Telling someone that they could kill their parents is one thing, but proving that that person carried it out is another.
It is my opinion that neither Sheila or Jeremy is proved beyond my doubt that they either of them carried this horrendous crime out.
The only sceptical Scorpio is that people wont dig enough to find the real truth of what happened that night. OK Jeremy is convicted of the murders, he is guilty in the eyes of the law. There is no doubt about that.
Had the series of events leading up to, and after the murders been documented correctly and all forensic evidence gathered and thoroughly examined then we would not be here today discussing it.
I personally doubt a jury of today would convict Jeremy based on what the CPS gave them in 1985.
When you examine the case fully there is more flaws in it than a farmers colander.
1. No forensic evidence exists to place Jeremy at the scene. No fibres, no prints, no break in, no evidence found at his home, in his car, on his clothes....
No killer can be so squeaky clean both at the crime scene and home....nearly all killers leave a trace.
Please. I hope you don't mean I am a hypocrite? I seek the truth, I don't blaspheme those who think he guilty..
It takes a strong person and a reasonable one to have a good debate without the name calling.
I don't believe for 1 second that those here insisting he is innocent and the evidence is flawed would have different views if police had crossed their ts and dotted their Is better.
Those who insist he is innocent look for any excuse int he world to try to pretend the evidence is not reliable and to ignore it.
There is nothing at all to suggest the suppressor evidence was planted and it would have taken an extraordinary effort to do so. The claim that people would believe the suppressor evidence if there were more police documents is disingenuine. You are unwilling to accept the testimony of the police on the issue though they were questioned more than twice after the murders and gave staements before the murders. Choosing not to trust them has nothing to do with them having too many people and how they handled it. It has to do with wanting to believe Jeremy is innocent and making any excuse in the world to pretend that is possible.
The truth is that anyone planting blood would have used a dropper or a vial not to have sprayed blood inside.
Only the lab would have had the skill to plant the evidence in the manner it was distributed not the family and not police. only the lab would have been able to conceal evidence found in the rifle as well because if the rifle were used it would have had back spatter in it.
There has NEVER been a documented case of a lab planting back spatter in a weapon. WHat is described as the worst MOJ in UK history involved the prosecution failing to disclose the existence of semen on a victim because the defendat was incapable of productng sperm. So not even the worst documented MOJ involved planting blood let alone back spatter in a weapon. Intentional lab wrongdoing is rare but there are no cases of any grand conspiracies between labs and police.
If police were going to plant evidence and lie they had no need at all to involve the fmaily. They could just pretend they took the suppressor the first day if they wanted. If the guy filling the forms out was in on it as alleged then he could simply have falsified a form. There was no need to pretend the family found it.
Cop after cop said they saw no significance in the suppressor even after it was collected. It took the lab to understand the significance if there were group A blood inside. Yet you claim police should have been able to know it's significance.
The attacks on the suppressor are contrived plain and simple the same way excuse after excuse is made to try to pretend Jeremy could have received a call from Nevill.
There is nothing police could have done to Sheila's body to affect how her body proves she didn't kill herself.
Sheila was sitting up leaning against something when she was shot that is the only way blood could have gotten on her arm and gown the way it did. If she were not sitting up the blood could not have gotten there and if she had not been sitting against something she would have fell backwards and been flat so the blood would not have gotten there.
She wasn't sitting up for long though, shortly after being shot she was moved flat to the location where police found her. The blood pool indicates such and so does the blood running down the side of her neck. She died seated but someone moved her flat shortly after she was shot.
She was long dead before police moved her body they can't possibly have caused the blood pool or blood down the side of he rneck.
So the complains about their shoddy work have nothing at all to do with the evenidence that proves she didn't kill herself.
The reason why peopel insist it doe sis because they want desperately to believe in Jeremy's innocence.
People believe police, family and Julie lied and framed Jeremy not because ther eis any evidence to suggest it but rather because they want desperately to believe Jeremy didn't do it and in order for him to be innocent the lab, police , family and Julie all had to frame him in a vast conspiracy.
Don't insult my intelligence trying to tell me that this vast conspiracy is suppsecte dbecause of the sloppy job police did. People who want to believe in this conspiracy grasp at any straw possible to try to pretend it happened and the sloppy police work is one of those straws.
People who doubt his guilt do so not because of the evidence leads them to believe such they refuse to believe police testimony and the evidence no matter what simply because they want Jeremy to be inocent.
The same way 9/11 conspiracy theorists decided what they want to believe before reviwing any evidence and decide to believe regardless of the evidence that proves them wrong.
