why the police might of moved the body.

[scipio_usmc]

There are different allegations being bandied about.

Some allege Sheila's body was moved by police from one room to another.  There is no basis for this claim though at all: the pool of blood in the bedroom that formed from her neck proves that is where she was, all police statements say she was found in the bedroom and no one claims to have seen her in the kitchen let alone is there a photo of such.

Others allege police moved her arms and the gun at times.  Indeed police did move her arm because in the oldest photo her hand is covering a blood stain on her dress.  That blood stain was formed by blood running down her wrist onto the outside palms of her hand and finally on her gown under her hand. Her hand was therefore covering the stain.  Her hand was thus moved so that the blood could be seen and photographed. Other movements include the gun and bible being moved but then put back to try to recreate the scene.

These movements have no implication on the case against Jeremy.  None of these movements occurred when she was still bleeding or the blood would have been wet.

The blood evidence proves that the following occurred:

1) Sheila had been shot while seated.  She was seated because blood dripped down onto her arm and down her gown right under the wounds.

2) Sheila had been seated with her back against something.  Had she not been seated against something then she would have fell backwards lying down and would not have bled onto her arm and gown.

3) That both shots were fired several seconds apart because if more time passed than Sheila would have had a lot more blood on her arm and down her gown.

4) That shortly after Sheila died her body was placed flat.  This occurred soon after because she was still bleeding at the time as evidenced by the pool of blood on the floor under her neck.  The blood ran dwn her neck onto the floor where it pooled.   Had this movement not taken place right away then all this blood that ran down her neck onto the floor would instead have leaked on her gown.

5) Sheila's arm was located on the very spot where the only blood dripped on the lower portion of her dress. The blood clearly leaked onto her wrist and palm and then from these locations onto the dress.  This proves her hand was in such location while the blood was still wet.

6) That the bible was in the pool of blood that formed on the floor after she died and was opened and closed while the blood on the floor and in the bible was still wet.

Only if police entered right after she was shot could they have been the ones who moved her body flat while still bleeding, to cause the blood to drip from her arm onto her gown or to have played with the bible while the blood was wet.   

But there is no evidence at all to suggest she was shot significantly after any one else let alone right as police entered the building.  Moreover, all 5 initial police to find her body say it was flat with the rifle on it when they found it.  As soon as the building was secure 2 inspectors walked through the house and observed her flat with the rifle on her.  These are the first 7 people to see the body.

The various movements of the body have no implications at all as far as the blood evidence goes unless Sheila had been shot very shortly before police moved her and there is no evidence of that at all.  The evidence being bandied about about movements in between photographs was well after the blood was dry and could not possibly account for any of the movements proven by the blood. 

Thus thye are a waste of time even discussing.  People who want to establish police caused the movements documented by the blood evidence need to produce evidence that Sheila was shot very shortly before they moved her.

The evidence is that Sheila can't have shot herself and then put the suppressor away so any allegation she shot herself as police were walking in is not supportable.

There is no evidence to support allegations police shot her.

There is no evidence any shots were fired at any time after police arrives.  No one heard anything that sounded like shots nor any other indicia of shots fired.

There is no evidence to support allegations she died significantly later than anyone else.

There is no evidence to support allegations she wasn't flat but rather seated when police found her let alone that they found her seated while she was still bleeding and after they moved her the pool of blood formed at the side of her neck.

Discussing movements that happened hours after she was found is a complete waste of time and effort and was dismissed as completely immaterial by the Court of Appeal because it is.

This thread is mostly discussing such movements that have no bearing on anything. 

 

   

[nugnug]

it has a very big bearing a jury assumes when shown a photograph that its an acruate reflection of the original crime scene if it isnt they have been misled.

[scipio_usmc]

it has a very big bearing a jury assumes when shown a photograph that its an acruate reflection of the original crime scene if it isnt they have been misled.

Such has no bearing on making a verdict unsafe unless the alleged error undermines the forensic evidence presented.

It has no bearing on the evidence at all that establishes his guilt.

She was shot seated then moved flat.  You need to establish that she was found seate dby police very shortly after she was shot and then moved flat by them so that the pool of blood formed after that and that the bible thus was played with by them while wet.

That is the only thing that could undermine the claim that the killer moved her body and the bible.

In the meantime that still would not overcome the suppressor evidence, that would also need to be undermined.

If all of this were undermined then the prosecution would no longer have evidence that proves she could not have killed herself.

Then the prosecution would have to rely on the lack of evidence that she fired a gun at all and lack of physical evidence she killed anyone.  This still is evidence but not nearly as powerful as the evidence that says she can't possibly have killed herself- this is definitive so stronger.  Definitive evidence definitely constitututes beyond a reaosnable doubt.

Evidence that is not definitive can still constitute beyond a reasonable doubt but might not and jurors making that decision might not agree even if the prosecution thinks it is strong enough.


 

[nugnug]

combined with other things it could certanly make a conviction unsafe.

i admit it probebly couldent on its own.