Did JB Receive A Fair Trial?

[APRIL]

I do know the difference, thank you.  It's called Reasonable Doubt.

As quoted.  "Why shoot them so many times?"

"To make it look like a deranged person had done it."

It is far more simple to believe that it was a deranged person.

Even the Pathologist said that Sheila could have shot herself twice.  Or was he mistaken as well?

And of course, the investigation was a bit of a farce.

Surely "could have" isn't a definitive? It allows for doubt.

[barrier]

All physical evidence supports the phone call made before anyone sustained any gunshot wounds.

So Sheila hadn't gone crazy with the gun then.

[APRIL]

Yes, I think Bamber had a fair and just trial and can have no great complaints about the Guilty verdict.

He painted himself into a corner with his own narrative of the phone call, eliminating the possibility of a 3rd party and narrowing it down to himself or Sheila. And all the evidence points to Sheila not being the culprit.
Coupled with the convincing testimony of Julie Mugford, which had the "ring of truth about it" he was rightly convicted.

All that remains now is for him to salve his own conscience and provide closure to all involved with a full confession.
Perhaps if he did so he might even eventually be freed as a frail octogenarian on compassionate grounds.

To me, it suggests that he never saw the need to try and make it look like an outside job. It says how much he wanted Sheila to take the blame.

[barrier]

Oh, I see.  Despite years of experience the opinion of a Pathologist is worthless.  So why bother with a Post Mortem?  You might as well cut to the chase and deem everyone Guilty.  In fact, why bother with a Trial at all?

Familiarise yourself with the Lubbock case,the first pathologist was wrong according to the next three.It happens.

A report by a since-discredited pathologist who was the first to examine Stuart Lubbock's body may have played a part in hampering the police investigation into what happened at Michael Barrymore's £2million Essex home.

[Eleanor]

Surely "could have" isn't a definitive? It allows for doubt.

That was my point.

[Eleanor]

Familiarise yourself with the Lubbock case,the first pathologist was wrong according to the next three.It happens.

A report by a since-discredited pathologist who was the first to examine Stuart Lubbock's body may have played a part in hampering the police investigation into what happened at Michael Barrymore's £2million Essex home.

Topic, Please.

[Caroline]

I do know the difference, thank you.  It's called Reasonable Doubt.

As quoted.  "Why shoot them so many times?"

"To make it look like a deranged person had done it."

It is far more simple to believe that it was a deranged person.

Even the Pathologist said that Sheila could have shot herself twice.  Or was he mistaken as well?

And of course, the investigation was a bit of a farce.

He also said that if he has seen Sheil in situ at the crime scene he would have had doubts about suicide.

[Eleanor]

He also said that if he has seen Sheil in situ at the crime scene he would have had doubts about suicide.

Thank you.  I didn't know that.

But he didn't see her in situ.  Why not?

[Caroline]

Thank you.  I didn't know that.

But he didn't see her in situ.  Why not?

You're welcome.

He didn't see her in situ because of the snap judgement of 4 murders and 1 suicide. He simply wasn't called out. This might have been so different if he wasn't given the official stance prior to the autopsy i.e. he was allowed to make a decision based on his own findings, including seeing the bodies in situ.

[Eleanor]

You're welcome.

He didn't see her in situ because of the snap judgement of 4 murders and 1 suicide. He simply wasn't called out. This might have been so different if he wasn't given the official stance prior to the autopsy i.e. he was allowed to make a decision based on his own findings, including seeing the bodies in situ.

So another example of what wouldn't happen today.

[Caroline]

So another example of what wouldn't happen today.

No, but this case did allow for such changes. Lessons were learned and practice improved. Doubt there will ever be a perfect system but I do think that the errors have allowed Bamber to draw this whole things out for so long.

[Eleanor]

No, but this case did allow for such changes. Lessons were learned and practice improved. Doubt there will ever be a perfect system but I do think that the errors have allowed Bamber to draw this whole things out for so long.

That statement is such a laugh.  They cocked up on his trial, but never mind, it might help others.

[APRIL]

So another example of what wouldn't happen today.

Perhaps. But you may rest assured that something similar will. Nothing is ever going to be 100% fail-safe, or even approved. Guilt to one person is usually going to be innocent to another.

[Holly Goodhead]

He also said that if he has seen Sheil in situ at the crime scene he would have had doubts about suicide.

No that's not exactly what he said.  He said he would have had concerns about one or two points based on soc images which included the position of the rifle and bible.  However there's strong evidence SC was moved between first respondents entering and soc images taken. 

[Caroline]

No that's not exactly what he said.  He said he would have had concerns about one or two points based on soc images which included the position of the rifle and bible.  However there's strong evidence SC was moved between first respondents entering and soc images taken.

I think that';s splitting hairs Holly.