I don't think so. Its only a seemingly complex soc/trial when you first look into it. Once you purge your mind of all the BS this case has generated and see what is left its actually rather straight forward.
What you mean is that if we all agree with your version of events it's straight forward? If it is as straight forward as you would have us believe why is JB still behind bars 33 years on? Why did you at one time believe JB guilty? 33 years on we still don't know for sure how many shots were fired: 25 or 26? WHF is the UK's only peacetime mass shooting unwitnessed.
A witness can only answer questions that are asked. Mead was a witness introduced by the defence. Thus his initial examination (Like Bernard Knight) would have been by Rivlin QC who was pursuing his silencer was used blood mixture theory. Need I say more? Rivlin is not going to ask him any questions about whether the silencer was used or not because Rivlin is trying to persuade the jury that Sheila used it.
I think you might have shot yourself in the foot here David unless I've misunderstood you? Rivlin's strategy was based on the blood flake supposedly found inside the silencer representing an initimate mix of NB and June's blood from near contact wounds/the beating NB sustained resulting in backspatter entering the silencer. The premise then being that SC having killed her parents and children returned the silencer to the gun cupboard placing it in a bag behind a dart board before taking her own life sans silencer. So yes of course Rivlin wanted to reject the idea that SC's gsw's resulted in 'drawback' ie blood entering the silencer. This can be evidenced during Lawson's cross-examination of Fletcher.
Major Mead was an expert witness in the MacLennan Enquiry. MacLennan was a policeman who was secretly a homosexual and was about to be charged and arrested by the Hong Kong Police for soliciting male escorts. Under colonial law he would be facing a possible life sentence. He shot himself in the chest five times with a handgun inside his property that has all windows and doors secured from within. Sound familiar?
Maybe this is why Rivlin hired him? so he could question him on his experience of it and hope the jury would pick up on it.
It seems to me the UK was/is thin on the ground when it comes to experts in ballistics and pathology of gsw's due to UK's low crime rates involving firearms. No disrespect to the Major as I know very little about him but did cost and convenience play a part? Did David Napley's firm Kingsley Napley consider US experts? If they did it would probably have required Terzeon, Lawson and Rivling taking trips to US to meet with experts and the overall time and cost of doing so was likely to be significantly greater than saying instructing the Major.
Unless you have access to the Major's testimony how do you know what he was examined on?
Also according to Shelley. Mead said the shooter didn't need any shooting skills to hit the targets at that close range.
I think we can safely say that's true. I seem to recall as a child shooting plastic floating ducks at stalls on fairgrounds. The whole thing questioning SC's ability to load and operate the rifle and shoot victims at close range is imo sexist nonsense. Had JB had a same sex sibling who wasn't interested in guns, lived in London etc I doubt there would be the same questions asked. There's nothing remotely complicated about it. Compare 'Farm Girl' loading the mag, chambering a round, and letting off shots vs the complexity of operating a twin baby buggy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdAI9j_lDbcNote 'Farm Girls' long polished nails.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGpniIR5oqcUndisclosed evidence confirms a call was made by the police in WHF on that morning. Since the phone was allegedly found off the hook. The police must have either used that very phone or placed the handset back on the cradle and used the office phone. Either way the phone was tampered with.
Depressing the black bits that are depressed when the receiver sits on the cradle would clear the line. There would be no need to tamper with the receiver to clear the line.
Of course it would make sense for Rivlin to have argued that Neville made the call and then returned upstairs and as a result got shot. Since he could have and didn't it does not constitute a fresh argument. Thus cannot be used at appeal unless 'fresh evidence' comes to light that supports it.
This is a grey area. If forensic tests show the silencer/blood was fabricated I think it unlikely DPP/CoA will refuse a soc reconstruction. Lawson cross-examined Fletcher on whether anyone was shot upstairs outside the main bedroom and he replied no. Lawson didn't ask Fletcher how he arrived at his conclusion. No attempt to cross-examine on absence of NB's blood in main bedroom (Rivlin touched on this with Dr Vanezis) and the downward trajectories. Lawson simply accepted Fletcher's "no"! This is Fletcher who under cross-examination told Lawson NB sustained an exit gsw to his head and again Lawson accepted this. There's no pathological evidence NB sustained an exit gsw to his head.
Its already been established that the silencer was not on the gun when the shots to Sheila's were inflicted. CCRC/COA are clinging onto the paint and scratch marks in order to claim the silencer was merely used and Sheila would not have used it thus cannot be the killer.
According to them as long as the silencer left the gun cupboard that night/morning the killer was not Sheila. It makes sense but to uphold a murder conviction on that basis without consulting a Jury on it is a complete joke.
Acquittal will be achieved with direct proof Sheila was involved. Either via newly discovered or withheld evidence.
Not necessary once you show Sheila's involvement.
I don't believe it has been established the silencer was not on the rifle when SC sustained her gsw's. Tests were carried out in US and experts concluded from photos that SC's gsw's were caused by the muzzle of the rifle as opposed to the muzzle of the silencer evidenced by the powder tatooing and abrasion rings. This was an expert's opinion and not a scientific experiment as such. Of course in this scenario the CCRC/CoA will fall back on the paint on scratches. However if an experiment can show drawback and the blood flake were an impossibility and therefore must have been fabricated then the paint and scratches will fall.
What would prevent prosecutors from arguing that JB staged the bible after June dropped it?
Why bother it the silencer/blood can be blown apart?
Furthermore the notion that June clung onto the bible in the face of death then dropped it as she walked back towards the hallway makes no sense.
Who said anything about June clinging to the bible as she walked back towards the hallway? From the blood staining it appears June left her side of the bed and walked around the bed to NB's side perhaps intending to use the tel phone normally kept on NB's bedside table. I think she accidentally dropped the bible, probably from lack of energy, as she faced NB's bedside cupboard and was then intent on trying to get to the phone in the upstairs office.
There is nothing wrong with them. In isolation you can deduce several interpretations of what happened. Its the one that fits into the larger picture that is probably the correct one.
Sorry I don't understand?
Defence and prosecution don't dispute JB handled the gun on the evening of the 6th. Defence and prosecution don't dispute Sheila's prints got on the gun on the early hours of the 7th. What they do dispute is how exactly Sheila's prints got there.
Yes I agree the fingerprints are a very minor point but nonetheless the fact DI Cook, the fingerprint expert, told CAL in 2013 had SC fired the rifle 25 times he would expect to find more of her fingerprints on the rifle shows a very poor understanding about firearms and fingerprints must have existed amongst EP in 1985. Several small factors set off a chain reaction.
Its the most straight forward way to get an acquittal. In this case the bar is so high you will need Rivlin to admit to it so it cannot be disputed. Its my opinion that Rivlin now hopes JB is guilty for the sake of his own legal career and legacy. Does the JB haunt him? who knows. The fact he almost split the jury without making any allegations of wrongdoing or conspiracy I find rather impressive. After all who is the root cause of JBs conviction? Its not Rivlin. Its easy to criticize him in hindsight.
What's the most straight forward way to get an acquittal?
The fact JB's case has failed twice at CoA and once with CCRC and judicial review isn't that unusual.
I've already set out what I think is capable of making a successful appeal. The fact you and/or others might disagree doesn't keep me awake at night.
Rivlin is retired so his legal career is over. Is there any evidence he was a heavyweight defender? A Sergio Ramos in the world of football?
You might be impressed by Rivlin but I doubt JB takes comfort in the fact he split the jury without claims of wrongdoing/conspiracy.
For those that believe JB the victim of a MoJ I don't believe there's any one person responsible more a chain of events and multiple factors.
