Is Sheila guilty?

[scipio_usmc]

People here post articles that insist Sheila is guilty based on her mental illness and little more.  Likewise many people here suggest the same thing.   

Sheila has mental illness she must have done it even though there is no physical or forensic evidence at all to suggest she did.  Great effort is put into her mental state to try to find away to insist her mental state alone proves she did it.

Many of these same people though insist Jeremy did not get a failr trial because he was convicted without any forensic evidence proving he did it.

Anyone who feels that it would be fair to convict Sheila under the following facts have no cause at all to complain about Jeremy's conviction.

Fact pattern:

Workers show up at WHF and find the place locked up.  They enter through a window to try to find out why Nevill is not working and has not opened the house for work yet.  They find him dead in the kitchen and then go around the house finding the other victims.  Sheila is the only one not dead she is still breathing though she suffered serious wounds and is in a coma.  The murder weapon was dumped on her body.  She eventually recovers and asserts that someone wearing a hood attached them. From the body shape she thinks it was Jeremy but because of her injury it is a blur and she is not positive.

Police do no believe her and try her for murder.

The prosecution case asserts:

1) she had known mental problems and back in 1983 she indicated that before she was treated she felt she could project evil on her children and had some suicidal thoughts. 

2) That she had relapses and was in and out of treatment

3) that the night of the murders Nevill spoke to her about having the kids in part-time foster care. She had little reaction and simply stated she would rather stay in London.  The prosecution posits she became angry the more she thought about it and decided to kill everyone including herself

4) the prosecution states that the gun was found top of her sand Jeremy claims she was him load a magazine so she knew how to use the weapon and is the one who did it.

The defense counters with the following:

1) She responded well to treatment and did not have delusions about her family anymore or discuss suicide anymore according the the prosecution's own witnesses- her doctors

2) Her relapses occurred when she stopped taking her medication and/or was high on narcotics.  She transitioned to injections precisely so she no longer could skip her medication and was not high on any narcotics the night of the murders based on toxicologgy tests.  The dosage she was on was the highests safe level and optimal efficacy level.  There therefore is no reaosn that she would have relapsed or had delusions the night of the murder

3) The alleged motive to kill her family and commit suicide makes no sense. Her husband testifies how she had shown little interest in caring for the kids and they told him that she would be in her own world and ignore them when they were with her.  Her doctor testifies how she welcomed part time care in the past and would have been likely to appreciate it again and would not have been likely to respond in a negative manner let alone a violent one.  Even in 1983 he didn't believe she was a threat to harm anyone or commit suicide and he doesn't think she is a harm now he doesn't believe she tried to kill anyone or herself.  In her most recent stay at the hospital she didn't mention her family at all she had a problem with Freddie who she viewed as the devil.  He was corrupting her with drugs and the like and she thus viewed him as the devil.  She thus had absolutely no motive to kill her family.  Jeremy had a motive to kill everyone- to inherit the estate.     

4) There was no GSR or blood from any of the victims found on her clothing or body.  Nor was there any elevated levels of lead on her hands as would be the case if she had loaded the gun.  Nor did she have any broken nails or injuries as would be the case from the struggle with Nevill and loading the bullets very fast.  In fact all witnesses agree they have not seen her fire a weapon let alone the murder weapon.  Jeremy originally told police she fired all wepaons in the house but he retracted the claim.   Sheila says tha this claim he loaded a magazine in front of her was a lie and that he didn't get the murder weapon out before leaving.  She says that she has no idea how to load the gun or operate it. After being explained how to load it she indicates she had no idea it needs to have a round fed inside first before you pull the trigger let alone how to chamber a round. 

5) She can't remember if the suppressor was attached or not to the gun when it was fired at her.  Experts testify that the second wound which immediately sent her into a coma was a contact wound and would have sent spatter into the muzzle of the weapon or if the suppressor had been used then into the suppressor. Both the prosecution and defense experts found group A blood inside. The defense expert found microscopic drops on the first 8 baffles and this is consistent with high velocity spatter.  Nothing except high velocity spatter would explain this blood. Sheila is the only victim with group A blood.  Thus the experts insist it had been attached and put away by the murderer and that she can't have done it since she was immediately unconscious.  Moreover there is evidence that the suppressor was attached during the struggle in the kitchen.  With the suppressor attached the gun was tall enough to break the ceiling lamp shade while Nevill and his killer struggled over it and it also scratched underneath the aga as they wrestled over it.  Therefore it was used and likely still attached as Sheila was shot.

6) Experts also testify blood on Sheila's body indicates she was shot sitting up and then was dragged flat very soon afterwards.  She had to be leaning up against something or would have fallen over immediately and would not have dripped blood in her lap and down her arm.  She could not have moved down herself while in a coma someone had to move her body quite soon after she was shot.  So someone else had to be there to do it.

6) Experts testify that the bible was dropped in a pool of her blood then closed then reopened before the blood could dry.  Sheila was passed out so could not have done it, someone else had to be present to do this.

7) Julie testifies that Jeremy had talked to her for a long time about killing his family and announced around 10PM the night before that it was tonight or never and after the bodies were found he indicated he had hired a hitman to do it and told her details about the murders even though police had not revealed such details to him at the time he supposedly told them to Julie. 

The defense asserts there is no evidence she shot or beat any of the victims, no evidence she shot herself and in fact evidence she can't have shot herself someone else had to be there to put the suppressor away, move her body and opena nd close the bible.  There is no reason she would have had delusions her medicine was working and the last people to talk to her said she was calm including Jeremy.  She had no motive to kill anyone but Jeremy did and he even lied to police about various things to make her look guilty.  Someone framed her and it likely was him because he had motive and opportunity, he had no alibi, claims to have been at home sleeping alone and he admitted to Julie he was responsible after announcing hours before he was going to do it.

I fail to see how anyone can argue that Sheila definitely did it under these circumstances. The main thing I changed was her living to be prosecuted not anything significant in terms of evidence.  The same exact evidence the prosecution used against her is the same that those here who argue in favor of her guilt use against her.  The evidence in her favor is the same evidence the prosecution used in real life against Jeremy.  This illustrates how the arguments work on the flip side.

It is hard to claim Sheila definitely did it and should have been convicted had she lived.  Just because she died doesn't mean people who want her to be guilty have less of a burden to establish it.  There is a double standard as far as proving her guilt becuase people want Jeremy to be innocent and she has to be guilty for that to be true so they overlook the absence of evidence that killed anyone and worse ignore the evidence that proves she can't have killed herself by insisting police staged all such evidence and everyone was lying except Jeremy. It is hard to see objectivity in those claiming such.

[Patti]

Could you narrow this down a little bit please 

[nugnug]

if jeremys innocent that doesnt for a fact prove sheila is guilty.

most likely suspect maybe but it doesnt make her guilty beyound reasonable doubt.

[scipio_usmc]

Could you narrow this down a little bit please 

Nope the fact pattern includes the prosecution case against her and the defense case.

When the claims that were used against Jeremy are used for her defense they take on a new light.

It will be interesting to see who argues still that she is guilty based on her mental condition alone let alone in spite of the evidence that suggests she can't have shot herself.   

[Patti]

Nope the fact pattern includes the prosecution case against her and the defense case.

When the claims that were used against Jeremy are used for her defense they take on a new light.

It will be interesting to see who argues still that she is guilty based on her mental condition alone let alone in spite of the evidence that suggests she can't have shot herself.

Scorpio I hate saying this but, who said what to who is totally irrelevant. There is no proof of what Jeremy said like there is no proof what anyone said prior to the killings.  What someone is supposed to have said cannot be used and is unsafe to use it as concrete evidence. 

What I fail to see is facts, facts that are supported by evidence and sincere documentation. 

[scipio_usmc]

Scorpio I hate saying this but, who said what to who is totally irrelevant. There is no proof of what Jeremy said like there is no proof what anyone said prior to the killings.  What someone is supposed to have said cannot be used and is unsafe to use it as concrete evidence. 

What I fail to see is facts, facts that are supported by evidence and sincere documentation. 

I hate to tell you this but you are wrong factually and legally.

A statement against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule.  Telling someone you would like to commit a crime and why and that you did so are admissible even though you wish that were not the case.  This legally it can indeed be used as proof and outside of court the same principle holds true. 

In the case at hand though Sheila's claims are working for creating reasonable doubt. 

I realize you are as biased as can be but this thread is about the hypocrisy of many Jeremy supporters as well as the complete lack of evidence against Sheila.

As we speak there are threads galore about notes that no one has any evidence Sheila wrote but that are being deciphered in an attempt to suggest these notes demonstrate how crazy she was and therefore she must be guilty.  Instead of trying her on evidence people are trying her on mental state of mind alone precisely because there is no evidence of her guilt. 

I have layed out what evidence has been used to try to suggest she is guilty and the evidence that disputes that.

Many of the same people clammoring for justice and insisting there are so many cases of defendants being railroaded support railroading Sheila.  It is quite the pathetic spectacle.

The funny part is that I doubt the hypocrites will ever owe up to it and will continue to claim the evidence against her is strong evne though there is less evidence than in the cases they complained about as MOJs.

[lookout]

My answer is NO.

[scipio_usmc]

My answer is NO.

You win a cupie doll, they are fun to run over by the way

[lookout]

You win a cupie doll, they are fun to run over by the way

Run over ? What's that supposed to mean ?

[Jan]

Run over ? What's that supposed to mean ?

  I think he is resorting to sarcasm.

[Patti]

I hate to tell you this but you are wrong factually and legally.

A statement against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule.  Telling someone you would like to commit a crime and why and that you did so are admissible even though you wish that were not the case.  This legally it can indeed be used as proof and outside of court the same principle holds true. 

In the case at hand though Sheila's claims are working for creating reasonable doubt. 

I realize you are as biased as can be but this thread is about the hypocrisy of many Jeremy supporters as well as the complete lack of evidence against Sheila.

As we speak there are threads galore about notes that no one has any evidence Sheila wrote but that are being deciphered in an attempt to suggest these notes demonstrate how crazy she was and therefore she must be guilty.  Instead of trying her on evidence people are trying her on mental state of mind alone precisely because there is no evidence of her guilt. 

I have layed out what evidence has been used to try to suggest she is guilty and the evidence that disputes that.

Many of the same people clammoring for justice and insisting there are so many cases of defendants being railroaded support railroading Sheila.  It is quite the pathetic spectacle.

The funny part is that I doubt the hypocrites will ever owe up to it and will continue to claim the evidence against her is strong evne though there is less evidence than in the cases they complained about as MOJs.

Telling someone that they could kill their parents is one thing, but proving that that person carried it out is another.

It is my opinion that neither Sheila or Jeremy is proved beyond my doubt that they either of them carried this horrendous crime out.

The only sceptical Scorpio is that people wont dig enough to find the real truth of what happened that night.  OK Jeremy is convicted of the murders, he is guilty in the eyes of the law. There is no doubt about that.

Had the series of events leading up to, and after the murders been documented correctly and all forensic evidence gathered and thoroughly examined  then we would not be here today discussing it. 

I personally doubt a jury of today would convict Jeremy based on what the CPS gave them in 1985. 

When you examine the case fully there is more flaws in it than a farmers colander.

1. No forensic evidence exists to place Jeremy at the scene. No fibres, no prints, no break in, no evidence found at his home, in his car, on his clothes....

No killer can be so squeaky clean  both at the crime scene and home....nearly all killers leave a trace. 

Please. I hope you don't mean I am a hypocrite?  I seek the truth, I don't blaspheme those who think he guilty..

It takes a strong person and a reasonable one to have a good debate without the name calling.

 

[lookout]

  I think he is resorting to sarcasm.

I couldn't expect anything else,really. Being that it's the lowest form of wit.

[Alias]

Telling someone that they could kill their parents is one thing, but proving that that person carried it out is another.

It is my opinion that neither Sheila or Jeremy is proved beyond my doubt that they either of them carried this horrendous crime out.

The only sceptical Scorpio is that people wont dig enough to find the real truth of what happened that night.  OK Jeremy is convicted of the murders, he is guilty in the eyes of the law. There is no doubt about that.

Had the series of events leading up to, and after the murders been documented correctly and all forensic evidence gathered and thoroughly examined  then we would not be here today discussing it. 

I personally doubt a jury of today would convict Jeremy based on what the CPS gave them in 1985. 

When you examine the case fully there is more flaws in it than a farmers colander.

1. No forensic evidence exists to place Jeremy at the scene. No fibres, no prints, no break in, no evidence found at his home, in his car, on his clothes....

No killer can be so squeaky clean  both at the crime scene and home....nearly all killers leave a trace. 

Please. I hope you don't mean I am a hypocrite?  I seek the truth, I don't blaspheme those who think he guilty..

It takes a strong person and a reasonable one to have a good debate without the name calling.

 

How well you put it!

[scipio_usmc]

Run over ? What's that supposed to mean ?

With a car, cupie dolls are ugly things that are considered worthless but are fun to break/destroy in creative ways

[lookout]

With a car, cupie dolls are ugly things that are considered worthless but are fun to break/destroy in creative ways

Yeah,,,like when I wring a cloth out and imagine it's somebodys' neck !