There are so many reasons for me. I can try to list them, but I will probably forget some points.
1. I don´t think that Jeremy would have been able to enter the farmhouse and EXPECT to control three aduts and two children. With an accomplice I can see it, alone, no; but since the case against Jeremy is that he committed the murders alone, I have to conclude that he couldn´t have done it on his own - or had the "guts".
Funny that you see Sheila as capable of this but not Jeremy. In any event this is precisley why the time of 3AM was chosen. The time of 3AM while eveyrone was asleep was precisely so that the killings would be easily managed, trying it daytime with everyone up would be much more difficult.
2. Cannot see what Sheila was doing while Jeremy was killing off the rest of her family - just waiting her turn? I don´t think so!"
Maybe like the boys she didn't wake up. Ann Eaton says she can't imagine what happened in her room that Jeremy was scared to go in. She was heavily medicated so likely slept like a log. Maybe he had to wake her up and drag her out of her room.
If she did wake up she probably was looking at her wounded mother or tending to her wounded mother as the men were busy fighting in the kitchen. Otherwise maybe she went to check on her children to make sure they wer eunharmed and asleep still.
There are many different possibilities.
3.Sheila´s appearance in death and the way she was shot. She looks vastly different than her parents. Nevill and June looked messy with an air of despair about them. Sheila looked at peace and tranquil, not a trace of fight, it is all so neat to look at that it has to strike you. How could Jeremy manage that - how could he manage to shoot her in such an awkward position?".
She was heavily medicated, it is easy to imagine her not putting up a struggle considering she was tranquilized. I suggest you read more about her medication and the zombie like state it can put people in.
4.The fact that Sheila was shot twice speaks against Jeremy having done it if he wanted to stage a suicide. What moron shoots a victim twice and expects it to be ruled a suicide?"
It is quite true that there are not many multiple shot suicides. Most people choose the head or chest for a shot so succeed and those who fail typically don't shoot again they are saved. The few who fail the first shot and then try again virtually always change the location to the head or chest to make sure the second time is not a failure. They very rarely select the same location. Let than 10% shoot themselves in the neck. I can't find any cases of people who failed the first time in the neck and chose the same location the second time. So this actually speaks against suicide as opposed to Jeremy's innocence.
After the first shot she was still breathing and potentially could be revived by medical personnel for all he knew. He had a choice, either shoot her again and risk her living and telling the truth about what happened and risk people believing her or shooting her again. He chose the latter quite clearly. In the choice of whether to risk her living it is easy to see he would take that option even though it speaks against suicide because the alternative is worse.
I can list a number of stupid things done some of which were the result of bad planning and ignorance others from what we in the military call first contact. There is a rule, no plan survives first contact intact. It means circumstances change and some things can't be foreseen. It is why alternative plans must be thought up. Not counting the bullets in the box that he stuck in the kitchen to make sure there were not too many left was poor planning. The first shot not being fatal immediately was a result of poor execution and a second shot was simply adapting to the situation.
5.Julie. If Jeremy had really told her so much about his plans of killing his family, she would have warned the Bambers and Sheila - as we know, she did not. Or did she really think it was all right to kill them all off including the little boys she had read bed-time stories.
Julie insists she doesn't think he was serious or that he was actually capable of doing it. The more important thing is why it took her so long afterwards for her conscience to get her to talk and if he marrie dher like she wanted would she have remained silent. This doesn't establish Jeremy is innocent though it merely speaks to her moral fiber if she could have remained happy wih someone she knew was a murderer. She didn't mind he was a crook so that alone says she isn't so upstanding.
But that doesn't make her claims not credible the claims have to be wieghed in their own right against the evidence and in that regard they are credible and there is evidence to support he was the killer. This wa snot a case where her word alone was trusted.
6.The fact that the police initially and for quite a while saw the case as a murder-suicide case. The evidence must have supported that.
This is one of the worst arguments yet. The fact police believed his story and frame at first before all the evidence was processed means nothing at all. A tremendous amount of evidence was developed afterwards including the fact that Nevill would have been unable to speak because of his injuries so the entire phone call from Nevill was challenged. Finding out he was shot first in the bedroom then kitchen made abig deal as well as the struggle in the kitchen and much more. Even the fact that the box of ammo still had 30 bullets left and couldn't it 25 bullets had been used from it.
This doesn't even take into account the evidence of the suppressor, Julie and much more. Police assumptions before the evidence if fully evaliuated doesn't prove a thing and is meaningless. It has no weight in court because it is meaningless so should not have any weight with us.
7.The way the most crucial piece of evidence was found and handled by relatives who had A LOT to gain by a guilty verdict. Found after police already had searched gun cupboard.
you have not provided any evidence against the suppressor. Saying you don't like how it was found is not enough to challenge it. The fact of the matter is that police testified they didn't look for a suppressor they didn't say no suppressor was in there. To discount it, it is necessary to establish 2 different things.
Since the fatal wound would have resulted in back spatter in the weapon and none was found this means the defense needed to establish that there was a reaosnable probability that blood wa sin the weapon but that police either cleaned it before it arrived at the lab to conceal evidence or th elab itself foudn blood but concealed that it had found Sheila's blood inside.
Moreover it was necessary to establish a reasonable probablity that the blood found in the suppressor was planted. The nature of the blood found is that is was wet when it entered the suppressor and dried to the baffles and the inside opening. Moreover, microscopic drops dried on the first 8 baffles. he only way for blood to get on 8 baffles like this is if it had been sprayed which there is no way to accidentally have that happen. Taking a dropper of blood and dripping it in would not even acocunt dfor the blood distribution it had to be sprayed. It would take a great deal of knowledge to know it had to be sprayed and to figure out a way to spray it so that it would be distributed in the manner found. it would also require obtaining Sheila's blood or knowing her blood type somehow and obtaining the same type of bool. A great deal then is involved in trying to plant blood. Alot of evidence would be required ot estbalish the blood could have been planted let alone that there was a reaosnable probability it was planted. You ignore this entire inquiry with the simplistic well it was found by relatives so could have been planted. The defense burden to discount the evidence is much greater than you suggest which is why at trial the defense was unable to do so and instead tried to establish that the blood could have been a mixture of different blood types. They failed but that was the best argument they could hope to make.
8.The way Jeremy behaved after the tragedy. If he had done it, he would have gone out of his way to appear innocent. As it was, he just kept on with his life as the arrogant young man he was.
He did try to appear innocent ith various lies he told but it backfired. Arrogant people often do not change their colors after committing crimes it is hard for a zebra to change its stripes. Especially when one thinks he has committed a foolproof crime. If most criminals were as smart as they think they are then prisons would not have so many occupants.
9.Sheila´s illness. She was seriously mentally ill, contrary to what guilters say. She didn´t receive heavy medication for nothing, she wasn´t hospitalized for nothing. Paranoid Schizophrenics most frequently target their closest family if they have violent impulses. Sometimes they even plan to kill family members.
Many never target anyone and those who do are either not undergoing treatment, avoiding their medication or taking drugs that exacerbate delusions.
That is the case with Sheila, she had relapses when she stopped taking her medication and/or was taking drugs. That is why she wa sput on a powerful tranquilizer that is injected. She didn't have to take the medication herself so had no means to stop taking it. It was in her system but she had not taken any other drugs at the time of her murders. There is nothing at all in her system to counter the tranquilizer. There is no explanation of what would agitate her as she was sleeping at 3Am let alone agitate her so much she would get up and try to kill everyone in their beds.
This combined with the lack of physical evidence to estbalish she had been invovled in the struggle with Nevill, the fact he could not have made the call as claimed and other evidence like the suppressor as a whole speaks to her innocence.
10.The "coincidence" that Sheila said: "All people are evil and must die". The fact that she thought her sons were the "Devil´s children", that they were "women haters", that she was afraid they would rape and kill her show with all clarity that something was seriously wrong. It should have raised alarm bells, she should not have been allowed to be with them unsupervised! As it was, the doctors washed their hands after the fact, claiming that Sheila would never harm her children. Children who had bruises, were neglected and had dark and strange thoughts themselves, which anyone can see for themselves from their sinister drawings.
Much of what you are talking about was from 1983. She didn't tlak about her fmaily at all in her last hospital stay. She thought everyone was evil so instead fo trying to kill as many peopel as she could including Jeremy at dinner she waits till everyone is a sleep and then tries to kill just her family and then herself. It doesn't fit at all what those treating her say. You selectively take some of what they say but try to twist it for your own purposes.
Sorry but everythign you wrote deomonstrates you are not objectively looking at the facts but rather a blind advocate for Jeremy cherry picking anything you can think of.
You can be an advocate all you want but if you want to be convincing then you need to try a lot harder looking in much more detail at the really important foundations of the case not throwing pebbles.
I gave you a blueprin of what would need ot be estbalished to challenge the supporessor I doubt you will find an expert to help or even much evidence to try to suggest what I described happened but that is where you would need to start if you want to make a serious effort.
