Again with all due respect the problem with circumstantial evidence is that it can often be twisted. The problem of course with those prosecution witnesses was that most of them had an interest in seeing the accused convicted of the crime. They would naturally corroberate each others words. And I suggest that that is just what they did. JM had a bone to pick with Jeremy for his unfaithfulness and the extended family were in danger of losing everything if he was found not guilty. I wonder what David Boutflour meant when he said to his sister, "I have something up my sleeve"?
The whole family knew how to get in and out of WHF. They had plenty of opportunity (not saying they did of course) to get into the house the night before they were given the keys and to plants anything they wanted. Next day, "Ooh look. This MUST be the silencer?" You mean there were no ther silencers on the property? With blood conveniently dripping out of it like jam. Too convenient.
Circumstantial evidence is just as reliable as direct evidence.
Saying hey maybe the suppressor evidence was planted is not enough. You need to establish there is a reasonable likelihood the evidence in the suppressor was planted. Of course yo uhave no such evidenc ejust wild suspicions that are meaningless in the eyes of the law and to anyone with common sense and capable of objective rational reasoning.
The family had no way of knowing about drawback and that Sheila's fatal wound definitely resulted in drawback. Nor did they have a way to know her blood type or to have access to her blood. Tossing bloody clothing in water and blood being diluted in water doesn't provide someone with blood to plant in a suppressor.
If the family knew all about drawback and the natre of her fatal wound then they woudl know the rifle itself would have her blood in it and this woudl not have been possible with the suppressor in place so would help prove it wasn't attached during the murders no matter what they plant in the suppressor.
Even if they had found a bag of her blood in a fridge that was being saved by her in case she needed a transfusion and they had wanted to plant it they would have no way of knowing if her blood matched the blood of any other victims or not and thus weather the blood could be tied specifically to her. moreover they would have no idea that they needed to spray the blood inside let alone know what tool they could use to accomplish it. The average person trying to plant blood uses a dropper or tiny via and pours it.
There is nothing at all to indicate it was reasonably likely the family could, would or did plant the blood in the suppressor.
Likewise there is nothing to indicate the lab planted the blood and found blood in the rifle and concealed it.
Your claims in such regard are irrational, unsupported claims. You need proof but have none.
You can be as irrational as you like in constructing your opinion. You decided early on that you will never believe Jeremy was capable and did it just because people told you he wouldn't and you don't like police. So you have decided to ignore all evidence of guil and any excuse necessary to pretend he is innocent is fine.
in the real world proof and evidence are king. Sheila was shot then bled down her shoulder and arm. This indicates she was shot while seated propped up against something. If she were not propped up against somethign she would have immediately fell back and been lying flat and would not have been able to bleed vertically down her shoulder and arm. Someone moved her flat after she died but while she was still bleeding because after being placed flat the blood flowed down the side of her neck onto the floor. The bible was in the pool of blood that formed after she was dead then was opened and closed before the blood dried. She can't have done that so this is additional evidence someone was there after she was dead. The suppressor is part of a triad of evidence that someone else killed Sheila.
Not only didn't Sheila kill herself, it is obvious she didn't kill anyone else. She had no foreign blood, no GSR, no elevated lead levels on her hands and no damage to her hands as would have occurred during the struggle with Nevill. So no evidence she loaded a gun, fired a gun, beat Nevill or even was near anyone else when they were shot (because high velocity spatter indicates being near a victim not necessarily being the shooter) when they died.
Based on all this evidence the same person who killed her killed the others, she didn't kill anyone before being killed herself. This evidence is not unreliable it is strong sound evidence. You need to prove it is unreliable just saying it is because you want desperately to believe Jeremy is innocent doesn't make it so. You can't though, everyone on this site has failed miserably at establishing the evidence is unreliable and many have even distorted tremendously to try to pretend it is.
The evidence proves that Sheila was framed and did nothing, who is the person who did it then? Well who framed her, that is who did it. Jeremy is the one who framed her with his fake call from Nevill, fake claims he left the rifle and bullets out (including stagign too many rounds in the kitchen for such ammunition to have been the source) , outright lies that she fired every weapon in the house etc.
Jeremy's own actions including constantly telling Julie about how he wanted them dead and his plans totally gave away that he is the one who framed Sheila.
The evidence is solid so many distortions are posted here with bogus claims of evidence that 2 different rifles were used and much more. When such lies and distortions are resorted to that means the evidence is solid because the real evidence can't be disputed by legitimate means.
Peopel outside of this site find it hard to take anyone here serious since the theories change by the hour of what supposedly happened. The same people are simultaneously arguing there were 2 guns, police shot victims, Juen and Sheila did it together, the blood and paint was planted, there were 3 suppressors, there were...
What this signals is an effort to just throw as much shit at the wall as possible hoping that base don sheer volume that some of it will stick. That is resorted to when one has no actual proof to use to attack the evidence used to convict.
