Questions on David's & Buddy's bucket of water' framing attempt suggestion:

[Adam]

The evidence is that Sheila was one of two people who received a contact shot. Of these two people only Sheila's 'neck' contact shot would have produced back splatter. However the silencer fabrication theory has to remain.

Supporters are reluctant to say whether the police approached the relatives or vice versa. Dispite this,  only two posters I know of have suggested the bucket of water theory, David & Buddy.

Unfortunately both have refused to answer questions on this. So I will now put these questions for the whole forum below  -


General questions about the bucket of water

How many days had the underwear been in the bucket of water ?

Was it just one piece of underwear the relatives could use ?

Would all the blood on the underwear have diluted into the water ?

Was there detergent in the water which would speed up the dilution of the blood ?

Would it be possible to transfer any traces of remaining embedded blood on dried underwear into a silencer ?

Would the relatives not find it sick, trying to transfer blood from a dead persons underwear into a silencer ?

Why did AE mention the clothes in a bucket of water if it was a framing tool ?

Is there any evidence that the bloodied area of the underwear had been tampered with ?

Has anyone from the CT suggested the 'bucket of water' fabrication ?



Other questions the relatives needed answers on pre frame attempt:

Contact shots during the massacre. 

Liklihood of back splatter with that rifle. 

Blood already on rifle nozzle. 

Photos of aga. 

Lenght of rifle with silencer. 

Lenght of Sheila's arms. 

Other evidence showing guilt/innocence. 

Police checks already carried out on silencers. 

Where to get Sheila's blood. 

How to insert Sheila's blood. 

If unable to get Sheila's blood, what was her blood type. 

Would someone else's blood be enough. 

How to effectivly scrape the aga to replicate a scrape during a random fight.

Possibility of a successful silencer frame securing a conviction. 

Punishment if convicted of attempting to frame a man of murdering 5 people. 

-----------------

Hopefully there will be some constructive answers or posters will confirm who approached who. Police or relatives.

[David1819]

How many days had the underwear been in the bucket of water ?

Three

Was it just one piece of underwear the relatives could use ?

Dont know

Would all the blood on the underwear have diluted into the water ?

That depends on how long the blood was exposed before being placed in the bucket. And Whether there were any flakes of blood clots.

Was there detergent in the water which would speed up the dilution of the blood ?

I dont know.

Would it be possible to transfer any traces of remaining embedded blood on dried underwear into a silencer ?

Yes.

Why did AE mention the clothes in a bucket of water if it was a framing tool ?

She was question about it at trial.

Is there any evidence that the bloodied area of the underwear had been tampered with ?

The police never recovered the underwear.

[Adam]

Three

Dont know

That depends on how long the blood was exposed before being placed in the bucket. And Whether there were any flakes of blood clots.

I dont know.

Yes.

She was question about it at trial.

The police never recovered the underwear.

Thank you.

You didn't answer the question about whether the relatives would find it sick, trying to transfer period blood from underwear into a silencer. I find it sick.

It has to be assumed the underwear with blood on was put straight into the bucket of water. No one is going to leave bloodied underwear lying around.

It also has to be assumed the bucket had detergent in. Just putting the underwear into plain water seems pointless. I assume the water was hot at first which would dilute the blood further.

I thought AE's WS mentions the bucket of water.

Obviously in the very unlikely event there was still embedded blood in the underwear, you need to now explain the rather sick suggestion of how the relatives transferred period blood into the silencer.

[Adam]

Hopefully there will be some answers to the other 15 questions in the second section of my thread post.

Buddy refused to answer them earlier this week.  David said he's answered them before although I don't recall reading them.

Anyway, the questions are now addressed to everyone.

[Jane]

Thank you.

You didn't answer the question about whether the relatives would find it sick, trying to transfer period blood from underwear into a silencer. I find it sick.

It has to be assumed the underwear with blood on was put straight into the bucket of water. No one is going to leave bloodied underwear lying around.

It also has to be assumed the bucket had detergent in. Just putting the underwear into plain water seems pointless. I assume the water was hot at first which would dilute the blood further.

I thought AE's WS mentions the bucket of water.

Obviously in the very unlikely event there was still embedded blood in the underwear, you need to now explain the rather sick suggestion of how the relatives transferred period blood into the silencer.

Detergent will break down blood. If the TWO pairs of knickers had been soaking for three days, I can't imagine the was much in the way of blood product left. It's highly possible that both pairs had been held under a running tap -to loosen any..........more solid matter- before submerging them.

[David1819]

Thank you.

You didn't answer the question about whether the relatives would find it sick, trying to transfer period blood from underwear into a silencer. I find it sick.

It is not a question I can answer. Nor one that needs answering. I don't know what they will find sick or not.

It has to be assumed the underwear with blood on was put straight into the bucket of water. No one is going to leave bloodied underwear lying around.

No. That is a fact. The blooded underwear was in the bucket.

What is assumed however is that Sheila went downstairs in the early hours of the morning to remove her underwear and place them in the buckets. That is also where the rifle and the ammo was left out by Jeremy.

No longer assuming anything now - Sheila was later found with the gun in her hands and she had no panties on.

Now put 2 and 2 together.

[Adam]

It is not a question I can answer. Nor one that needs answering. I don't know what they will find sick or not.

No. That is a fact. The blooded underwear was in the bucket.

What is assumed however is that Sheila went downstairs in the early hours of the morning to remove her underwear and place them in the buckets. That is also where the rifle and the ammo was left out by Jeremy.

No longer assuming anything now - Sheila was later found with the gun in her hands and she had no panties on.

Now put 2 and 2 together.

Everyone already finds it revoluting attempting to frame an innocent man of murdering 5 members of his own family.  However  going into a bucket of water & trying to scrape any miniscule embedded period blood from a dead persons underwear into a silencer is too sick for words.

However you & Buddy believe the relatives did this. Dismissing the evidence that Sheila's neck contact shot would produce back splatter, while none of the other 24 shots would have produced back splatter.

So Sheila woke in the middle of the night to put her underwear in a downstairs bucket. Then took the rifle. What was Nevill doing ?

You haven't explained how the possible miniscule amount of period blood embedded on the underwear was convincingly transferred into the silencer.

[Caroline]

Three

Dont know

That depends on how long the blood was exposed before being placed in the bucket. And Whether there were any flakes of blood clots.

I dont know.

Yes.

She was question about it at trial.

The police never recovered the underwear.

This theory falls flat for many reasons but the main one - you need to ask Jeremy about. Of course you many not get the same answer as I got but lets see .........

[Adam]

This theory falls flat for many reasons but the main one - you need to ask Jeremy about. Of course you many not get the same answer as I got but lets see .........

What answer did Jeremy give ?

[Caroline]

What answer did Jeremy give ?

I can't tell you that yet - lets see what he says to David.

[David1819]

Everyone already finds it revoluting attempting to frame an innocent man of murdering 5 members of his own family.  However  going into a bucket of water & trying to scrape any miniscule embedded period blood from a dead persons underwear into a silencer is too sick for words.

That brings you to a dilemma because what you believe Jeremy has done is considerably more heinous.

However you & Buddy believe the relatives did this.

Not necessarily. It is one of multiple possibilities.

Dismissing the evidence that Sheila's neck contact shot would produce back splatter, while none of the other 24 shots would have produced back splatter.

The shot most likely to produce backspatter is the contact wound to Nicholas's head.

The only one dismissing evidence is you. https://streamable.com/f1vb6

If the wounds to Sheila's neck are contact without the silencer. Then that rules out backspatter as the source of the blood.

So Sheila woke in the middle of the night to put her underwear in a downstairs bucket. Then took the rifle. What was Nevill doing ?

He was asleep then woke from what was happening downstairs.

[David1819]

You haven't explained how the possible miniscule amount of period blood embedded on the underwear was convincingly transferred into the silencer.

Unscrew it. Take baffle plates out. Put blood on them. Then screw it back together.

[David1819]

I can't tell you that yet - lets see what he says to David.

In other words. You want to know what he would say to me so you then can claim he said something different to you.

#IKnowYourGame

[Caroline]

In other words. You want to know what he would say to me so you then can claim he said something different to you.

#IKnowYourGame

Well hardly, what he said to me is WRITTEN DOWN - twirp. I don't play games - YOU DO!

[Jane]

Unscrew it. Take baffle plates out. Put blood on them. Then screw it back together.

Hmm. However, FIRST off, they have to have blood available to them, and whilst it's been claimed by some that the pail held the equivalent of a haemorrhage, I think the claim entirely erroneous -albeit convenient- and that the two pairs of knickers had, probably, if they'd been heavily stained, been held under running water prior to soaking them in cold water which may have had detergent added. The amount of menstrual blood and uterine material available would then have been negligent to non existent...................BUT -IF you insist on going down that line of thinking- surely their best bet would have been to obtain some fresh blood? It would only have required one of them to prick their finger -a deep cut/slice would be entirely unnecessary for the exercise- and drip as much as they believed appropriate into the silencer. Rather easier, I imagine, than trying to wring a mm of menstrual flow from pre rinsed knickers which had been in water for several days.