Top Three Reasons Why You Believe JB Guilty Or Innocent

[Holly Goodhead]

Taxi driver Michael Atherton - 2012

Thanks.  Yes I forgot about him.  The categories are a bit hit and miss.  I found 'mass shootings' within 'massacres'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Great_Britain

I don't know why Hart features but not Atherton as they both killed 3.  WHF doesn't feature probably as JB falls  under a different category!

[Holly Goodhead]

No it doesn't, there is no evidence Nevill made any telephone call from the kitchen after being severely wounded.  In addition, he was shot in the face/jaw so would have had great difficulty speaking.  I believe we have covered this in some detail previously.

John it seems most in the innocent camp capable of analytical thought (which by definition excludes most on Blue, CT and JB) eg Charlie Wilkes (from IA), David1819, Nostalgia-NZ (who I think is about to join us £&%£), Samson and myself believe the physical evidence at soc by way of bloodstaining and lack of, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks supports the following:

- NB and SC downstairs.  How long they had been downstairs, the reasons and their exact locations may never be known and matters not in the grand scheme of things.

- NB made the phone call to JB from the kitchen.

- Meanwhile SC went upstairs and shot June either 5 or 6 times.

- NB hearing the shots dropped the handset on the kitchen worktop and went upstairs.  When he was on the landing stairs he came face-to-face with SC who was standing just inside the bedroom and inflicted NB's facial gsw's.  NB turned and was then on the main staircase facing down towards the front door and hall.  SC followed and inflicted the gsw's to the rear of NB: shoulder and elbow/chest graze.

The guilty scenario for many, along with the general prosecution case at trial, is along the lines of JB entering NB and June's bedroom under stealth and shooting them whilst they were in bed and in the process of getting out of.   

It is evident from various trial testimony that the experts, defence and prosecution did not attempt a reconstruction.  As far as I can see the only way in which this can be progressed now and possibly concluded one way or another is by experts entering WHF to carry out a reconstruction using the latest forensic techniques.  If it goes the way I think it will then it should be possible to create an animated 3d model for use as a court exhibit.

http://www.knoxforensics.com/shoot.php

http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(17)30002-6/abstract

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28089298

[Nostalgia NZ]

Have you ever handled a gun, fired one, shot any animal or been shot yourself?   I can tell you now that had Sheila shot herself at point blank range she and the rifle would have been covered in blood smears.  You don't shoot yourself twice in the neck and come out of it looking pristine "without a hair out of place" as her cousin David Boutflour previously commented.

Imagine having a red hot poker shoved in your neck for several inches at over a thousand miles per hour (550 m/s)?

There is a difference between smears and spatter or splatter in forensics. Throwing words about in such a manner shows you don't have the basics right. But please explain why no forensic expert at trial suggested Sheila should have been covered in blood 'smears.'

[Nostalgia NZ]

I hardly understand any of your stuff, Samson - either on here, blue or I.A. Maybe it's your intention to be obscure.

How can the gun be almost totally devoid of prints? If you're right then Sheila must have handled it, carried it, reloaded it, chambered it, used it as a club...maybe Nevill tried to wrestle it from her in the kitchen...then she shot herself (twice!), so she must have gripped the end of the barrel at that point - but no prints, either smeared or clear. (I know about her ring-finger print, which is more damning for Bamber, IMO).

What do you think?

Few firearms have prints on them, a figure I recall is that the absence of prints is around the 80% mark or higher. Hollywood writers have made a meal out of 'solving' crimes with fingerprints, but that's in movies.

[Nostalgia NZ]

A moderator has to be quite short for drawback to be able to travel through it into the rifle barrel.  There was blood on the outside of the barrel in the Bain case not inside the rifle barrel. 

The more I read about that case the more I think they got it wrong in reversing his conviction.

The trial evidence of Peter Ross has already been placed on here there was blood through the silencer and into the rifle barrel.

[Nostalgia NZ]

I don't doubt N-NZ would deliberately mislead and/or isn't careful with the facts but its easy enough to misunderstand, misinterpret and/or experts can get it wrong.  Many of the docs in these cases are ambiguous.   

Research by Prof MacDonnell, NY, who was at one time regarded as a world expert on bloodstains, until his reputation was badly damaged by using his position as a forensic scientist to intimidate a child and further counts of child sex abuse, seems to contradict the distance blood can travel against the line of fire in DB's case.  Albeit the research is based on gsw's fired at a short distance as opposed to contact.  I don't know the length of the silencer in the Bain case but assuming it was similar in size to the one referred to in JB's case (approx 7") then I'm really struggling with blood travelling this far back and depositing in the rifle barrel.  There's a correlation between calibre and distance blood can travel back against the line of fire.  As you know .22 is considered low-powered.

Finally I get to the post I came to answer Holly, yours. Although hidden from the first Jury from memory the Peter Ross evidence confirmed case notes and was never disputed at the retrial. In other words the Crown accepted the evidence. The DiMaio book which you linked to on another thread explained this. It seems that you are not appreciating other evidence from the Bain trial that there was no exit wound from the skull and that the significant damage caused by the velocity of the bullet as it exhausted its kinetic energy inside the skull, ie continuing on an altering course, increased pressure in the skull from which there was only one exhaust point - the wound. The difference with Sheila is that the shot was to the neck and the size of the 'flake.' The flake is inconsistent with high speed spatter because of its size, that size, the wound site, and other factors more probably that note exclude the flake (if it indeed has every probably been analysed) as having arrived in the silencer contemporaneously with Sheila's death. That fact, along with there not being credible evidence dealing with trajectories that can show that NB was shot in the bedroom indicating that he was more likely shot on the stairs, having been turned away by gunfire, display that Sheila shot NB and the others before suiciding as the circumstances of her own death indicate.

Just a quick trip at this stage, and I have made a few other comments in answer to some points made by others that are clearly wrong - dealing with 40 point lists about phone calls and other such nonsense while ignoring the crime scene are a waste of time. But cheers.

[Holly Goodhead]

Finally I get to the post I came to answer Holly, yours. Although hidden from the first Jury from memory the Peter Ross evidence confirmed case notes and was never disputed at the retrial. In other words the Crown accepted the evidence. The DiMaio book which you linked to on another thread explained this. It seems that you are not appreciating other evidence from the Bain trial that there was no exit wound from the skull and that the significant damage caused by the velocity of the bullet as it exhausted its kinetic energy inside the skull, ie continuing on an altering course, increased pressure in the skull from which there was only one exhaust point - the wound. The difference with Sheila is that the shot was to the neck and the size of the 'flake.' The flake is inconsistent with high speed spatter because of its size, that size, the wound site, and other factors more probably that note exclude the flake (if it indeed has every probably been analysed) as having arrived in the silencer contemporaneously with Sheila's death. That fact, along with there not being credible evidence dealing with trajectories that can show that NB was shot in the bedroom indicating that he was more likely shot on the stairs, having been turned away by gunfire, display that Sheila shot NB and the others before suiciding as the circumstances of her own death indicate.

Just a quick trip at this stage, and I have made a few other comments in answer to some points made by others that are clearly wrong - dealing with 40 point lists about phone calls and other such nonsense while ignoring the crime scene are a waste of time. But cheers.

Hi N-NZ.  I know very little about the Bain case so I'm sure you're right.  I'm just surprised that I've been unable to find any confirmation re the blood inside the barrel and silencer.  As I said up thread I can produce numerous official docs showing the blood test results for all victims at WHF, JB and the flake.  But this might just be down to the fact that there are more official docs available on www re WHF.

[John]

Nevill made the phone call before he was wounded.
The fact Jeremy did not hear Sheila shooting June upstairs does not mean it did not happen, it means the sound was sufficient in the kitchen but not to transmit through the mouth piece to the phone at the other end. Telephones rquire close speaking, they are designed that way to avoid ambient noise ruining the experience for the person at the other end.

Had there been shots Nevill would have told Jeremy.  In any event, Nevill was shot when he got up from his bed, he was not shot coming up the stairs or on the landings.  You really must follow the forensic evidence Samson.

[Samson]

Had there been shots Nevill would have told Jeremy.  In any event, Nevill was shot when he got up from his bed, he was not shot coming up the stairs or on the landings.  You really must follow the forensic evidence Samson.

If we can show he was shot coming up the stairs would that change your view of Jeremy's guilt? We discussed this for weeks on IA and the best reconstruction MikeG, architect who drew the pictures, could produce was Nevill swinging his feet around and being shot in the shoulder while still lying back. This does not work, and eventually he gave up.
On the reco that Holly worked out everything fits perfectly, with the phone call, then the shots upstairs, then the ascent up the stairs into gunfire in the mouth. He got close alright.

In answer to Nevill would have told Jeremy she was shooting, we have a lot of claims of what would be done or said in all these cases, assertions without evidence, and there are alternatives. For example stunned silence at the realisation Sheila was actually using the gun

[Nostalgia NZ]

Sorry for not introducing myself yesterday when I posted. I've from NZ as anyone would expect. Became interested in this case only recently after avoiding it for many years. I agree with Holly about a re-enactment or animation, but not necessarily that WHF would have to be used. If 3 areas were created, the stairs, master bedroom and kitchen I'm confident the debate would be less diluted with irrelevancies. 

[Nostalgia NZ]

Had there been shots Nevill would have told Jeremy.  In any event, Nevill was shot when he got up from his bed, he was not shot coming up the stairs or on the landings.  You really must follow the forensic evidence Samson.

Hi John. I fear you have misunderstood the case and fallen into the trap of false assumptions about the forensics. We know the trajectory of the shot to NB's shoulder and you are welcome to be the first person in the world to show how it could have happened in the bedroom.

[Caroline]

Hi John. I fear you have misunderstood the case and fallen into the trap of false assumptions about the forensics. We know the trajectory of the shot to NB's shoulder and you are welcome to be the first person in the world to show how it could have happened in the bedroom.

Remind us how long have you been interested in this case?

[Holly Goodhead]

A reminder please:  can we stick to debating the facts of the case as we perceive them and refrain from making any personal comments.  Thank you.

[Holly Goodhead]

Sorry for not introducing myself yesterday when I posted. I've from NZ as anyone would expect. Became interested in this case only recently after avoiding it for many years. I agree with Holly about a re-enactment or animation, but not necessarily that WHF would have to be used. If 3 areas were created, the stairs, master bedroom and kitchen I'm confident the debate would be less diluted with irrelevancies.

Welcom N NZ and Samson from New Zealand.  We now have an international dimension to the board with member Scipio from the US.   

[Caroline]

A reminder please:  can we stick to debating the facts of the case as we perceive them and refrain from making any personal comments.  Thank you.

What personal comments?