It seems to me that much of what Scipio denies about this case is based on there being no precedent.
Precedent is mainly a legal term of art. It means in essence that in the future law is to be applied to a like set of facts in the same manner as in the instance decision. Prcedent is rarely used outside the legal context and when it is it still is means to set an example that is copied and repeated in the future. Precedent is not a good word to use for the matter at hand.
Whilst some of this MAY be so, it's my belief that some isn't. ie, it appears that because he doesn't believe that a woman may choose to wear two pairs of knickers, during OR pre-empting menstruation, for added protection, meaning that the two soaking pairs were from two separate occasions. I'm perfectly certain that in the grand scheme of things, this small fact -women NEVER wear two pairs of knickers- hardly matters BUT, as he backs up SO much of what he says by saying that there's no precedent for anything WE may say, it causes me to wonder at what point something IS accepted as being a precedent.
EVERYTHING has a starting point so EVERY situation has to, at some time, have been a first. My next question has to address the time taken before allowing that, at a specific point, a precedent WAS set and how many innocent people spend time -maybe YEARS- in prisons because of it.
People can rebutt the norm with evidence to establish something different happened.
Wearing 2 pairs of panties for exrta absorbancy makes no sense though. The whole reaosn maxipads and tampons exist is to protect clothing from being ruined. Why would a woman opt to use 2 pairs of panties which woudl result in ruining 2 pairs of panties instead of a maxipad or tampon which would not only save the panties but is more absorbant than 2 pairs of panties anyway? How many women would decide to do that? Do you know any who would?
When might a woman do that? When they have no maxipads or tampons and need to go to the store to buy some? And in that case which panties would they use? Ones they could throw away most likely. Who would use good ones that you intended to then clean?
So already the notion she worse 2 panties to soak up blood that intended to wash later is not likely. What eveidence is there to establish this unlikely thing happened as opposed to her wearing the 2 panties as separate times. None. Woudl it matter if the did wear 2 at onece? Not really.
All the clothing proves is that Sheila menstruated in her panties and that it leaked into her leggings as well. Could this have happened prior to the murders? Yes. Is it highly likely that it happened prior to the murders? Yes. Is there any evidence to suggest it happened during or after the murders? No.
Are these clothes relevant to the murders? No.
Jeremy defenders want to pretend that this clothing proves that Sheila washed and changed after murdering everyone and that is why she had no physical evidence on her body or clothing.
All it demontrates is that she menstruated in her panties and leggings while she was wearing them. Is there any evidence she was wearing the leggings and panties at the time of the murders? No. She had a tampon inserted when killed. It makes no sense at all to ruin underwear, then bother to place them in a bucket to soak and insert a tampon right before killing herself. Who bothers to wash clothing knowing you are dying and won't need them anymore? Who inserts a tampon right before blowing their brains out to prevent menstrual blood from getting on their nightgown and the floor?
Is it likely she would be wearing panties and leggings at the time of the murders? No
After speaking to Pam she went to bed. There is no indication she would sleep in panties and leggings at all let alone when menstrauting. She had tampons at her disposal and one was in her when she was killed. Why would she go to bed in extra pairs of panties and leggings instead of using the tampon and nightgown?
If she did go to bed in leggings and panties she still needed to wear either a gown to cover her top or at minimum a shirt. If she committed the murders then she either had to do it topless or nude in order to avoid getting GSR and blood spatter on a shirt or gown. No shirt or gown she could have been wearing during the murders was found with blood or GSR on it. Nor did the leggings or panties have any reported blood spatter only stains in the crotch areas. So there is no evidence that she committed the murders and then changed out of clothing containing spatter from the victims or GSR.
That is the issue. Jeremy supporters suggest she changed and washed but have put forth: 1) no reason why she would do so. A) The claim that ritualistic killers sometimes do ritualistic things like bathe doesn't have any relation to allegations of a crazy person going wild it applies only to ritualistic killings. B) the only other reaosn peopel wash up and change and dispose of blood clothing used in a crime is to avoid liability but someone who murders with the intention of committing suicide doesn't bother
2) no evidence that she changed her clothing. There was no clothing found anywhewre other than on her body that she would likely have been wearing during the murders let alone any that was found containing blood spatter or GSR.
The law is concerned with what makes sense and can be proven.
Jeremy defenders constantly make claims that make no sense and that they can't prove. They constantly ignore that once someone is convicted the burden is to disprove the evidence used in order to establish a wrongful conviction. Disproving it requires solid proof not half baked scenarios one simply thought up on the fly but had no evidence to establish occurred.
