Is Sheila guilty?

[nugnug]

If memory serves me right Nugs he also left a note that night asking BW to lock the window.

He was a fool to have done this at this point, had he not done then the 3rd examination of the windows would have resulted in nothing found like the two examinations before.   

he certanly was a fool do you rember where you heard this.

[Patti]

he certanly was a fool do you rember where you heard this.

Yes Nugs its in the COA document.

This was not mentioned in the original trial.

Had it been, the prosecution would have been a tad embarrassed. The defence would have then told the jury that Jeremy had been under surveillance at the time he went in through the window on the 16th September and left a note for BW. 

[nugnug]

so he please lock the windows and make it harder to get in and commit murder.

i wonder what the jury would of made of that one.

because if you planning to break in to somewhere what really want is for someone to lock all the windows.

[Patti]

so he please lock the windows and make it harder to get in and commit murder.

i wonder what the jury would of made of that one.

because if you planning to break in to somewhere what really want is for someone to lock all the windows.

I wonder how many burglars are nicked of breaking in through a window without fingerprints, fibres or DNA evidence to support it? 

[scipio_usmc]

I wonder how many burglars are nicked of breaking in through a window without fingerprints, fibres or DNA evidence to support it? 

Plenty when they sell stolen goods or tell someone what they did and get ratted out. 

Jerey not only told someone he made the giant mistake of reporting a crime that he staged and when the staging blew up in his face that left him to get burned.

[Adam]

I said yesterday there was not much point in this discussion.

It is common knowledge that Jeremy knew how to get into WHF through windows.

It is common knowledge a hacksaw was found outside a bathroom window.

It is common knowledge the marks on the window matched the hacksaw blade.

It is common knowledge it was possible to lock the kitchen window from outside by banging it.


These are all reasons why the judge said there was a 'mountain of circumstantial evidence' and a 'number of curious coincidences'.

[nugnug]

I wonder how many burglars are nicked of breaking in through a window without fingerprints, fibres or DNA evidence to support it? 

i wonder how many ak someone to lock lock all the windows before breaking in.

[lookout]

 That's worse than leaving a note inside to say that you've left the key under the mat at the front door.  

[Patti]

Plenty when they sell stolen goods or tell someone what they did and get ratted out. 

Jerey not only told someone he made the giant mistake of reporting a crime that he staged and when the staging blew up in his face that left him to get burned.

Scorpio that's not answering my question is it...Although they might sell stolen goods it does not prove they nicked them. They could well say that they found them dumped at the back of their house or in a field or had bought them at a knock down price from a stranger.....of which they would still be in trouble for receiving stolen property.  A court can't prove they actually stole it. 

[Jan]

he certanly was a fool do you rember where you heard this.

yes he said that in his statement - and it was because as he admitted all along he could get in and out of the house - but he always said they would NOT lock from the outside.

I thought I was going to read that the police disproved that - but so far I have not done so.

It seemed to me that the COA were saying the police made some mistakes on their dates ?? And accepted that as well . Great is it not when the people you are relying on for facts can be ambiguous  on

Dates
Times
Conversation interpretation
Logs.
Changed notebooks.


Does not give us a lot of hope really.

[scipio_usmc]

Scorpio that's not answering my question is it...Although they might sell stolen goods it does not prove they nicked them. They could well say that they found them dumped at the back of their house or in a field or had bought them at a knock down price from a stranger.....of which they would still be in trouble for receiving stolen property.  A court can't prove they actually stole it. 

If someone is in possession of stolen goods, can't reasonably account for how they got a hold of said goods, and has no alibi for when the robbery occurred they are going to have probles because they could very well be convicted of being the one who stole them.  That is why they rat out who sold them goods and that sort of thing.  Or why one would admit to being a fence if something they bought had been obtained in a murder.     

This case was not like that though this case was a classic frame job that fell apart and the person doing the framing is obviously the real criminal.

How did he try to frame her?

Passive frame

1) he killed her last, killed her in the master bedroom instead of her own bed and left the gun on her and even put her hand on it.

Had he done this only then when the frame fell apart there would be nothing but a proposed motive that he was the true killer (and Julie's testimony which coudl have been avoided by not tlaking to her about his plan for so long)

Active Frame

2) call police saying Nevill had phoned him to say Sheila had the gun and had gone crazy

3) tell police on the scene that Sheila had fired all guns in the house and had gone shooting with him

4) stage the bullets and tell police he left the bullets exactly where they were found and claim he left the gun out (the exact location he left it changed with each interview) and had loaded it in front of  Sheila so she would know how to load it.  Also to say it had no scope or suppressor attached.

He did other things during the investigation itself that gave himself away like change his testimony from not using the gun the week prior to claiming he used it repeatedly the week prior after the last known user said it had been found and put away with the scope and suppressor attached.  Changing claims to try to negate a problem is a sign of making things up.

But the above just speaks to his frame job.  The active frame job sunk him because when police found out Sheila could not have killed herself that establishes she was framed and the active frame job revealed who it was that framed her while the passive frame job did not.

It is for this reason even the defense admitted if Sheila wasn't the killer then it was Jeremy.

Trying to pretend this is novel fails.  There have been plenty of cases where people who framed others ended up being caught because the frame fell apart and left them holding the bag.

 

[wilf]

you are all talking round in circles. stop and think how would you do it if you had to. look at the photos. its easy .  in through the sash window lock it after you carry out the killings all now silent so out the door put a ladder up to the OPEN bedroom window back in through the door lock it out the upstairs window leaving it as found put the ladder away    jobs a goodun!!!!

as far as I can see the access exit debate is neither here nor there it proves nothing

wilf

[nugnug]

so difficult but not impossible then.

[Caroline]

I wonder how many burglars are nicked of breaking in through a window without fingerprints, fibres or DNA evidence to support it? 

Not many are nicked - probably cuz they watch CSI  . CCTV has helped but not all areas are covered (unless someone has their own)

[Jane]

Not many are nicked - probably cuz they watch CSI  . CCTV has helped but not all areas are covered (unless someone has their own)

There's some WONDERFUL stuff that comes out of the good ol' US of A