What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[Caroline]

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. 
 

There are SOME things which they should have all remembered like who was actually there when it was found. David Boutflour recalls the event as though he were alone, Robert Boutflour puts himself at the heart of things and Ann - well, she remembers it but didn't think much of it at the time. Basil Cock has never mentioned it and only recently, Barbara Wilson has  joined the 'I saw the silencer covered in blood' club - so I'd say she has pretty much changed her story quite significantly.

The strange thing about the silencer is that although it was found on 10th Aug, no one makes a statement until AFTER Jeremy becomes a suspect? I'm sure you are familiar with the Cognitive interview where a speedy interview with a witness is of the essence! Also Ann describes the blood on the outside of the silencer as a 'sticky blob'. I don't think I need explain that after 3 days, the blood wouldn't be sticky and said blob would have dried and detached itself. We did an experiment to test the blob theory, the blood changed colour and dried within an hour and peeled away from the surface of the metal torch which I used, and crumbled. The blob was never mentioned in tests, even though it had survived (according to the relatives) for 3 days in a cupboard, in transit, in storage at Oak farm and in further transit to the police station inside a cardboard tube. It's just that little trip to the lab that it would seem the blob gave up the ghost and suddenly disappeared. Funny that!

[Alias]

To go back to the original subject of this thread.
I am not responding to anything but that in this post.

It bothers me that the rifle was empty after Sheila shot herself (or someone/Jeremy shot her).
If there had been just one bullet left , I wouldn´t think about this; but here goes: how could Sheila know she would need two bullets to kill herself? 
Coincidence, perhaps, but it makes you wonder.

[Jane]

To go back to the original subject of this thread.
I am not responding to anything but that in this post.

It bothers me that the rifle was empty after Sheila shot herself (or someone/Jeremy shot her).
If there had been just one bullet left , I wouldn´t think about this; but here goes: how could Sheila know she would need two bullets to kill herself? 
Coincidence, perhaps, but it makes you wonder.

Alias, how could a shooter know that it would require 2 shots to dispatch Sheila?

[Alias]

Alias, how could a shooter know that it would require 2 shots to dispatch Sheila?

A shooter could have walked away, loaded one more bullet, then finished the job.

[Caroline]

To go back to the original subject of this thread.
I am not responding to anything but that in this post.

It bothers me that the rifle was empty after Sheila shot herself (or someone/Jeremy shot her).
If there had been just one bullet left , I wouldn´t think about this; but here goes: how could Sheila know she would need two bullets to kill herself? 
Coincidence, perhaps, but it makes you wonder.

It bothers me too and I agree - unless, there were more shots left in the magazine but were removed to make the weapon safe when the police moved in?

[Alias]

It bothers me too and I agree - unless, there were more shots left in the magazine but were removed to make the weapon safe when the police moved in?

Could be just that. Would be nice if they had treated this as a crime scene, can´t believe how clumsily and amateurish they went about this.
We will never know.

[scipio_usmc]

There are SOME things which they should have all remembered like who was actually there when it was found. David Boutflour recalls the event as though he were alone, Robert Boutflour puts himself at the heart of things and Ann - well, she remembers it but didn't think much of it at the time. Basil Cock has never mentioned it and only recently, Barbara Wilson has  joined the 'I saw the silencer covered in blood' club - so I'd say she has pretty much changed her story quite significantly.

The strange thing about the silencer is that although it was found on 10th Aug, no one makes a statement until AFTER Jeremy becomes a suspect? I'm sure you are familiar with the Cognitive interview where a speedy interview with a witness is of the essence! Also Ann describes the blood on the outside of the silencer as a 'sticky blob'. I don't think I need explain that after 3 days, the blood wouldn't be sticky and said blob would have dried and detached itself. We did an experiment to test the blob theory, the blood changed colour and dried within an hour and peeled away from the surface of the metal torch which I used, and crumbled. The blob was never mentioned in tests, even though it had survived (according to the relatives) for 3 days in a cupboard, in transit, in storage at Oak farm and in further transit to the police station inside a cardboard tube. It's just that little trip to the lab that it would seem the blob gave up the ghost and suddenly disappeared. Funny that!

Blood doesn't just dry and peel away instantly from all metals. It did not fall off the baffles it stayed there until scraped away.  It doesn't dry and just fall out of barrels of weapons it has to be scrubbed off. Your supposed test doens't prove anything.

The blood on the outside was not successfully tested that is why it wasn't mentioned, it doesn't prove anything.  Some of the blood found by the prosecution on the baffles wasn't either so again no results mentioned for that blood. Blood that wa ssuccessfully tested wa smentioned and whose blood was it?  Sheila's blood type.

Whose bloodtype did the defense find?  Sheila's and the microscopic blood found by the defense was found in September, so much for all blood falling off after 3 days...

There is no accidental contamination theory which could even theoretically account for accidental blood transfer that would result in the blood tested by the prosecution and defense.

The ONLY theoretical theory of how the blood could have intentionally been planted woudl be to use a device to spray blood inside.  Are there any devices in existence at the time to have been used?  The defense was unable to find anyone to discuss such a device let alone any evidence th epolice or family had such a device.  There are a whole lot of logistical hurdles including needing to recongize in the first place you should spray the blood inside not just pour it in or use a dropper.

If they didn't spray it in them the blood distribution would have been different and someone for the defense either at trial or on appeal would then say hey this is not right this distribution is indicative of being planted not back spatter.  But only someone with a great deal of skill would be aware of this.  Again I'm the first person to bring it up to the arm chair detectives in this case so obviously it is not common knowledge.

What is so surprising about police taking notes when they talk to peopel and only getting a statement when it is absilutely necessary?   That is standard fare.  Why would they bother having people give signed statements when they don't know if there will be a need for one or what such statment should entail? 

Lawyers do the same things we take notes when we interview peopel inforally and only have affidavits signed when we need them for a set purpose or depose people when needed for a set purpose.   

[Alias]

Scipio, you ignore the "sticky blob" part. How could AE describe blood which had supposedly dried for three days as a sticky, jamlike blob about the size of a match-head?

[Caroline]

Blood doesn't just dry and peel away instantly from all metals. It did not fall off the baffles it stayed there until scraped away.  It doesn't dry and just fall out of barrels of weapons it has to be scrubbed off. Your supposed test doens't prove anything.

The blood on the outside was not successfully tested that is why it wasn't mentioned, it doesn't prove anything.  Some of the blood found by the prosecution on the baffles wasn't either so again no results mentioned for that blood. Blood that wa ssuccessfully tested wa smentioned and whose blood was it?  Sheila's blood type.

Whose bloodtype did the defense find?  Sheila's and the microscopic blood found by the defense was found in September, so much for all blood falling off after 3 days...

There is no accidental contamination theory which could even theoretically account for accidental blood transfer that would result in the blood tested by the prosecution and defense.

The ONLY theoretical theory of how the blood could have intentionally been planted woudl be to use a device to spray blood inside.  Are there any devices in existence at the time to have been used?  The defense was unable to find anyone to discuss such a device let alone any evidence th epolice or family had such a device.  There are a whole lot of logistical hurdles including needing to recongize in the first place you should spray the blood inside not just pour it in or use a dropper.

If they didn't spray it in them the blood distribution would have been different and someone for the defense either at trial or on appeal would then say hey this is not right this distribution is indicative of being planted not back spatter.  But only someone with a great deal of skill would be aware of this.  Again I'm the first person to bring it up to the arm chair detectives in this case so obviously it is not common knowledge.

What is so surprising about police taking notes when they talk to peopel and only getting a statement when it is absilutely necessary?   That is standard fare.  Why would they bother having people give signed statements when they don't know if there will be a need for one or what such statment should entail? 

Lawyers do the same things we take notes when we interview peopel inforally and only have affidavits signed when we need them for a set purpose or depose people when needed for a set purpose.

There is no way a BLOB would have remained on the outside of the silencer for 3 days and it wasn't tested because it wasn't there!  Did the lab shave the silencer? Because apparently it sprouted a hair also - which (and I know you won't believe this folks) but is disappeared - go figure!!

Sheila's blood 'type' was found or rather just the AK1 enzyme, so it was 'attributed' to Sheila. They found none of her DNA later though!!

However it got there, I wouldn't like to say as I'm not in the habit of planting blood in silencers but I guess those in the know would, well - know!

What would the statement entail? Well, who was there for starters! How many witness's witnessed the finding of the silencer and what they actually saw on it and where they were when they saw it! because in the space of only one month they had all seemed to forget such fundamental details of things like - who was there at the time!

[scipio_usmc]

It bothers me too and I agree - unless, there were more shots left in the magazine but were removed to make the weapon safe when the police moved in?

Removing bullets from a magazine is not necessary to make a weapon safe. Teh magazine can remain loaded without any problems at all so police had no reason to remove any bullets from it.  nor did any police ever suggest that they did so.  Making sure there are no bullets in the chamber not the magazine is how a weapon is made safe.

I don't really follow the point.  If anything the point is suggesting this helps exonerate her and suggests someone else did the shooting because she would not have known she needed 2 bullets.  I don't see the problem others see. It could be sheer coincidence that there were 2 bullets left and that the killer didn't feel the need to reload.  It is also possible the killer fired the final shot relaized she wasn't dead and reloaded a single bullet to try again.  The number of bullets left tells us nothing useful as far as who did it.

There is in fact a logical explanation for there being 2 shots left though.  That is where it helps.  It doesn't tell us who fired the shots but gives a clue as to the reloading a little.

The maximum capacity is 11 bullets (10 in the mag, 1 in the chamber)  This is what killers usually do to start they start with the maximum load.

Where did the shooting start most likely?  Master bedroom?  How many shots were fired at the parents there?  11

How would Nevill get past his killer ad to the kitchen?  If the killer were out of ammo and needed ot reload. Having multiple magazines would have saved a lot of time and trouble.  having to relaod a magazine while fighting with someone you want to kill is not ideal to put it mildly.  Ok so either the killer ran to the kitchen with Nevill in pursuit or the killer chased Nevill.  Because the gun was empty the killer could not shoot Nevill and Nevill tried to wrestle the gun away and they foguth over control of the weapon.  The killer did not shoot Nevill but rather beat him unconscous, reloaded and shot Nevill 4 times killing him.  SInce time was of the essense the killer probably only partially relaoded so that the killer could shoot him before he got up again.  Loading all 10 rounds is unlikely.  Even if the killer did load all 10 that leaves 6 rounds and 3 people left to kill.  Would the killer load the magazine fully or go up with just 6 rounds and hope for the best?  The boys were shot 8 times not 6 and the spread and wounds indicate they were delivered in quick succession not that there was a reloading event in the middle. So this again supports the killer fully reloading the magazine before going upstairs again. 8 shots into the boys leaves how many left?  2.  2 left to kill Sheila.

So 2 remaining it is not mysterious at all if actually look at things.  If the second shot didn't work either then the killer would have needed to reload some more that owuld not necessarily prove anything either though.

The bottom line is 2 bullets being left doesn't suggest someone else was the killer or that she was the killer.  It doesn't speak to the issue of who did it.
 

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio, you ignore the "sticky blob" part. How could AE describe blood which had supposedly dried for three days as a sticky, jamlike blob about the size of a match-head?

What relevance does that have to the blood that was tested? 

People differ in how they describe things, how they perceive things and what they remember. Hence why you get some people saying a suspect has black hair and is 6 foot tall and others brown hair and short.  The only way you know who was accurate if any is if you actually find the criminal and compare his actual features to what they claimed. 

I care about the blood that was tested because that is the blood that matters.  It is the blood that was Sheila's and that had the distribution of being back spatter.  If blood outside were successfully tested and were Jermey's then I would care because that would mean he not only was at the scene but got a cut or bloody nose even to deposit his own blood on it.  if the outside had blood of one of the other victims that suggests the killer got that victim's blood on himself/herself and transferred it.  That would be relevant in light of no victim's blood being found on Sheila.   This outside blood wasn't tested successfuly so we have no results to address. So I don't care about it at all it is useless.

Honestly I don't care about the gray hair either not only because it was lost, if it ever existed, before it was tested but I still would not care even it a hair had been proven to be Nevill's.

The suppressor was found in Nevill's house in Nevill's gun closet on Nevill's suppressor.  His hair could have been transferred to it at anypoint not necessarily during the murders.  I assume his hair could have been inside the closet and that when the Killer put it back inside that a hair inside could have stuck to it.  That doesn't prove he was shot or beaten with the suppressor.  That is why the prosecution didn't even mention the gray hair at trial and try to suggest it probably was Nevill's. The fight to get such statement in was not worth the effort because it was too easy to explain away.

 

[Caroline]

Removing bullets from a magazine is not necessary to make a weapon safe. Teh magazine can remain loaded without any problems at all so police had no reason to remove any bullets from it.  nor did any police ever suggest that they did so.  Making sure there are no bullets in the chamber not the magazine is how a weapon is made safe.

I don't really follow the point.  If anything the point is suggesting this helps exonerate her and suggests someone else did the shooting because she would not have known she needed 2 bullets.  I don't see the problem others see. It could be sheer coincidence that there were 2 bullets left and that the killer didn't feel the need to reload.  It is also possible the killer fired the final shot relaized she wasn't dead and reloaded a single bullet to try again.  The number of bullets left tells us nothing useful as far as who did it.

There is in fact a logical explanation for there being 2 shots left though.  That is where it helps.  It doesn't tell us who fired the shots but gives a clue as to the reloading a little.

The maximum capacity is 11 bullets (10 in the mag, 1 in the chamber)  This is what killers usually do to start they start with the maximum load.

Where did the shooting start most likely?  Master bedroom?  How many shots were fired at the parents there?  11

How would Nevill get past his killer ad to the kitchen?  If the killer were out of ammo and needed ot reload. Having multiple magazines would have saved a lot of time and trouble.  having to relaod a magazine while fighting with someone you want to kill is not ideal to put it mildly.  Ok so either the killer ran to the kitchen with Nevill in pursuit or the killer chased Nevill.  Because the gun was empty the killer could not shoot Nevill and Nevill tried to wrestle the gun away and they foguth over control of the weapon.  The killer did not shoot Nevill but rather beat him unconscous, reloaded and shot Nevill 4 times killing him.  SInce time was of the essense the killer probably only partially relaoded so that the killer could shoot him before he got up again.  Loading all 10 rounds is unlikely.  Even if the killer did load all 10 that leaves 6 rounds and 3 people left to kill.  Would the killer load the magazine fully or go up with just 6 rounds and hope for the best?  The boys were shot 8 times not 6 and the spread and wounds indicate they were delivered in quick succession not that there was a reloading event in the middle. So this again supports the killer fully reloading the magazine before going upstairs again. 8 shots into the boys leaves how many left?  2.  2 left to kill Sheila.

So 2 remaining it is not mysterious at all if actually look at things.  If the second shot didn't work either then the killer would have needed to reload some more that owuld not necessarily prove anything either though.

The bottom line is 2 bullets being left doesn't suggest someone else was the killer or that she was the killer.  It doesn't speak to the issue of who did it.
 

Simply a suggestion Scipio, but better safe than sorry . I think Alias's original point was questioning the convenience of the rifle being empty. There was 'just enough' bullets to kill everyone.

Of course IF Sheila did kill herself, she may not have known how many shots were left - pulled the trigger and the jolt of the first shot caused her to pull the trigger a second time and it was just coincidence that there were no more bullets.

I'm not sure why a killer would shoot her twice? Personally if it were me  'that's what I would have confided in Julie because it would have worried me. I'd be worried that my suicide plot for Sheila would be unravelled but Julie was unaware of the two shots.

[Neil]

Simply a suggestion Scipio, but better safe than sorry . I think Alias's original point was questioning the convenience of the rifle being empty. There was 'just enough' bullets to kill everyone.

Of course IF Sheila did kill herself, she may not have known how many shots were left - pulled the trigger and the jolt of the first shot caused her to pull the trigger a second time and it was just coincidence that there were no more bullets.

I'm not sure why a killer would shoot her twice? Personally if it were me  'that's what I would have confided in Julie because it would have worried me. I'd be worried that my suicide plot for Sheila would be unravelled but Julie was unaware of the two shots.

He told Julie that the hit man was responsible though, didn't he?

[Jan]

Scipio


Your statement

"I care about the blood that was tested because that is the blood that matters.  It is the blood that was Sheila's and that had the distribution of being back spatter"



Where is the documentary proof that it was Sheilas blood ? I must have missed that somewhere ?

[Caroline]

What relevance does that have to the blood that was tested? 

People differ in how they describe things, how they perceive things and what they remember. Hence why you get some people saying a suspect has black hair and is 6 foot tall and others brown hair and short.  The only way you know who was accurate if any is if you actually find the criminal and compare his actual features to what they claimed. 

I care about the blood that was tested because that is the blood that matters.  It is the blood that was Sheila's and that had the distribution of being back spatter.  If blood outside were successfully tested and were Jermey's then I would care because that would mean he not only was at the scene but got a cut or bloody nose even to deposit his own blood on it.  if the outside had blood of one of the other victims that suggests the killer got that victim's blood on himself/herself and transferred it.  That would be relevant in light of no victim's blood being found on Sheila.   This outside blood wasn't tested successfuly so we have no results to address. So I don't care about it at all it is useless.

Honestly I don't care about the gray hair either not only because it was lost, if it ever existed, before it was tested but I still would not care even it a hair had been proven to be Nevill's.

The suppressor was found in Nevill's house in Nevill's gun closet on Nevill's suppressor.  His hair could have been transferred to it at anypoint not necessarily during the murders.  I assume his hair could have been inside the closet and that when the Killer put it back inside that a hair inside could have stuck to it.  That doesn't prove he was shot or beaten with the suppressor.  That is why the prosecution didn't even mention the gray hair at trial and try to suggest it probably was Nevill's. The fight to get such statement in was not worth the effort because it was too easy to explain away.

What relevance? The fact that it survived right up until the point that it was tested and then just as it finally reaches the lab - it's gone?

People done remember the kind of details like hair colour, size, height etc. because in a crime people get stressed and things happen quickly. The witnesses here weren't stressed (to the same degree), they were in a familiar surrounding and when the bood was first realised, they were sitting comfortably around their own kitchen table. hardly the same thing as witnessing a crime.

Crime scene officers weren't independent then, like they are now, they were part of the Police force. It wouldn't be the first time that evidence was tampered with during those dark days (if that was indeed the case) and it wasn't the last! 

I think the hair was mentioned simply to further the silencer's significance and doubt it ever existed.