What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[maggie]

That wouldn't surprise me in the least,Grahame. What a pity the hair ( hare ) vanished. The lab would have looked a bit sick testing that.

Now for something logical. A human hair,,which is fine,,would have stayed put on the silencer,,but a hair from an animal,which is more coarse,wouldn't have adhered the same,particularly if the blood specimen was smaller than a pin-head.

The fact is, any blood blob or whatever you want to call it could never have survived in a sticky state for 3 days, it just wouldn't survive, this is fact and was also proven by Caro's heroic performance as Snow White.  therefore, the statement that any sort of hair was stuck on the silencer is highly questionable imo

[grahameb]

The fact is, any blood blob or whatever you want to call it could never have survived in a sticky state for 3 days, it just wouldn't survive, this is fact and was also proven by Caro's heroic performance as Snow White.  therefore, the statement that any sort of hair was stuck on the silencer is highly questionable imo

Maggie any fake can be created and by the simplest means. Whilst the "experts" are searching the complicated ways it could be done and insist that the relatives were incapable of creating such a fake that they completely overlook the obvious. Remember also that Peter Eaton is an arms dealer and is very knowledgeable of these things.

[lookout]

 That " to do " involving PE soon fizzled out,didn't it ? That was fraud as well ! My word,,not what you know,,but who you know,in that case.

[grahameb]

That " to do " involving PE soon fizzled out,didn't it ? That was fraud as well ! My word,,not what you know,,but who you know,in that case.

Amazing what miracles can happen when you have money isn't it lookout?

[lookout]

 It not only talks,Grahame. It shouts down your earhole !

[scipio_usmc]

Every farmer shooting wildlife will come across this kind of thing a lot. Why they were surprised about it I don't know. The alleged blob of blood the alleged grey hair (rabbit hair is the most likely? ) all points to animal. Mike demonstrated and had documents to prove that the blood tested contained animal enzimes which some humans also have. What's the betting that the relatives took advantage of such a common occurance and then pleaded ignorance, knowing it it was all animal material in the silencer and no human blood at all?

The prosecution and defense experts both determined the blood was human blood and it was group
A. Suggesting this blood was in fact animal blood is baseless.

Killing animals only leaves blood on the weapon if the animals are not far away when shot.  in order for blood to get inside the animals must be extremely close to the weapon just like a human must be extremely close.  What animal was letting the put the gun right up to them? The only other way animal blood is getting on the weapon so if someone gets animal blood on their hands and then touches the weapon.  That is not in the weapon though.

[grahameb]

The prosecution and defense experts both determined the blood was human blood and it was group
A. Suggesting this blood was in fact animal blood is baseless.

Killing animals only leaves blood on the weapon if the animals are not far away when shot.  in order for blood to get inside the animals must be extremely close to the weapon just like a human must be extremely close. What animal was letting the put the gun right up to them? The only other way animal blood is getting on the weapon so if someone gets animal blood on their hands and then touches the weapon.  That is not in the weapon though.

To put it out of it misery of course. The blood contained an animal enzyme.
Why use a silencer with a .22 anyway? If you are a gun expert as you purport to be then you will also know that they are so quiet that they do not need one in a case like this one. Indeed a silencer would make the weapon unwieldy.

[Jan]

The prosecution and defense experts both determined the blood was human blood and it was group
A. Suggesting this blood was in fact animal blood is baseless.

Killing animals only leaves blood on the weapon if the animals are not far away when shot.  in order for blood to get inside the animals must be extremely close to the weapon just like a human must be extremely close.  What animal was letting the put the gun right up to them? The only other way animal blood is getting on the weapon so if someone gets animal blood on their hands and then touches the weapon.  That is not in the weapon though.

That really is not well thought out . An animal is not always killed with the first shot.

If you can argue blood can get in there from a close human shot then of course it is perfectly possible from a close up shot of an animal.

[Jan]

I'm convinced of Jeremy's guilt but would like to clarify a point.

Not all of his supporters believe the claim that Sheila died much later than the rest.  Some believe she did it then killed herself before police arrived.  They accept police would have heard the shots if she killed herself while they were present and that he coroner was correct about only pockets of bllod being in her mouth which spilled.

Then there are those who insist she either killed herself while police were there or police killed her.  Indeed you are correct that those who subscribe to this theory are flat out wrong in suggesting only Jeremy knows the truth the police would as well if this were true.

Reliable evidence to support her being alive after police arrived is of course nonexistent.

Correct me if I am wrong but was not the blood running from both wounds in the infamous photo? And was one wound not ending up in the mouth? 

I can understand the argument above if the body had been moved - but of course it had not when it was photographed, Allegedly.

[maggie]

Correct me if I am wrong but was not the blood running from both wounds in the infamous photo? And was one wound not ending up in the mouth? 

I can understand the argument above if the body had been moved - but of course it had not when it was photographed, Allegedly.

HI jansus, yes the second bullet went up through the soft pallet and up into Sheila's brain. If she was lying flat most of the blood would surely have run down her throat with some settling  at the back of her mouth. Surely her head would have needed to have moved a fair bit to cause any blood to run out of the sides of her mouth.

[guest154]

The blood didn't contain an animal enzyme. This has been cleared up already in numerous places.

[scipio_usmc]

To put it out of it misery of course. The blood contained an animal enzyme.
Why use a silencer with a .22 anyway? If you are a gun expert as you purport to be then you will also know that they are so quiet that they do not need one in a case like this one. Indeed a silencer would make the weapon unwieldy.

Obviously you never handled a 22.  The claim they are very quiet is not true.  Such weapon would not routinely be sold with a suppressor if any of your claims were true.

The use of the suppressor in conjunction with subsonic ammunition accomplishes 3 things:

1) the shooter doesn't need to worry about causing hearing damage from firing the weapon

2) the recoil is even less

3) the target and other animals/people around will not be alerted or disturbed.


Animals that hear the shots are frightened which not only could spoil the shot itself but makes it harder to target other such animals if they are running around.  Hearing loss is obviously something people would prefer to avoid.  If it is being used to shoot peopel then obviously you don't want to aert others in the house that could be in a different room.

There are 2 difference sources of noise when a weapon is fired.  There are the gases escaping and the sonic boom from the bullet leaving the weapon.  Both sources of noise need to be addressed in order to quiet a weapon.  Subsonic ammunition takes care of the snoic boom.  A sound suppressor takes care of the gases.  Both together make a weapon rather silent.  Using only 1 or the other leaves the other source of noise so a loud crack would still be heard.

You keep talking about truth but you don't seem to have a good command of it.

[lookout]

The blood didn't contain an animal enzyme. This has been cleared up already in numerous places.

There's every possibility that the AK1 enzyme is rabbits blood. The jury were told that Sheilas' was the only blood that contained the AK1 enzyme too,,so take your pick-------Sheilas' or a rabbits ? Very debateable,,but almost likely to be from a rabbit. In actual fact there were two types of animal blood found,,but the jury weren't told about that at the trial,,nor was it entered into the forensic reports. Apparently it wasn't thought of as being relevant to the case.?? I know the matter was put to the CCRC at one time,,and no doubt it will crop up again at some point as there seemed to be a degree of uncertainty as to whether it was Sheilas' blood or not.
To be as indecisive as this doesn't sit well with the key " evidence " that got him convicted in the first place,,hence the reason why the trial was an unfair one.
A silencer wasn't used in the murders,,but possibly last used for killing vermin. ( rabbits )

[guest154]

There's every possibility that the AK1 enzyme is rabbits blood. The jury were told that Sheilas' was the only blood that contained the AK1 enzyme too,,so take your pick-------Sheilas' or a rabbits ? Very debateable,,but almost likely to be from a rabbit. In actual fact there were two types of animal blood found,,but the jury weren't told about that at the trial,,nor was it entered into the forensic reports. Apparently it wasn't thought of as being relevant to the case.?? I know the matter was put to the CCRC at one time,,and no doubt it will crop up again at some point as there seemed to be a degree of uncertainty as to whether it was Sheilas' blood or not.
To be as indecisive as this doesn't sit well with the key " evidence " that got him convicted in the first place,,hence the reason why the trial was an unfair one.
A silencer wasn't used in the murders,,but possibly last used for killing vermin. ( rabbits )

Nope, wrong.
I suggest you ask Patti/Bridget. One of them two explained it well on here if my memory serves me correctly. Or someone else could take the time to explain it again - not sure how many more times this has to come up before it finally goes away.

[nugnug]

There's every possibility that the AK1 enzyme is rabbits blood. The jury were told that Sheilas' was the only blood that contained the AK1 enzyme too,,so take your pick-------Sheilas' or a rabbits ? Very debateable,,but almost likely to be from a rabbit. In actual fact there were two types of animal blood found,,but the jury weren't told about that at the trial,,nor was it entered into the forensic reports. Apparently it wasn't thought of as being relevant to the case.?? I know the matter was put to the CCRC at one time,,and no doubt it will crop up again at some point as there seemed to be a degree of uncertainty as to whether it was Sheilas' blood or not.
To be as indecisive as this doesn't sit well with the key " evidence " that got him convicted in the first place,,hence the reason why the trial was an unfair one.
A silencer wasn't used in the murders,,but possibly last used for killing vermin. ( rabbits )

ive never heard of anyone shooting rabbits from close range so i doubt if its rabbits blood.