The silencer, hand swab, and scratch marks on the aga, Conspiracy...

[bloggs and son]

Yes, but the one ground referred for appeal was DNA evidence.

Yes and as I said before, it was not a complete profile and so it was ruled "inconclusive". So we are left with the findings of the original trial which did not take into account,  (obviously because their minds were predisposed into thinking it was Sheila's blood) that it could actually have been Rober Boutflours blood? If the relatives did interfere with the silencer and there are grounds to believing that they did, then there was a very real possibility either by accident or by design that it was RB's blood.

[maggie]

Yes and as I said before, it was not a complete profile and so it was ruled "inconclusive". So we are left with the findings of the original trial which did not take into account,  (obviously because their minds were predisposed into thinking it was Sheila's blood) that it could actually have been Rober Boutflours blood? If the relatives did interfere with the silencer and there are grounds to believing that they did, then there was a very real possibility either by accident or by design that it was RB's blood.

Well said Grahame.

[bloggs and son]

June said she'd seen JB teaching Sheila to use the rifle?

But did she ASK him to teach here? Are we only told half the story here?

[Bridget]

Yes and as I said before, it was not a complete profile and so it was ruled "inconclusive". So we are left with the findings of the original trial which did not take into account,  (obviously because their minds were predisposed into thinking it was Sheila's blood) that it could actually have been Rober Boutflours blood? If the relatives did interfere with the silencer and there are grounds to believing that they did, then there was a very real possibility either by accident or by design that it was RB's blood.

Ok, I think we're actually arguing the same point.

[bloggs and son]

Robert Boutflour stated that Jeremy had tried to teach Sheila how to use a rifle in front of June and Pamela.

I can't remember if it is in one of his statements or his 'diary', probaly the diary.

So what do you think was the purpose of him trying to teach Sheila if he was going to kill them all himself anyway?

[Roch]

Ok, I think we're actually arguing the same point.

Yes but what about my question? 

[andrea]

So what do you think was the purpose of him trying to teach Sheila if he was going to kill them all himself anyway?

Then he could tell the police that sheila knew how to use a gun, because he showed her?

[bloggs and son]

Ok, I think we're actually arguing the same point.

Which is?

[Roch]

Then he could tell the police that sheila knew how to use a gun, because he showed her?

Did you see my question to Bridget further back? It's relevant to this, imo.

[Bridget]

Bridget, do you think that in a suspicious environment where RB and AE have convinced themselves that JB is guilty, there is at least a danger of over-interpretation or misinterpretation of his past actions / verbal statements?  They take on a sinister bent, where previously there had not been one.

Yes, I would have to say that both of their statements / diaries display a level of suspicion over some things which probably wasn't justified.

[bloggs and son]

Then he could tell the police that sheila knew how to use a gun, because he showed her?

But David Boutflour confessed reluctantly. Oops, I'll change that. David Boutflour, prompted by the defence counsel suddenly remembered that Sheila had been on a shoot with some of the family in Scotland a while back.

[Nuala]

Bridget, do you think that in a suspicious environment where RB and AE have convinced themselves that JB is guilty, there is at least a danger of over-interpretation or misinterpretation of his past actions / verbal statements?  They take on a sinister bent, where previously there had not been one.

Excellent points, Rocky!

[andrea]

Bridget, do you think that in a suspicious environment where RB and AE have convinced themselves that JB is guilty, there is at least a danger of over-interpretation or misinterpretation of his past actions / verbal statements?  They take on a sinister bent, where previously there had not been one.

I see what you mean, roch.

But regardless, he still did show her. Whatever his motives, if any.

[Nuala]

But David Boutflour confessed reluctantly. Oops, I'll change that. David Boutflour, prompted by the defence counsel suddenly remembered that Sheila had been on a shoot with some of the family in Scotland a while back.

He did, Grahame, good point.

[andrea]

But David Boutflour confessed reluctantly. Oops, I'll change that. David Boutflour, prompted by the defence counsel suddenly remembered that Sheila had been on a shoot with some of the family in Scotland a while back.

She went as a beater, didnt she?