Post Mortem

[Bridget]

Bridget is there no room for doubt in your mind, how can anyone be absolutey 100% superpositive that they are right.  Is there not the slightest thought that JB may be innocent as he claims and if he is havent you any compassion for him?

Since I wasn't there of course I can't 'know' 100%, but I can believe 100%. I've never seen anything that shakes that belief once it's properly scrutinised.

[susan]

Hi Bridget am I right we discussed this earlier and you said maybe aliens took Sheila,s clothes I know you were just kidding because if you had meant it they could have taken Jeremy,s as well.  Naughty aliens. Hope you are having a good day with no mishaps.

[bloggs and son]

Jeremy had ample opportunity to dispose of his clothes, Sheila didn't.

So on that thought alone you think JB to be guilty? And there's those who say the guilty camp don't have any wild theories? hahahoho Wouldn't it be a simple world if everyone were persuaded by so little evidence?

[Bridget]

Hi Bridget am I right we discussed this earlier and you said maybe aliens took Sheila,s clothes I know you were just kidding because if you had meant it they could have taken Jeremy,s as well.  Naughty aliens. Hope you are having a good day with no mishaps.

Yes we have discussed this before, no mishaps so far!

[Bridget]

So on that thought alone you think JB to be guilty? And there's those who say the guilty camp don't have any wild theories? hahahoho Wouldn't it be a simple world if everyone were persuaded by so little evidence?

What makes you think my belief relies on that thought alone?

[bloggs and son]

Yes I know that RB had the same blood group. So do many people. I know it is alleged on this forum that DB took it to bits, but he himself says he didn't.

So why did you emphasise that it was Sheila's blood in the silencer and not Roberts, seeing that he was their (allegedly) when it was found? Come to think of it we only have the word of those who found the silencer that they did find it. Strange the police didn't find it when they looked? Yet we are supposed to believe the words of an interested party without the corroboration of an independent witness?
Granted it is alleged that DB took it apart and yet he has denied it. But the FACT remains and it is fact that it was handled by different parties before the forensics people eventually got it.

[Bridget]

So why did you emphasise that it was Sheila's blood in the silencer and not Roberts, seeing that he was their (allegedly) when it was found? Come to think of it we only have the word of those who found the silencer that they did find it. Strange the police didn't find it when they looked? Yet we are supposed to believe the words of an interested party without the corroboration of an independent witness?
Granted it is alleged that DB took it apart and yet he has denied it. But the FACT remains and it is fact that it was handled by different parties before the forensics people eventually got it.

Because Robert wasn't shot.

[Nuala]

No, I accept the fact that Ralph could have been sufficiently weakened so as to allow even someone as slight as Sheila to stand there and beat him. But she had none of his blood on her.

Of course she didn't, it was in the buckets.

[bloggs and son]

What makes you think my belief relies on that thought alone?

Well it must rely upon it in some way even if not in the whole. If you didn't you wouldn't argue about it.

[Bridget]

Of course she didn't, it was in the buckets.

If you say so

[Bridget]

Well it must rely upon it in some way even if not in the whole. If you didn't you wouldn't argue about it.

Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious.

[bloggs and son]

Because Robert wasn't shot.

But he handled the silencer and that alone should have made it inadmissible as evidence. Not only that but modern forensics say the results were inconclusive that it was Sheila's blood. Even if it were it still should have been inadmissible as evidence owing to the circumstances in which it was found. Simply by attaching the silencer to the gun after the event would have contaminated the silencer.

[bloggs and son]

Talk about stating the bleedin' obvious.

Well Bridget it was you who was doubting it not me so I just reminded you that it was your argument to begin with.

[Bridget]

But he handled the silencer and that alone should have made it inadmissible as evidence. Not only that but modern forensics say the results were inconclusive that it was Sheila's blood. Even if it were it still should have been inadmissible as evidence owing to the circumstances in which it was found. Simply by attaching the silencer to the gun after the event would have contaminated the silencer.

I thought you said you'd read my posts re the silencer.

The LCN DNA tests which indicated that Sheila's DNA was present in the silencer were deemed not to be of use to either side, because the tests are extremely sensitive and innocent contamination could have occurred because the silencer was not protected in the way that it would be now. There's no suggestion that the blood found was not of Sheila's type.

[Bridget]

Well Bridget it was you who was doubting it not me so I just reminded you that it was your argument to begin with.

No, I was correcting your assertion that that was my only argument.