead]

Hello David

I'm not sure I understand the theory about SC suffering a contact wound causing draw-back and the second wound expelling this blood?  Have I understood you correctly and if so where does this theory come from?

My personal experience is that small children can sleep through a lot of noise.  Especially if they are out of routine and having late nights.  The twins were on school hols.  They had spent two days at the farm perhaps running around outside which normally wears them out.  It's also worth considering on the Sat eve before the tragedy the twins were present at CC's flat when he threw a house warming party.  In his book he tells that JM put the twins to bed and read them a bedtime story.  This was quite poignant for him as it ended up being his last opportunity to put the twins to bed as on the Sun he took them to WHF.  I think had the twins have woken/called out etc he would have made mention of this.  I dont know what sort of party it was in terms of music, number of guests etc but JB and JM state in their WS's they took SC home about midnight before returning to the party.  I think he does allude to the party as being busy but I would need to check the book to refer to his exact words.  Was the sound of gunshot, shouts, screams ? in a large farmhouse any greater than a number of people, music, laughter, chatter, internal/external doors opening and closing in a 2 ? bed flat?

I'm sceptical about the evidence of Dr's Melloni and Cavalli (this is the blood running/wet photo?)  Dr Craig, police surgeon with some 30 years experience, arrived at WHF at 8.10am.  At trial he said he thought SC had taken her own life but as far as I'm aware he has never made reference to SC's appearance indicating that she died later than the other victims and/or whilst JB was outside.

In CAL's interview with Dr Vanezis he states there was no evidence SC died later than the other victims and his comment about the partially digested food in her stomach applied to the other victims he just didnt note it.  Even if this might sound a bit odd I think Dr Craig's evidence sounds highly reliable.

 

[david1819]

Hello David

I'm not sure I understand the theory about SC suffering a contact wound causing draw-back and the second wound expelling this blood?  Have I understood you correctly and if so where does this theory come from?

Its Just a theory of mine, Had Shelia killed herself it cannot be determined which shot was fired first. One shot Vanezis described as a contact wound and the other as a partial contact wound. If the contact wound was the first wound then the second shot I'm guessing would push out all the blood from the first shot and being a partial contact wound wont nessisarily cause drawback. Its just a theory. wish I could do experiments :(