Well I think the thing which should really do it, is if you were going to plant evidence (which is what I think you are implying), then would you call the police to see the silencer in the gun cupboard, or would you get the police to collect it from Oak Farm? Which is the better option when planting evidence?
No, I wasn't implying that they planed evidence. I was actually saying that this backs up their story and indicates that they "did not" plant it.
In fact I have never implied that they planted the evidence. What I have said though on many occasions is that the silencer evidence should have been thrown out of court because of the way it was found with no independant party present, ie a police or someone who was completely independent of the family. My stand against the trial is and always has been a legal one. And the silencer evidence as it was presented in court should not have been accepted. Furthermore the judge should not have summed up as he did concerning the silencer about blood being found in it. But rather has this silencer evidence been corrupted.
What I am saying here though is that the fact that June and Ralph's blood was found in the silencer helps to confirm that they did not concoct the evidence. It is not a view that accuses the relatives at all. But a view that is looking at evidence as it should have been presented. But as it was the court made its judgment so it is all academic anyway.
