What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[scipio_usmc]

I don't think it is fair to use BW's recent claim, she didn't say that the comment related to Jeremy at the time and has recently claimed to have seen the silencer and the blood on it. No one else substantiates her presence when the blood was allegedly spotted.

Based on the detail of the claim regarding when and how it supposedly was made I find it credible.  It was not an ambiguous claim but a detailed one with the detail being credible not absurd.  Judges get to consider such during the appeal process and had it been elicited sooner it would have gotten before a jury for them to judge whether they find it credible or not. 

This is one of those situations were we can agree to disagree.  It is not one of the main things I rely on though for my argument that Jeremy is guilty.  It is a small piece of the puzzle.

Also, statements in the archives explain quite clearly what happened to the phones in WHF

What statements?  The only statements I have seen concerning the phones were generlaized statements that when the kitchen phone was borken that it would be replaced by the bedroom phone.  But the kitchen phone was not broken it was working fine.  It was intentionally unplugged and hidden and replaced by the roatary bedroom phone to give the impression that it was replacing a broken phone but in fact it wasn't broken just hidden. 

and as for the silencer, this has to be the most convenient piece of evidence that I have read about in any case.

Then you must not have studied many cases because there are smoking guns like that in sizable numbers of cases.  Such evidence is why criminals get caught otherwise the jails would be a lot less full, if crooks were smart they would not be caught.

I already detailed in other threads what it would entail to have planted blood int he suppressor and had that been done why woudl anyone bother also planting paint which isn't necessary since the blood relates to Sheila's death while the paint does not.

Planting it would require:

1) obtaining a sample of Sheila's wet blood or knowing her blood type and obtaining a sample of group A blood from somewhere else (most people don't even know their own blood type)

2) knowing exactly what kind of blood distribution back spatter would leave inside a suppressor and using a device to spray said blood into the suppressor so that it was able to leave microscopic droplets on the first 8 baffles and visible flakes of blood on the inside opening and the first 5-7 baffles so that it would replicate what back spatter would look like.  The fact of the matte ris that most peopel including most on this site would not have a clue about that and even though the distribuion of blood is described in the court findings most peopel still would probably just drip blood in the opening and not understand the significance of needed to use a device to spray the blood in.

3)  If the suppressor had not been attached back spatter would have been in the rifle.  Those planting the evidence had to recognize that blood found in the rifle would refute the suppressor was attached so the rifle would have to be cleaned out before it was sent to the lab or the lab would have to lie and pretend no blood was found.

So this means the family alone could not have carried it out, police would have to have carried it out with the family. There would have to be a conspiracy among police and the family.

Aside from a conspiracy you needed peopel to have some detaile dknowledge to be able to pull it off so that it was not able to be detected.

I find it hard to believe anyone figured out both that they would need to spray blood inside and also to elimiante the blood evidence from the murder weapon.  There is no evidence to suggest this happened.  For court puposes it is necessary to prove a reasonable likelihood that this occurred.  Short of that the suppressor evidence is not able to be rebutted. 

[Adam]

Based on the detail of the claim regarding when and how it supposedly was made I find it credible.  It was not an ambiguous claim but a detailed one with the detail being credible not absurd.  Judges get to consider such during the appeal process and had it been elicited sooner it would have gotten before a jury for them to judge whether they find it credible or not. 

This is one of those situations were we can agree to disagree.  It is not one of the main things I rely on though for my argument that Jeremy is guilty.  It is a small piece of the puzzle.


What statements?  The only statements I have seen concerning the phones were generlaized statements that when the kitchen phone was borken that it would be replaced by the bedroom phone.  But the kitchen phone was not broken it was working fine.  It was intentionally unplugged and hidden and replaced by the roatary bedroom phone to give the impression that it was replacing a broken phone but in fact it wasn't broken just hidden. 


Then you must not have studied many cases because there are smoking guns like that in sizable numbers of cases.  Such evidence is why criminals get caught otherwise the jails would be a lot less full, if crooks were smart they would not be caught.

I already detailed in other threads what it would entail to have planted blood int he suppressor and had that been done why woudl anyone bother also planting paint which isn't necessary since the blood relates to Sheila's death while the paint does not.

Planting it would require:

1) obtaining a sample of Sheila's wet blood or knowing her blood type and obtaining a sample of group A blood from somewhere else (most people don't even know their own blood type)

2) knowing exactly what kind of blood distribution back spatter would leave inside a suppressor and using a device to spray said blood into the suppressor so that it was able to leave microscopic droplets on the first 8 baffles and visible flakes of blood on the inside opening and the first 5-7 baffles so that it would replicate what back spatter would look like.  The fact of the matte ris that most peopel including most on this site would not have a clue about that and even though the distribuion of blood is described in the court findings most peopel still would probably just drip blood in the opening and not understand the significance of needed to use a device to spray the blood in.

3)  If the suppressor had not been attached back spatter would have been in the rifle.  Those planting the evidence had to recognize that blood found in the rifle would refute the suppressor was attached so the rifle would have to be cleaned out before it was sent to the lab or the lab would have to lie and pretend no blood was found.

So this means the family alone could not have carried it out, police would have to have carried it out with the family. There would have to be a conspiracy among police and the family.

Aside from a conspiracy you needed peopel to have some detaile dknowledge to be able to pull it off so that it was not able to be detected.

I find it hard to believe anyone figured out both that they would need to spray blood inside and also to elimiante the blood evidence from the murder weapon.  There is no evidence to suggest this happened.  For court puposes it is necessary to prove a reasonable likelihood that this occurred.  Short of that the suppressor evidence is not able to be rebutted.

Good points.

The relatives would need to know that the rifle end did not have any blood back splatter.

If the rifle end did have back splatter & the relatives then handed in the silencer with Sheilas blood type on, they could be accused of trying to frame Jeremy. A serious offence. And there was no need to put paint on it as well.

[Adam]

The relatives handed in the silencer to the police shortly after finding it.

They would need to quickly decide together that they were going to commit the serious crime of trying to frame Jeremy. Not for money reasons as Jeremys own Youtube video says they were already rich and had no reason to lie. So the only motive was that they did not believe Sheila did it and wanted justice. And they were prepared to engage in criminal activities to achieve what they considered justice.

The relatives would have to know about back splatter & know that at least one of Sheilas shots was close range or a contact shot.

They then had to quickly find out Sheilas blood group and decide how to convincingly spray this blood type into the silencer. As well as firstly find out if there was blood on the end of the rifle.

[Adam]

Adam - honest answer - I don't know - I can not fathom out the police action in this case at all.Right from the start the way they handled the evidence/logs/evidence numbers etc was a mess . Lets face it if it was not a mess none of us would have anything to discuss

All I know is that most people in her position- if she was telling the truth would have done something about it much earlier. That is my opinion.

Well the relatives approached the police with the silencer. The police then handed it to the lab for testing.

Julie approached the police via Liz Rimmington.

These events do not suggest the police were trying to arrange a framing.

[wilf]

when the telephone wire was struck by lightning the line went dead. first thing you do is try plugging different phones in different sockets "yep its definatly dead" the upstairs phone just didnt get replaced.
there seems no mystery in this to me. done this sort of thing myself. the kitchen phone just got lost in the general clutter and would have eventually been replaced proberbly when the cordless came back from repair

I've never seen anything sinister in this

wilf

[Jane]

when the telephone wire was struck by lightning the line went dead. first thing you do is try plugging different phones in different sockets "yep its definatly dead" the upstairs phone just didnt get replaced.
there seems no mystery in this to me. done this sort of thing myself. the kitchen phone just got lost in the general clutter and would have eventually been replaced proberbly when the cordless came back from repair

I've never seen anything sinister in this

wilf

Especially when we consider that it was found under a cushion/pile of parers in the kitchen which wasn't exactly the epitome of tidiness, more a" lay it down, it gets covered up with something else" space.

[lookout]

Nor me Wilf. Everything is shoved under a pile of magazines,,or vice-versa. Farmhouses aren't the tidiest of places. Not the working ones anyway. So nothing unusual there that I'd have thought of.

[Jan]

Based on the detail of the claim regarding when and how it supposedly was made I find it credible.  It was not an ambiguous claim but a detailed one with the detail being credible not absurd.  Judges get to consider such during the appeal process and had it been elicited sooner it would have gotten before a jury for them to judge whether they find it credible or not. 

This is one of those situations were we can agree to disagree.  It is not one of the main things I rely on though for my argument that Jeremy is guilty.  It is a small piece of the puzzle.


What statements?  The only statements I have seen concerning the phones were generlaized statements that when the kitchen phone was borken that it would be replaced by the bedroom phone.  But the kitchen phone was not broken it was working fine.  It was intentionally unplugged and hidden and replaced by the roatary bedroom phone to give the impression that it was replacing a broken phone but in fact it wasn't broken just hidden. 


Then you must not have studied many cases because there are smoking guns like that in sizable numbers of cases.  Such evidence is why criminals get caught otherwise the jails would be a lot less full, if crooks were smart they would not be caught.

I already detailed in other threads what it would entail to have planted blood int he suppressor and had that been done why woudl anyone bother also planting paint which isn't necessary since the blood relates to Sheila's death while the paint does not.

Planting it would require:

1) obtaining a sample of Sheila's wet blood or knowing her blood type and obtaining a sample of group A blood from somewhere else (most people don't even know their own blood type)

2) knowing exactly what kind of blood distribution back spatter would leave inside a suppressor and using a device to spray said blood into the suppressor so that it was able to leave microscopic droplets on the first 8 baffles and visible flakes of blood on the inside opening and the first 5-7 baffles so that it would replicate what back spatter would look like.  The fact of the matte ris that most peopel including most on this site would not have a clue about that and even though the distribuion of blood is described in the court findings most peopel still would probably just drip blood in the opening and not understand the significance of needed to use a device to spray the blood in.

3)  If the suppressor had not been attached back spatter would have been in the rifle.  Those planting the evidence had to recognize that blood found in the rifle would refute the suppressor was attached so the rifle would have to be cleaned out before it was sent to the lab or the lab would have to lie and pretend no blood was found.

So this means the family alone could not have carried it out, police would have to have carried it out with the family. There would have to be a conspiracy among police and the family.

Aside from a conspiracy you needed peopel to have some detaile dknowledge to be able to pull it off so that it was not able to be detected.

I find it hard to believe anyone figured out both that they would need to spray blood inside and also to elimiante the blood evidence from the murder weapon.  There is no evidence to suggest this happened.  For court puposes it is necessary to prove a reasonable likelihood that this occurred.  Short of that the suppressor evidence is not able to be rebutted.

Can I ask - have you actually read all the statements of the people who supposedly found the moderator? If you do you will find that none off them agree .
They don't agree how it looked/ where there was blood on it or if there was a hair. Then it was wrapped in a tissue/ or toilet roll before being taken from Annes house. Also on here you will find documents that show  there was more than one silencer . If you had read the documents you would also know there is much dispute about when the police actually took the silencer.

Reference the BW statement - again - This was apparently only said recently in a  tv documentary  - it was never said in court or a statement as far as I know.

Also although BW was said by some to be in the house when the silencer was found some of the family said that she did not see it being discovered.

So unless you can show me a written statement by BW to dispute the above , the fact that you find it credible ,to be honest in neither here nor there.

[Jan]

Based on the detail of the claim regarding when and how it supposedly was made I find it credible.  It was not an ambiguous claim but a detailed one with the detail being credible not absurd.  Judges get to consider such during the appeal process and had it been elicited sooner it would have gotten before a jury for them to judge whether they find it credible or not. 

This is one of those situations were we can agree to disagree.  It is not one of the main things I rely on though for my argument that Jeremy is guilty.  It is a small piece of the puzzle.


What statements?  The only statements I have seen concerning the phones were generlaized



statements that when the kitchen phone was borken that it would be replaced by the bedroom phone.  But the kitchen phone was not broken it was working fine.  It was intentionally unplugged and hidden and replaced by the roatary bedroom phone to give the impression that it was replacing a broken phone but in fact it wasn't broken just hidden. 


Then you must not have studied many cases because there are smoking guns like that in sizable numbers of cases.  Such evidence is why criminals get caught otherwise the jails would be a lot less full, if crooks were smart they would not be caught.

I already detailed in other threads what it would entail to have planted blood int he suppressor and had that been done why woudl anyone bother also planting paint which isn't necessary since the blood relates to Sheila's death while the paint does not.

Planting it would require:

1) obtaining a sample of Sheila's wet blood or knowing her blood type and obtaining a sample of group A blood from somewhere else (most people don't even know their own blood type)

2) knowing exactly what kind of blood distribution back spatter would leave inside a suppressor and using a device to spray said blood into the suppressor so that it was able to leave microscopic droplets on the first 8 baffles and visible flakes of blood on the inside opening and the first 5-7 baffles so that it would replicate what back spatter would look like.  The fact of the matte ris that most peopel including most on this site would not have a clue about that and even though the distribuion of blood is described in the court findings most peopel still would probably just drip blood in the opening and not understand the significance of needed to use a device to spray the blood in.

3)  If the suppressor had not been attached back spatter would have been in the rifle.  Those planting the evidence had to recognize that blood found in the rifle would refute the suppressor was attached so the rifle would have to be cleaned out before it was sent to the lab or the lab would have to lie and pretend no blood was found.

So this means the family alone could not have carried it out, police would have to have carried it out with the family. There would have to be a conspiracy among police and the family.

Aside from a conspiracy you needed peopel to have some detaile dknowledge to be able to pull it off so that it was not able to be detected.

I find it hard to believe anyone figured out both that they would need to spray blood inside and also to elimiante the blood evidence from the murder weapon.  There is no evidence to suggest this happened.  For court puposes it is necessary to prove a reasonable likelihood that this occurred.  Short of that the suppressor evidence is not able to be rebutted.

Here is Davids statement - no mention of Barbara looking at the moderator? No real mention of blood? And no grey hair either.?

Strange

[grahameb]

Here is Davids statement - no mention of Barbara looking at the moderator? No real mention of blood? And no grey hair either.?

Strange

The facts remain Jan is that IF they found a silencer (1) they should have left it where it was and then call the police. (2) They should not have taken it home with them for the police to collect it later. (3) The silencer because of all this handling should have been rejected by the court because of contamination. Indeed the officer who collected the silencer was asked in court if that was the silencer that he had collected and he replied something along the lines of yes but it was not in that condition when I collected it.
I doubt very much if a court today would be hoodwinked into accepting such a potentially contaminated object into evidence, but would be immediately rejected. In my opinion the silencer should never have reached the court at all and at least two people from the jury agreed with me.

[Jan]

The facts remain Jan is that IF they found a silencer (1) they should have left it where it was and then call the police. (2) They should not have taken it home with them for the police to collect it later. (3) The silencer because of all this handling should have been rejected by the court because of contamination. Indeed the officer who collected the silencer was asked in court if that was the silencer that he had collected and he replied something along the lines of yes but it was not in that condition when I collected it.
I doubt very much if a court today would be hoodwinked into accepting such a potentially contaminated object into evidence, but would be immediately rejected. In my opinion the silencer should never have reached the court at all and at least two people from the jury agreed with me.

tbh  I don't even think it was even used   

And I agree that I can not understand why it was accepted when even the police admitted it was not even kept correctly in their possession , let alone when it was in the family wardrobe

[grahameb]

tbh  I don't even think it was even used   

And I agree that I can not understand why it was accepted when even the police admitted it was not even kept correctly in their possession , let alone when it was in the family wardrobe

Personally I think it is a complete red herring.

[maggie]

tbh  I don't even think it was even used   

And I agree that I can not understand why it was accepted when even the police admitted it was not even kept correctly in their possession , let alone when it was in the family wardrobe

I agree, I cannot for a moment believe that the silencer was found in such a place in such condition. It's as if they said .... we need proof Sheila couldn't have shot herself, we could do that by finding a silencer which had obviously been used and would make it impossible for Sheila to have killed herself ..... what will prove it had been used ..... blood, a grey hair and paint to prove it was used in a fight in the kitchen and scratched the aga surround, that should do.  ..... it's too pat .... ludicrous!!!  imo.

[scipio_usmc]

Can I ask - have you actually read all the statements of the people who supposedly found the moderator? If you do you will find that none off them agree .
They don't agree how it looked/ where there was blood on it or if there was a hair. Then it was wrapped in a tissue/ or toilet roll before being taken from Annes house. Also on here you will find documents that show  there was more than one silencer . If you had read the documents you would also know there is much dispute about when the police actually took the silencer.

Reference the BW statement - again - This was apparently only said recently in a  tv documentary  - it was never said in court or a statement as far as I know.

Also although BW was said by some to be in the house when the silencer was found some of the family said that she did not see it being discovered.

So unless you can show me a written statement by BW to dispute the above , the fact that you find it credible ,to be honest in neither here nor there.

Yes I did read the statements and witnesses often disagree to an extent on various points.  People only pay attention to certain things and have different definitions among other things and some peoplr recall more things than others not just because they noticed more at the time but something made it stick in their mind.  When people agree to the letter in very detailed terms it often is a sign they coordinated their statements in advance.  People often provide more details they recall at a later date or that they neglected to mention originally because they didn't know it was so significant to mention. None changed their story in any major way.

What I have detailed are the mechanics that would be necessary to plant said evidence.  That is th emost important thing in order to establish it happened. You cna have 50 peopel with 50 different stories about the supporessor but it makes no difference if the evidence can't have been planted it still would not change the value.

The family could not do it alone they would have neede dpolice help to do it a joint conspiracy the lab also would have to have been involved unless police recognized they needed to clean out blood from the rifle before turning it over to the lab.

This conspiracy would have been required to occur very early on.  It required recognizing something that the family and even police would be unlikely to recognize that they would need to do to plant it.  The defense lawyers to this day have not found an expert who has posited a way to plant evidence in a manner which would account for the distribution of blood found in the suppressor.  teh fact the witnesses came forward piecemeal not all at once at insistence of police but on their own establishes no evidence of a conspiracy in the meantime. 

Under these crucumstances there is no way to establish there was a reasonable likelihood the blood evidence was planted and fraudulently removed from the rifle.

It was not some accident that the defense did not have their own expert testify at trial.  The microscopic blood drops he found which were type A blood that he found on the first 8 baffles were more damaging than the blood the prosecution found.  It is harder to say such was planted than the blood the prosecution tested. The jury wasn't made aware of the defense expert's findings because he didn't testify.  He had evidence favorable to the prosecution so they didn't use him. 
 

[Jan]

Based on the detail of the claim regarding when and how it supposedly was made I find it credible.  It was not an ambiguous claim but a detailed one with the detail being credible not absurd.  Judges get to consider such during the appeal process and had it been elicited sooner it would have gotten before a jury for them to judge whether they find it credible or not. 

This is one of those situations were we can agree to disagree.  It is not one of the main things I rely on though for my argument that Jeremy is guilty.  It is a small piece of the puzzle.


What statements?  The only statements I have seen concerning the phones were generlaized statements that when the kitchen phone was borken that it would be replaced by the bedroom phone.  But the kitchen phone was not broken it was working fine.  It was intentionally unplugged and hidden and replaced by the roatary bedroom phone to give the impression that it was replacing a broken phone but in fact it wasn't broken just hidden. 


Then you must not have studied many cases because there are smoking guns like that in sizable numbers of cases.  Such evidence is why criminals get caught otherwise the jails would be a lot less full, if crooks were smart they would not be caught.

I already detailed in other threads what it would entail to have planted blood int he suppressor and had that been done why woudl anyone bother also planting paint which isn't necessary since the blood relates to Sheila's death while the paint does not.

Planting it would require:

1) obtaining a sample of Sheila's wet blood or knowing her blood type and obtaining a sample of group A blood from somewhere else (most people don't even know their own blood type)

2) knowing exactly what kind of blood distribution back spatter would leave inside a suppressor and using a device to spray said blood into the suppressor so that it was able to leave microscopic droplets on the first 8 baffles and visible flakes of blood on the inside opening and the first 5-7 baffles so that it would replicate what back spatter would look like.  The fact of the matte ris that most peopel including most on this site would not have a clue about that and even though the distribuion of blood is described in the court findings most peopel still would probably just drip blood in the opening and not understand the significance of needed to use a device to spray the blood in.

3)  If the suppressor had not been attached back spatter would have been in the rifle.  Those planting the evidence had to recognize that blood found in the rifle would refute the suppressor was attached so the rifle would have to be cleaned out before it was sent to the lab or the lab would have to lie and pretend no blood was found.

So this means the family alone could not have carried it out, police would have to have carried it out with the family. There would have to be a conspiracy among police and the family.

Aside from a conspiracy you needed peopel to have some detaile dknowledge to be able to pull it off so that it was not able to be detected.

I find it hard to believe anyone figured out both that they would need to spray blood inside and also to elimiante the blood evidence from the murder weapon.  There is no evidence to suggest this happened.  For court puposes it is necessary to prove a reasonable likelihood that this occurred.  Short of that the suppressor evidence is not able to be rebutted.

Quick couple of questions for you :

Why is there a police report that the silencer was not actually reported as being found to the police until 10th September?

Why if there was a lot blood on the butt of the gun was the lab not able to group or identify it ? but they can make some kind of supposition on the flake? ( although it changed several times , as it could have been animal blood apparently)

How could have Barbara Wilson seen blood on the silencer - when the statement I showed you did not even say she was in viewing distance when it was discovered and even DB did not say the "blob" was blood?

I am sure you have read all the statements about possible contamination - so why do you think it was accepted as evidence ( because you are obviously such a legal expert)

And lastly why am I wasting my time when  a) I don't think the silencer /moderator was used and b) there was more than one in the house so who knows which one was used as "evidence"