Is Sheila guilty?

[nugnug]

Jeremy said in court & to the police  he knew how to into WHF through windows. The judge suggested in his summing up it was plausible Jeremy may have entered WHF on the night.

A hack saw was found outside the bathroom window. It has been suggested this was used days beforehand to ensure a quiet entry on the night.

well its a fact couldn't of been used to get in because there would be signs of its use so that's rather irrelevant.

[scipio_usmc]

Dogs would have been barking in the Jeremy entered the farm scenario. The family dog was called "the Pest" because it was so noisy and barked all the time.

Sometimes they don't bark and when they do people sometimes ignore them and stay asleep or go back to sleep.  Neighbors of the Amityvlle murder victims (Amityvill Horror fame) heard their dog barking furiously, he didn't like the son.  The family was still all shot in their bed- 6 of them- and the rifle used did not have a suppressor.  They could think the dog was barking at Sheila or the kids going to the bathroom and have ignored it or the dogs could have been slacking.  The shots didn't wake the boys and the dogs would have been barking regardless of the killer if they were going to bark so the boys obviously slept through both and so potentially could others. 

[Alias]

When there is so much evidence to the contrary you have to face that it means you believe what you want to believe jsut because you want to believe it not because that it how things are.

If you refuse to believe people will likely be in bed at 2:30AM who go to sleep hours earlier typically then your problem is simply not wanting to believe something because you don't want to as opposed to not believing it because it objectively is not a credible claim.

The same principle holds true for some other hangups you have suggested you have.

While you may not ever allow your opinion to change regardless of the evidence it is only evidence that could sway many who believe Jeremy is guilty to change their beleifs.

Some may be the same way as you and refuse to accept any evidence of his innocence.

Others like me would accept credible evidence if some were actually found for instance credible evidence of police planting blood would negate the suppressor though more evidence than that needs to be eliminated before his innocence would be genuinely established.  That would be enough for a retrial and if enough evidence were eliminated then there would not even be a basis for a retrial he would simply be set free period.




 

I have not seen any convincing evidence that Jeremy did not have an accomplice. Why can´t you resoect other people´s opinions? What makes you so sure that you are right? Much of what you write is guesswork - just like everybody else.

P.S. you have made it clear what you think of me and that you find me sub-human and as dumb as a door. Why do you bother?

[scipio_usmc]

I have not seen any convincing evidence that Jeremy did not have an accomplice. Why can´t you resoect other people´s opinions? What makes you so sure that you are right? Much of what you write is guesswork - just like everybody else.

You said he had to have one.  I provided evidence that he could have done it on his own.

I don't care what you choose to believe. 

The fact of the matter is that he could have done it on his own and didn't have to have an accomplice and there is no evidence that he had an accomplice.

Vould he have had an acocmplice sure but he didn't have to and unless someone establishes he did I am not going to suggest Brett Collins helped him even though others are convinced he did.

Supposedly they engaged in other actions together abroad and even there are claims of murder abroad but unless the book coming out that supposedly makes such claims has credible evidence I am not going to entertain any of it.

[Alias]

See the P.S. in my post above.

[nugnug]

youve provided no evedence just a theory so seem a vey strange idea of what evedence is.

[scipio_usmc]

P.S. you have made it clear what you think of me and that you find me sub-human and as dumb as a door. Why do you bother?

Calling someone biased is very different from considering them sub-human.

Furthermore, ignorance, twisting out of bias, intentionally lying outright and being dumb are 4 different things.

I am a strongly opinionated person but I base my opinions on evidence and am a fair person.  I also am very exacting in how I differentiate between things including the 4 above.  When I accuse someone of any of the 4 above I don't play games I do so outright.  I have not called you dumb or an intentional liar.  I have called you biased and in some intances factually wrong thus ignorant but that is all.

I don't take things perosnally when I argue with others and don't make things personal against them which is why I don't understand the red v blue forum battle which seems to be very personal not simply a debate over issues.

 


 

[nugnug]

i think the fact you have throw in so much personal abuse shows how weak your arguments are.

and i think most posters here can see that.

[Alias]

Calling someone biased is very different from considering them sub-human.

Furthermore, ignorance, twisting out of bias, intentionally lying outright and being dumb are 4 different things.

I am a strongly opinionated person but I base my opinions on evidence and am a fair person.  I also am very exacting in how I differentiate between things including the 4 above.  When I accuse someone of any of the 4 above I don't play games I do so outright.  I have not called you dumb or an intentional liar.  I have called you biased and in some intances factually wrong thus ignorant but that is all.

I don't take things perosnally when I argue with others and don't make things personal against them which is why I don't understand the red v blue forum battle which seems to be very personal not simply a debate over issues.

 


 

You wrote a nasty post to me, you can´t explain that away, and I am not going to forget about it. I don´t understand why you are talking to me when your opinion of me is so low.

[Adam]

well its a fact couldn't of been used to get in because there would be signs of its use so that's rather irrelevant.

There were scratch marks on the window which matched the hacksaw.

Anyway Jeremy knew how to get into WHF without smashing windows. And how to lock the kitchen window from outside.

[nugnug]

so if he could do that why would he try to hacksaw the window if he could get in without doing it.

ive never heard someone trying a window before i think it would make far to much noise.

[lookout]

 I didn't hear anyone screaming that JB's prints,etc were on the hacksaw. I think we'd have heard soon enough if there had been,,or if he'd cut himself in the process.

[nugnug]

well i think a hacksaw would make far to much noise i mean it certanly not of someone who wanted to silently to comit murder.

[maggie]

There were scratch marks on the window which matched the hacksaw.

Anyway Jeremy knew how to get into WHF without smashing windows. And how to lock the kitchen window from outside.

Adam, the initial forensic examination carried out on 8/9 September 1985 looking in particular for fingerprints, and entry or exit marks to the building, windows were photographed, swabbed and paint samples were taken.  No scratches around the windows were discovered at that time. Also no textiles or bloodstains were found.  Strangely by 1st October  the catch and surrounding area of the downstairs toilet was examined again for scratch marks and there were scratches found on the edge of the catch also damage to the paintwork which had been caused by a thin blade probably used to force open the catch.  As the marks weren't noted on the first extremely thorough examination it's likely that these scratches found on 1 October were probably made when Jeremy entered  WHF that way using a penknife on 14/15 September.  Interestingly he didn't bang the window shut as he couldn't do that so left a note to BW to ask  JBoutell to lock the window.
The hacksaw was found outside WHF in full view by the relatives in October.  Facts please Adam

[Jane]

Adam, the initial forensic examination carried out on 8/9 September 1985 looking in particular for fingerprints, and entry or exit marks to the building, windows were photographed, swabbed and paint samples were taken.  No scratches around the windows were discovered at that time. Also no textiles or bloodstains were found.  Strangely by 1st October  the catch and surrounding area of the downstairs toilet was examined again for scratch marks and there were scratches found on the edge of the catch also damage to the paintwork which had been caused by a thin blade probably used to force open the catch.  As the marks weren't noted on the first extremely thorough examination it's likely that these scratches found on 1 October were probably made when Jeremy entered  WHF that way using a penknife on 14/15 September.  Interestingly he didn't bang the window shut as he couldn't do that so left a note to BW to ask  JBoutell to lock the window.
The hacksaw was found outside WHF in full view by the relatives in October.  Facts please Adam

Maggie, would those be the true ones or the facts according to Adam? You didn't specify :D