What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[lookout]

There was a low-flying bat here the other night. I thought perhaps it was doing an impersonation of myself.

[Jane]

Glad you were not the killer - that was cruel and hard to read. 

I think we can discard the theory that Jeremy made the bed - it has been used, just not the covers Jeremy would have made it look like no one had been on/in the bed.
Personally I have never come across anyone who went to sleep for the night on top of the covers. Perhaps during heat waves, you just use a sheet - or nothing; but there was no heatwave, it wasn´t that warm at all. June and Nevill slept with big covers.

I find that my suggestion that Sheila was restless that night to be more plausible.

The poor love had every reason to be restless. From the moment she and the boys arrived at the farm, any time she had clarity or thought she must have wondered what the HELL was going to become of them.

[Alias]

There were drops of blood on the floor, at least in the bedroom, If Jeremy and/or June, Sheila, Nevill were walking/running around, it would at least be smeared. The victims wouldn´t have worried about making footprints.
Please don´t take me for an idiot and resort to explaining how to avoid stepping in pools of blood to not leave footprints. Seriously!

[scipio_usmc]

He must have tiptoed through all the blood since he left no footprints and absolutely no forensic evidence was found on him, in WHF or even at his own house. For a foolish man he must have been very smart?

But Sheila easily could have done it without leaving any footprints though she had barefeet and would have cut hers to boot on the stuff on the floor?

Anytime you claim Jeremy would have had evidence the same applies to Sheila is she were the killer.  The only difference is she had the additional hazard of cutting her feet and the additiona way of leaving fingerprints because she didn't have gloves though Jeremy  did.

Finally, he was not inspected after the murders and could have cleaned up and changes his clothes.  She
would have no reaosn to do so.

Her body and clothing was actually inspected for evidence like gunshot residue, back spatter, and injuries, his wasn't.  So we can say she lacked any such evidence we don't know whether he did lack such evidence.

[scipio_usmc]

There were drops of blood on the floor, at least in the bedroom, If Jeremy and/or June, Sheila, Nevill were walking/running around, it would at least be smeared. The victims wouldn´t have worried about making footprints.
Please don´t take me for an idiot and resort to explaining how to avoid stepping in pools of blood to not leave footprints. Seriously!

People can move around drops of blood on the floor without getting evidence on themselves or leaving prints or the like.  Trying to pretend it isn't possible doesn't work and worse yet by your suggestions Sheila should have left evidence but didn't and had none on her body though she should have. 

You make a great deal of assumptions about what would have to be ther that in fact doesn't have to be there by way of evidence but if it did have to be present as you claim would further exonerate Sheila anyway.  In the meantime you ignore what would be on the killer- back spatter and gunshot residue.

 

[lookout]

But Sheila easily could have done it without leaving any footprints though she had barefeet and would have cut hers to boot on the stuff on the floor?

Anytime you claim Jeremy would have had evidence the same applies to Sheila is she were the killer.  The only difference is she had the additional hazard of cutting her feet and the additiona way of leaving fingerprints because she didn't have gloves though Jeremy  did.

Finally, he was not inspected after the murders and could have cleaned up and changes his clothes.  She
would have no reaosn to do so.

Her body and clothing was actually inspected for evidence like gunshot residue, back spatter, and injuries, his wasn't.  So we can say she lacked any such evidence we don't know whether he did lack such evidence.

Scipio,,how do you then suppose Sheila knocked a chunk off her big toe-nail ? Any suggestions ?

[lookout]

A piece of it was found in the kitchen by the way. That alone must have bled too.

[Alias]

People can move around drops of blood on the floor without getting evidence on themselves or leaving prints or the like.  Trying to pretend it isn't possible doesn't work and worse yet by your suggestions Sheila should have left evidence but didn't and had none on her body though she should have. 

You make a great deal of assumptions about what would have to be ther that in fact doesn't have to be there by way of evidence but if it did have to be present as you claim would further exonerate Sheila anyway.  In the meantime you ignore what would be on the killer- back spatter and gunshot residue.

I don´t think I am in the habit of doing that - in this instance perhaps, but in what other?

Now you are assuming. I have actually talked about this not too long ago.

Why do you choose to be so unfriendly? What do you get out of it?

[Alias]

Scipio,,how do you then suppose Sheila knocked a chunk off her big toe-nail ? Any suggestions ?

I am a little bit confused about this, but wasn´t it a false fingernail that was found?
A chipped toenail wouldn´t neccessarily bleed, would it?

[scipio_usmc]

So, a bed that doesn't look slept in must have been slept in? And Neville must have been shot in bed even though there is no blood on his side? Don't you think you're simply pushing the pieces into holes that don't fit because they coincide with your view? (Obviously you're going to say no).

The bed has an indentation where somone looks to have been lying. The pillow is wrinkled.  The bed is not perfectly made.  Either she was sleeping on top or Jeremy decided to move the comforter in place enough to make it look like she didn't go to bed but didn't do that great a job.

It makes no sense for her to be up pacing aorund then suddenlty go shoot peopel in their bedroom and no matter how much anyone wants to pretend Nevill wasn't in his bedroom when the killer started shooting him the evidence says otherwise.

 

[lookout]

I am a little bit confused about this, but wasn´t it a false fingernail that was found?
A chipped toenail wouldn´t neccessarily bleed, would it?

Alias,,if you saw the pic of her big toe,,the nail is torn along with the flesh,,unless she had long toe-nails as well,,which I doubt. The pic will be in the archives,I imagine.

[scipio_usmc]

I am a little bit confused about this, but wasn´t it a false fingernail that was found?
A chipped toenail wouldn´t neccessarily bleed, would it?

He is talking about varnish missing from her toenail. Not that the nail itself had been broken.

[Alias]

He is talking about varnish missing from her toenail. Not that the nail itself had been broken.

No, she is talking about a chipped toenail and that it would have bled.

[scipio_usmc]

No, she is talking about a chipped toenail and that it would have bled.

Then he doesn't realize he is talking about the varnish and is way off base in the blood suggestion.  He didn't mention blood the other day he just mentioned the varnish chip the photograph expert claims he could see in the photo that the court and everyone else laughed at him for.

 

[Jane]

He is talking about varnish missing from her toenail. Not that the nail itself had been broken.

Varnish is HIGHLY unlikely to come off a toe nail WITHOUT still being attached to the nail.