Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?

[Adam]

That upset me.

I created a thread called 'Would Jeremy have confessed if the interview was taped ?' Would you like me to find it ?

[Jan]

That upset me.

I created a thread called 'Would Jeremy have confessed if the interview was taped ?' Would you like me to find it ?

No thanks

It would all be supposition because we will never know will we .

[scipio_usmc]

It is so interesting the way you quote the relatives and particularly Ann Eaton as oracles of truth.  Everything they have ever said is taken on face value as truth even though they barely knew Jeremy and Sheila.  At the same time anything which doesn't fit in with your reasoning is dismissed, excuses are found backed up by insults, any possibility will do to dismiss any theory which doesn't fit your personal scenario.  You try to hide your bias behind claims of being a lawyer but to me it is an oh so familiar pattern which is repeated over and over again on this forum.

The claims of the relatives that are important are the direct things that they witnessed.  Evaluating their claims involves looking at whether they could have witnessed what they claim, whether it makes sense etc.   Their claims about having used the murder weapon, where it was stored, how it was usually stored, the condition etc are all relevant.  The claim the scope would not be removed is extremely credible.  The reasoning was sound that people don't remove scopes so that they have to rezero them UNLESS they only use a weapon rarely at a range for target shooting and don't mind zeroing it there.

Their claims are least reliable when discussing things they have no personal knowledge of at all like where the bodies were actually found.  That is the only use you have of them.  To try to look through their statements for things like how Eaton claimed she supposedly was told Sheila had been found in bed.  Obviously either the cop who told her that was wrong (they are not even sure who such cop was for sure) or she misunderstood and got it wrong.  How dare I dismiss things that she had no personal knowledge about and only use her as a witness to things witnessed firsthand.  How diabolical of me.

You are the one biased not me.  I evaluate evidence the way it should be evaluated.  I don't need to twist anything the evidence is squarely against Jeremy and I simply follow the evidence where it leads.  Jeremy supporters including yourself distort and that is why I tear apart the nonsense it is not because you don't have any actual evidence you need to try to invent evidence to support the claims you come up with SOLELY out of bias and thus constantly make invalid claims.

I have listed in extreme detail all the evidence that lead me to the conclusion Jeremy is guilty.  What evidence leads you to believe Jeremy is innocent?  None! You have no evidence at all to suggest he is innocent you just choose to believe it out of bias.

What evidence is there that Sheila killed anyone?  None!

Any evidence she loaded a gun?  No, she had no elevated lead levels.

Any evidence she fired a gun?  No, she had no GSR or high velocity back spatter from the victims

Any evidence she beat Nevill?  No, even though she would have: damaged her nails, damaged her hand when the stock broke, been hit with medium velocity blood spatter from the victim and would have gotten her prints on the rifle in his blood none of this occurred.

Any evidence that she killed herself?  No she can't have killed herself because after she was shot seated with her body propped against something the killer: 1) removed the moderator and put it in the closet, 2) moved her blody flat so she then bled down the side of her neck forming a blood pool, 3) placed the bible in such pool of blood then opened and closed it repatedly before the blood dried, 4) no evidence she died substantially later than the other victims.

What evidence is there that Nevill actually phoned Jeremy?  None

Did Jeremy react as someone who received such a call would react?  No

Would Nevill have been likely to make such a call to him? No for a whole host of reasons I already mentioned previously which you claimed you addressed in the past but that was a blatant lie because the reality is you have no ability to address my points.

I am guided by logic and evidence while you are guided by pure bias.

It is pure bias that results in claiming police or relatives planted evidence.  There is nothing at all to suggest they did and you have been able to produce ZILCH to suggest they did so you are not guided by evidence but simply bias.

There was a thread titled why do you think Jeremy is innocent or guilty.  You didn't have the guts to list your full case for why you think he is innocent even though this site is run by Jeremy supporters.  I listed my case knowing it would be attacked but the funny thing is no one managed to dent it.

There are ridiculous things like supporters constantly denying that a struggle took place in the kitchen but the evidence proves otherwise that is another example of bias at play to deny reality.

There are hilarious claims like Sheila would not have been able to sleep through the noise and yet claims that the walls were too thick for gunshots to be heard while in the house and that it would even prevent gunshots from being heard outside the house as if the sound of gunshots doesn't travel though windows.
That kind of hypocrisy really does one in demonstrating the true extent of their bias and willingness to distort. 

Good luck trying to find an example of that with me.

[Caroline]

I'm listening fine.  Years later how are paper pushers are supposed to figure out which is the original verse a copy and they sent the wrong thing.  For all we know the original was left in a copy machine and disposed of that happened to me at a kinkos once during a document production. Leaping to the suggestion tha tthis means Nevill made  acall is already ridiculous but to say that means it proves he called Bonnet at 3:36 is crazy since there is no way Bonnet would have fielded a call.

Clerical errors happen all the time at all states- (drafting/editing/mailing/filing etc) trying to read too much into that doesn't work.  You can try digging because of it to see if you find something but it virtually never leads to anything.

When I was in high school word processors took over typwriters which by college had been largely replaced by computers though the internet really helped finish off typewriters and word processors completely. Most of the documents I revewed early in my career were from the 1960' to late 70s so all typewritten or handwritten and there would be numerous versions of the same documents because of editing.  They kept the drafts and all changes.  Sometimes they said draft but usually not so trying to figure out which document was the final version was near impossible in many instances. Documents that needed to be filled out in duplicate or triplicate will have various differences because of typos what is the original if you need to file in triplicate and the 3 copies are different?  What if they make a mistake, redo it and keep both the error and the revision even though the revision is what they filed?  SOmetimes errors are trashed othertimes they are retained though never provided to anyone and simply left in a file.

Electronically maintained files are nice because you can figure out when any changes are made and what they are. Moreover, scanned documents can be sorted and made searchable on a CD or card drive.  Technology is a blessing but in that era they still relied on typewriters and that must be allowed for.  Not that typos don't exist today they certainly still do. Dates particularly are still screwed up regularly, month, day and year.  Sometime it is because a template is used and people forget to plug in all relevant information from the matter at hand. Other times just a typing error. If changes and revisions are to something critical then it is worth a good look. If the log actually claimed Nevill had phoned 999 and 999 passed the message to Bonnet and it was crossed out on another copy then that would be pretty significant as far as investigation.  There isn't anything close to that though.

 

I don't think you have quite grasped what I am saying. so never mind.

[maggie]

The claims of the relatives that are important are the direct things that they witnessed.  Evaluating their claims involves looking at whether they could have witnessed what they claim, whether it makes sense etc.   Their claims about having used the murder weapon, where it was stored, how it was usually stored, the condition etc are all relevant.  The claim the scope would not be removed is extremely credible.  The reasoning was sound that people don't remove scopes so that they have to rezero them UNLESS they only use a weapon rarely at a range for target shooting and don't mind zeroing it there.

Their claims are least reliable when discussing things they have no personal knowledge of at all like where the bodies were actually found.  That is the only use you have of them.  To try to look through their statements for things like how Eaton claimed she supposedly was told Sheila had been found in bed.  Obviously either the cop who told her that was wrong (they are not even sure who such cop was for sure) or she misunderstood and got it wrong.  How dare I dismiss things that she had no personal knowledge about and only use her as a witness to things witnessed firsthand.  How diabolical of me.

You are the one biased not me.  I evaluate evidence the way it should be evaluated.  I don't need to twist anything the evidence is squarely against Jeremy and I simply follow the evidence where it leads.  Jeremy supporters including yourself distort and that is why I tear apart the nonsense it is not because you don't have any actual evidence you need to try to invent evidence to support the claims you come up with SOLELY out of bias and thus constantly make invalid claims.

I have listed in extreme detail all the evidence that lead me to the conclusion Jeremy is guilty.  What evidence leads you to believe Jeremy is innocent?  None! You have no evidence at all to suggest he is innocent you just choose to believe it out of bias.

What evidence is there that Sheila killed anyone?  None!

Any evidence she loaded a gun?  No, she had no elevated lead levels.

Any evidence she fired a gun?  No, she had no GSR or high velocity back spatter from the victims

Any evidence she beat Nevill?  No, even though she would have: damaged her nails, damaged her hand when the stock broke, been hit with medium velocity blood spatter from the victim and would have gotten her prints on the rifle in his blood none of this occurred.

Any evidence that she killed herself?  No she can't have killed herself because after she was shot seated with her body propped against something the killer: 1) removed the moderator and put it in the closet, 2) moved her blody flat so she then bled down the side of her neck forming a blood pool, 3) placed the bible in such pool of blood then opened and closed it repatedly before the blood dried, 4) no evidence she died substantially later than the other victims.

What evidence is there that Nevill actually phoned Jeremy?  None

Did Jeremy react as someone who received such a call would react?  No

Would Nevill have been likely to make such a call to him? No for a whole host of reasons I already mentioned previously which you claimed you addressed in the past but that was a blatant lie because the reality is you have no ability to address my points.

I am guided by logic and evidence while you are guided by pure bias.

It is pure bias that results in claiming police or relatives planted evidence.  There is nothing at all to suggest they did and you have been able to produce ZILCH to suggest they did so you are not guided by evidence but simply bias.

There was a thread titled why do you think Jeremy is innocent or guilty.  You didn't have the guts to list your full case for why you think he is innocent even though this site is run by Jeremy supporters.  I listed my case knowing it would be attacked but the funny thing is no one managed to dent it.

There are ridiculous things like supporters constantly denying that a struggle took place in the kitchen but the evidence proves otherwise that is another example of bias at play to deny reality.

There are hilarious claims like Sheila would not have been able to sleep through the noise and yet claims that the walls were too thick for gunshots to be heard while in the house and that it would even prevent gunshots from being heard outside the house as if the sound of gunshots doesn't travel though windows.
That kind of hypocrisy really does one in demonstrating the true extent of their bias and willingness to distort. 

Good luck trying to find an example of that with me.

Don't think I shall be bothering scipio but thanks for proving my point, just cannot understand why you are so aggressive. 

[grahameb]

The claims of the relatives that are important are the direct things that they witnessed.  Evaluating their claims involves looking at whether they could have witnessed what they claim, whether it makes sense etc.   Their claims about having used the murder weapon, where it was stored, how it was usually stored, the condition etc are all relevant.  The claim the scope would not be removed is extremely credible.  The reasoning was sound that people don't remove scopes so that they have to rezero them UNLESS they only use a weapon rarely at a range for target shooting and don't mind zeroing it there.

Their claims are least reliable when discussing things they have no personal knowledge of at all like where the bodies were actually found.  That is the only use you have of them.  To try to look through their statements for things like how Eaton claimed she supposedly was told Sheila had been found in bed.  Obviously either the cop who told her that was wrong (they are not even sure who such cop was for sure) or she misunderstood and got it wrong.  How dare I dismiss things that she had no personal knowledge about and only use her as a witness to things witnessed firsthand.  How diabolical of me.

You are the one biased not me.  I evaluate evidence the way it should be evaluated.  I don't need to twist anything the evidence is squarely against Jeremy and I simply follow the evidence where it leads.  Jeremy supporters including yourself distort and that is why I tear apart the nonsense it is not because you don't have any actual evidence you need to try to invent evidence to support the claims you come up with SOLELY out of bias and thus constantly make invalid claims.

I have listed in extreme detail all the evidence that lead me to the conclusion Jeremy is guilty.  What evidence leads you to believe Jeremy is innocent?  None! You have no evidence at all to suggest he is innocent you just choose to believe it out of bias.

What evidence is there that Sheila killed anyone?  None!

Any evidence she loaded a gun?  No, she had no elevated lead levels.

Any evidence she fired a gun?  No, she had no GSR or high velocity back spatter from the victims

Any evidence she beat Nevill?  No, even though she would have: damaged her nails, damaged her hand when the stock broke, been hit with medium velocity blood spatter from the victim and would have gotten her prints on the rifle in his blood none of this occurred.

Any evidence that she killed herself?  No she can't have killed herself because after she was shot seated with her body propped against something the killer: 1) removed the moderator and put it in the closet, 2) moved her blody flat so she then bled down the side of her neck forming a blood pool, 3) placed the bible in such pool of blood then opened and closed it repatedly before the blood dried, 4) no evidence she died substantially later than the other victims.

What evidence is there that Nevill actually phoned Jeremy?  None

Did Jeremy react as someone who received such a call would react?  No

Would Nevill have been likely to make such a call to him? No for a whole host of reasons I already mentioned previously which you claimed you addressed in the past but that was a blatant lie because the reality is you have no ability to address my points.

I am guided by logic and evidence while you are guided by pure bias.

It is pure bias that results in claiming police or relatives planted evidence.  There is nothing at all to suggest they did and you have been able to produce ZILCH to suggest they did so you are not guided by evidence but simply bias.

There was a thread titled why do you think Jeremy is innocent or guilty.  You didn't have the guts to list your full case for why you think he is innocent even though this site is run by Jeremy supporters.  I listed my case knowing it would be attacked but the funny thing is no one managed to dent it.

There are ridiculous things like supporters constantly denying that a struggle took place in the kitchen but the evidence proves otherwise that is another example of bias at play to deny reality.

There are hilarious claims like Sheila would not have been able to sleep through the noise and yet claims that the walls were too thick for gunshots to be heard while in the house and that it would even prevent gunshots from being heard outside the house as if the sound of gunshots doesn't travel though windows.
That kind of hypocrisy really does one in demonstrating the true extent of their bias and willingness to distort. 

Good luck trying to find an example of that with me.

I don't think they are "hilarious" claims as you put it? Because neither has been actually tested I just think that it is one view against another. It's not really good to insult the intelligence of another by calling their claims hilarious.
I personally believe that if the shots to Sheila were close contact shots, then no I don't think they would necessarily be heard. I have been outside of a similar house when someone was target shooting inside with a .22 rifle and I must confess I heard nothing. So we must out of courtesy refer to this part as "unproven", since it was never tested after the shooting.

The other question as to whether sheila would not have been able to remain asleep throughout the "noise" as you put it again must remain a moot point. If Sheila's parents woke up, then it would be only reasonable to suspect that she would have been woken up also. Unless of course she was already awake?
So please do not refer to these claims as hilarious and then to claim that they are hilarious just because you yourself do not agree with it.

[scipio_usmc]

I don't think they are "hilarious" claims as you put it? Because neither has been actually tested I just think that it is one view against another. It's not really good to insult the intelligence of another by calling their claims hilarious.
I personally believe that if the shots to Sheila were close contact shots, then no I don't think they would necessarily be heard. I have been outside of a similar house when someone was target shooting inside with a .22 rifle and I must confess I heard nothing. So we must out of courtesy refer to this part as "unproven", since it was never tested after the shooting.

The other question as to whether sheila would not have been able to remain asleep throughout the "noise" as you put it again must remain a moot point. If Sheila's parents woke up, then it would be only reasonable to suspect that she would have been woken up also. Unless of course she was already awake?
So please do not refer to these claims as hilarious and then to claim that they are hilarious just because you yourself do not agree with it.

1) Saying that Sheila would hear shots fired in the house but police near the window of the room would not hear anything and police in the house would likewise hear nothing is contradictory and doesn't make any sense.  If a sleeping Sheila could be awakened by the shots then cops in the house already awake would certainly hear them and so would police outside.  I don't know why your friend would be shooting inside of his house but if he did one wonders if you have hearing problems or not bbecause shots fired in a house while you are close to it outside without any background noise going on as you intently are staring at the house and listening for something to happen are not going to be missed. Maybe there was background noise occupying your attention and you were not close to the area where the shot was fired from. 

In any event there is a huge disconnect in arguing the walls are too thick for the sounds of gunshots to penetrate and then to insist Sheila had to be awakened by the shots or struggle in the kitchen and that she could not have slept through things like the boys did.

2) Some people don't wake up from loud noises while others do. Last night we had a major thunder storm and my wife slept right through it without hearing a thing she had no idea it thundered.  So the notion that Sheila had to wake up is not true indeed the boys did not wake up so why would Sheila have to?   The parents could very well have been woken up when the lights turned on in their room. June could have woken up upon being shot we have no way of knowing. The assumption that the parents waking up as being shot means someone in a different room would also wake up is not a safe bet as demonstrated by the boys still being asleep.  There are also plenty of documented cases where people slept through murders committed by guns and woke up in the morning to find their family or rooomates had been killed. Many times it is children but not always it happens with adults as well.  Some people are heavy sleepers. It probably saved their lives because had they gotten up they likely would have been killed as well. 



   

 

[Adam]

Love the way there are the two extremes on here.

Scipio writes long posts, Numug rarely writes more than two lines,  even when creating a thread.

There is no right or wrong.

[grahameb]

1) Saying that Sheila would hear shots fired in the house but police near the window of the room would not hear anything and police in the house would likewise hear nothing is contradictory and doesn't make any sense.  If a sleeping Sheila could be awakened by the shots then cops in the house already awake would certainly hear them and so would police outside.  I don't know why your friend would be shooting inside of his house but if he did one wonders if you have hearing problems or not bbecause shots fired in a house while you are close to it outside without any background noise going on as you intently are staring at the house and listening for something to happen are not going to be missed. Maybe there was background noise occupying your attention and you were not close to the area where the shot was fired from. 

In any event there is a huge disconnect in arguing the walls are too thick for the sounds of gunshots to penetrate and then to insist Sheila had to be awakened by the shots or struggle in the kitchen and that she could not have slept through things like the boys did.

2) Some people don't wake up from loud noises while others do. Last night we had a major thunder storm and my wife slept right through it without hearing a thing she had no idea it thundered.  So the notion that Sheila had to wake up is not true indeed the boys did not wake up so why would Sheila have to?   The parents could very well have been woken up when the lights turned on in their room. June could have woken up upon being shot we have no way of knowing. The assumption that the parents waking up as being shot means someone in a different room would also wake up is not a safe bet as demonstrated by the boys still being asleep.  There are also plenty of documented cases where people slept through murders committed by guns and woke up in the morning to find their family or rooomates had been killed. Many times it is children but not always it happens with adults as well.  Some people are heavy sleepers. It probably saved their lives because had they gotten up they likely would have been killed as well. 



   

 

In other words both are moot points as I said. We can both argue our own points until the cows come home. But as I said, neither was tested and so remains just our own opinions. Your reasons are just as "hilarious" as mine appear to be so to you and for this reason. None of us know either the sequence of the shootings nor how loud they were. eg: You may think the kids were killed last. But they may indeed have been killed first? again neither of us know if the occupants of the house were awake or asleep, except of course for the twins where it looks very likely that they were killed in their sleep.

[scipio_usmc]

In other words both are moot points as I said. We can both argue our own points until the cows come home. But as I said, neither was tested and so remains just our own opinions. Your reasons are just as "hilarious" as mine appear to be so to you and for this reason. None of us know either the sequence of the shootings nor how loud they were. eg: You may think the kids were killed last. But they may indeed have been killed first? again neither of us know if the occupants of the house were awake or asleep, except of course for the twins where it looks very likely that they were killed in their sleep.

Making contradictory claims is not moot it means one is being hypocritical and making contradictory claims.

Scipio:  Gunshots could be heard by anyone in the house and by those outside particuarly those near the windows of the room.  Thus Sheila could have heard the shots and have been woken up by them.  The police would have heard any shots fired while they were present. 

Some Jeremy supporters:  The walls are too thick for gunshots to be heard in a different room and for noise to travel around the house. Police inside or outside the house would not have been able to hear gunshots fired in the house.  Dogs outside would have woken up the whole house.  Sheila would definitely have been woken up by the gunshots and struggle.

Are any of my claims contradictory? No  Are the claims of the supporters contradictory?  Yes because when it suits their interest they claim people would hear noises not only being made inside but even noises from outside but when it suits their interest claim the noises would not be heard.  Their claims are not consistent that is what is so funny and damning. 

[grahameb]

Making contradictory claims is not moot it means one is being hypocritical and making contradictory claims.

Scipio:  Gunshots could be heard by anyone in the house and by those outside particuarly those near the windows of the room.  Thus Sheila could have heard the shots and have been woken up by them.  The police would have heard any shots fired while they were present. 

Some Jeremy supporters:  The walls are too thick for gunshots to be heard in a different room and for noise to travel around the house. Police inside or outside the house would not have been able to hear gunshots fired in the house.  Dogs outside would have woken up the whole house.  Sheila would definitely have been woken up by the gunshots and struggle.

Are any of my claims contradictory? No  Are the claims of the supporters contradictory?  Yes because when it suits their interest they claim people would hear noises not only being made inside but even noises from outside but when it suits their interest claim the noises would not be heard.  Their claims are not consistent that is what is so funny and damning.

No master scipio I am not being hypocritical. I don't think anyone has the essential evidence to answer those questions confidently. Why? Because as I have confirmed in other posts no one is in possession of the entire truth. Why is that. Oh because no one alive or on this forum was there. Or to quote one of the best known saying of Vietnam vets, (in a gruff voice) "You werrn't thayre".
That is why I would like to here the audio tapes of the events that took place when the raid team went in, which the police are still for some reason guarding with their lives.
Calling someone a hypocrite is very offensive as it is a judgment of their character or their motives. Nobody has the ability to judge someone else's motives.

[scipio_usmc]

No master scipio I am not being hypocritical. I don't think anyone has the essential evidence to answer those questions confidently. Why? Because as I have confirmed in other posts no one is in possession of the entire truth. Why is that. Oh because no one alive or on this forum was there. Or to quote one of the best known saying of Vietnam vets, (in a gruff voice) "You werrn't thayre".
That is why I would like to here the audio tapes of the events that took place when the raid team went in, which the police are still for some reason guarding with their lives.
Calling someone a hypocrite is very offensive as it is a judgment of their character or their motives. Nobody has the ability to judge someone else's motives.

When someone claims sounds can't penetrate walls when it suits them but can penetrate the same walls when it suits them they are being hypocrites and it is for sure because of bias.  Nothing you say can alter these facts.

[Caroline]

That upset me.

I created a thread called 'Would Jeremy have confessed if the interview was taped ?' Would you like me to find it ?

Jansus said 'no' so no need to post it.

[grahameb]

When someone claims sounds can't penetrate walls when it suits them but can penetrate the same walls when it suits them they are being hypocrites and it is for sure because of bias.  Nothing you say can alter these facts.

I haven't claimed either. I said that it is a point that needs to be proved. Please don't call me a hypocrite scipio.

[Alias]

When someone claims sounds can't penetrate walls when it suits them but can penetrate the same walls when it suits them they are being hypocrites and it is for sure because of bias.  Nothing you say can alter these facts.

So there are hypocrites all around. Guilters claim that Sheila would have slept through 23 shots inside the house, but the police would have heard two contact shots outside.