Scipio Mike and yourself have made this thread one of the best on this forum and it would be a shame to descend into personal invective when you were both doing so well in getting your points across. There is much still to be explained in this case and on some points I am still none the wiser. For example from Sheet 11 of Julie's statement we get:
"He said that before he had phoned me that morning Matthew had phoned from the house,which I took to be the Farm,and said that everything had been completed and proceeded to tell him about his father who he stated for his age he had been very strong and put up a fight. He said that Matthew had said he was sorry because during the fight with his father he had had a mental blank and had fired seven shots into him. I asked Jerry if the twins had felt anything and he told me the boys were still asleep and didn't wake up and that Sheila had lay down on the bed and shot herself under the orders of Matthew who then put a bible on her chest."
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the silencer evidence was manufactured;neither is it incredible that Sheila was on the bed at some stage that morning.
In the theoretical sense it is possible to plant evidence of any kind. Whether it realistically could be planted and more importantly there is a reasonable probability it was planted is a different matter entirely
The quotes above detail Jeremy telling Julie things only the killer would know and attributing Jeremy's knowledge as coming from the killer himself. The supposed killer didn't do it which would mean Jeremy did and made up the hitman claim to conceal that fact and not seem as coldblooded. If Julie is telling the truth then Jeremy clearly did it.
The thing to look at about whether the evidence in the moderator was planted is to look at what was found and figure out if there was a way for someone to have the know how, means, opportunity and motive to plant the evidence.
Naturally that involves looking at the testimony of those involved in processing the moderator as well as documentary evidence related to such.
Mike and everyone who suggests the moderator was tampered with ignore the complete details of what was found in the moderator as well as would would be entailed in planting what was found.
It wasn't just a flake of blood. There was a substantial amount of blood on the first several baffles and some of that blood was tested along with the flak both determined to be group A. After all visible blood was removed the defense had their own expert test it and he found microscopic drops on the 1st 8 baffles. Is this distribution found consistent with back spatter? If not that would be evidence of tmapering. Back spatter sprays blood inside. It will travel several inches. The blood was found several inches deep. So it was not too far inside which would be indicative of planting. If planting blood you hold it vertically with the hole at the top and drop blood in. Blood poured inside instead of sprayed would travel further than it should and hit an area in the middle of nowhere. A dropper would result in blood dripping far down or even not so far but just hitting isolated areas. What does a spray do? It gets blood over a wide area but that wide area will be confined to the first several inches. Since the blood distribution is consistent with a spray you need to establish a device/method to spray blood to plant it so it would be able to result in the distribution found. That requires testing to try to figure out if there is such a method that would be possible. In addition you need a blood supply and need to have a way to either access Sheila's blood or to know unique details about her blood so that you could find a source with the same characteristics. You would need to know she had a wound that would result in drawback which in turn means you know the rifle would have it and that such blood needed to be eliminated. Obviously the family could not accomplish this alone as many would like to pretend. Realistically only the lab could pull this off though they would need police and relatives to pitch in to help support their antics. When you look at that it all involved the planting is not very plausible at all.
But these details are ignored or attempts are made to pretending there was only a flake of blood in the moderator to avoid having to deal with this daunting challenge.
Instead Mike and others want to just jump to the the documents and testimony but sitll have no support there. The documents do not support Mike. There are no documents with a SJ/1 designation and despite all Mike's efforts he has yet to explain a valid reason why there would be. Mike says someone told him about the existence he cna't prove they exists by showing them because he has not seen them. The story about COLP admitting the existence of these documents and concealing them and thus lying in the final report issued makes no sense at all. Moreover, not asking anyone in any interview about a SJ/1 makes no sense.
Mike's claims keep shifting though as if everything he comes up with is simply ad hoc. We have no idea what he is arguing anymore because he keeps going back and forth between SJ/1 being collected by police on 8/7 or collected from the family on 8/12.
The only plausible planting would have to involve the lab being the mastermind and working from there explaining the mechanism that was likely used and to produce the evidence to back up the claims. No evidence is presented and there is not even any effort to truly test how to plant blood to be distributed in the manner found. In fact, the lab simply could simply take blood and pretend they found it in the moderator there would not even be a need to actually plant it at all. But the blood had been there because the defense found it on the first 8 baffles so they can't have simply made it up.
If I were hired by Jeremy I would consult experts to see precisely what would be entailed in spraying blood inside, asking if there is a known way it coudl be accomplished and see if they coudl do tests to figure out how it could be done.
Also to look through the various testimony and evidence to see if there is anything that supports the suggestion blood was planted or would provide a basis to interview someone to see if they would say anything of use.
There is none of that here though. Aside from the exhibit numbers being changed there is nothing to latch onto at all and the exhibit numbers changing was explained thoroughly. the SJ/1 whole line seems to be a bust and seems to be simply made up.
With respect to the notion Sheila was on the bed at one point, there is no credible evidence since there are no photos, no testimony from the multitude of peopel who saw her body in the house and finally no reaosn to move her to the bed. At any rate such a move woudl not matter. The allegation she was moved from the bed suffers from the same problems and indeed early photos and testimony place her on the floor. This is another worthless red herring anyway.
Her body was seated against something when shot then very shortly after this while she was still bleeding her body was moved flat. The bible was dipped in the pool of blood that formed after she was lying flat and opened and closed before the blood was dry.
Police moving her body after she was flat already doesn't help the defense at all. In order to claim that the killer did not do these things but rather police, it is necessary to show that very shortly after she was shot police found her seated and moved her body flat and then the bible was soaked in the blood pool and police moved the bible and opened it closed. That is what the defense needs to establish to be able to say these 2 movements do not prove Sheila could have killed herself.
Were any shots heard at any time while police were at the scene let alone shortly before police found her body? No and contrary to claims made here the sound made by shots travels through windows.
Did any police who initially saw her (there were 7 for sure who saw her close to the time of entry) say she was found seated against something? No they all agree she was flat like June.
Is there any indication that she died significantly later than the other victims? No
Any other evidence that could be used to challenge the witness testimony? No.
Any evidence the pool of blood was wet and they played with the bible as the blood was wet? No
The fact they moved her body a little well after she died means nothing at all that is expected. Yet that is all that can be established and what most raise though it doesn't deal with the issue that actually matters.
When I want to actually prove something I deal with the issue at hand. Dealing with red herrings is either: to divert, mislead or as a result of inability to recognize what is actually significant and thus wasting one's own time of a fools errand.
