Robert Boutflour (10/09/1985) statement - police told him Sheila only shot once.

[Jan]

No cops said she was on the bed, they all said she was on the floor.

Not only did they all say on the floor some looked her over very carefully and noticed she had two wounds not one like you claim.

Your history of always being inaccurate is safe.

so were the police inaccurate, because they told other members of the family there was one wound and also Julie told Anne that when she came back from the mortuary . She clearly told Anne there was one wound and pointed to where it was - very odd why would she do that when she must have seen two wounds.? Unless 1) the police told her not to release that information for some reason? 2) they covered up one of the wounds when she viewed the body.

Its just a catalogue of misinformation.

[scipio_usmc]

so were the police inaccurate, because they told other members of the family there was one wound and also Julie told Anne that when she came back from the mortuary . She clearly told Anne there was one wound and pointed to where it was - very odd why would she do that when she must have seen two wounds.? Unless 1) the police told her not to release that information for some reason? 2) they covered up one of the wounds when she viewed the body.

Its just a catalogue of misinformation.

1) if any police actually did tell them there was only 1 wound yes they were inaccurate.

2) if police were trying to keep the 2 wounds a secret they would not have said anything to the family at all about 2 not mentioned 2 but told them to keept quiet 

3) we don't know for sure if they are right about what police told them or not they could have misinterpreted things the police told them so they could have made a mistake as could whatever police they were talking to have made a mistake or even mispoke.  The fmaily coudl alos have faulty memories of what they were told.

4) One wound was under the chin you could not see it unless you were looking at the right angle plus there were other marks that might have simply been thought of as blood and no realized it was am entry wound.  Some police didn't even see the second one so it is understandable that Julie could have missed it as well.

[Jan]

1) if any police actually did tell them there was only 1 wound yes they were inaccurate.

2) if police were trying to keep the 2 wounds a secret they would not have said anything to the family at all about 2 not mentioned 2 but told them to keept quiet 

3) we don't know for sure if they are right about what police told them or not they could have misinterpreted things the police told them so they could have made a mistake as could whatever police they were talking to have made a mistake or even mispoke.  The fmaily coudl alos have faulty memories of what they were told.

4) One wound was under the chin you could not see it unless you were looking at the right angle plus there were other marks that might have simply been thought of as blood and no realized it was am entry wound.  Some police didn't even see the second one so it is understandable that Julie could have missed it as well.

Well it would seem that The family may not have been told about the two wounds until Sept ? Because when Jeremy was interviewed at that time he did not seem to be aware of that fact did he? So the police kept that fact quiet for a few weeks.

And if the rest of the family knew I am sure they would have let on.

[grahameb]

Well it would seem that The family may not have been told about the two wounds until Sept ? Because when Jeremy was interviewed at that time he did not seem to be aware of that fact did he? So the police kept that fact quiet for a few weeks.

And if the rest of the family knew I am sure they would have let on.

I suspect that the relatives were not told everything? The reason being the police only tell people what they need to know and that information may not be graphic. They usually do not go into great detail as to the condition of the bodies of loved ones through fear of upsetting them too much.

[scipio_usmc]

Well it would seem that The family may not have been told about the two wounds until Sept ? Because when Jeremy was interviewed at that time he did not seem to be aware of that fact did he? So the police kept that fact quiet for a few weeks.

And if the rest of the family knew I am sure they would have let on.

When he was interviewed he was not asked about the wounds on the victims or the murders.  He was asked about what he did and observed and experienced . 

Obviously he knew everything about the murders but intentionally feigned ignorance including with Julie when he sparingly revealed details he was supposedly told by the real killer.

A major red flag is his lack of questions for police about what happened to the victims.  Isn't it funny that the extended relatives asked police for detials but he did not and supposedly got details from the family.  He knew what happened because he did it so had no need to ask.   

[scipio_usmc]

I suspect that the relatives were not told everything? The reason being the police only tell people what they need to know and that information may not be graphic. They usually do not go into great detail as to the condition of the bodies of loved ones through fear of upsetting them too much.

They were told more details than they should have been if it had been handled properly.  Until they knew it was a sucide they should have been more general about the details they released.  There is no set policy of how much information to release but the most competent and most successful investigators have historically released general information.  When someone know details not released it means they should be spoken to because they either were involved or might know someone involved who provided it.  Thus hiding some detials is an investigative tool wise police use.

But we have no way of kowing exactly which police told them what, because not even they remembered who told them what and when they were told.  It could have been police without first hand knowledge themselves.  Worse we don't know how accurately they understood what they were told by police or accurate in their memory later.

Down the road not only do memories fade they blend.  People pick up knowledge from a variety of places and end up isattributing a detial to a different source than they actually got it and mess up the date as well.

For example, in 1 case the relative of a cop wrote a book concerning investigations in 10 different murders.  There was a chapter devoted to each murder.  She declared that the ballistic expert had identified the caliber of bullet on the scene within hours of the murder and thus police knew right away what weapon to look for so knew within hours what weapon was used.  She messed up, the ballistic expert's testimony she relied upon was that he suspected right away the caliber but did not tell anyone until after he had measured the bullets in the lab and made sure.  1 cops who worked the case read her book and repeated her claims because he no longer remembered the details after so much time had passed and just accepted it as true.  Conspiracy theorists jumped all over his statement and in a documentary the ballistic expert set the record straight.

Suppose there was some stupid cop running around saying they were shot once to the family.  Is that evidence the claim is true?  No you look at the autospy results for how many wounds there were.   

[Jan]

When he was interviewed he was not asked about the wounds on the victims or the murders.  He was asked about what he did and observed and experienced . 

Obviously he knew everything about the murders but intentionally feigned ignorance including with Julie when he sparingly revealed details he was supposedly told by the real killer.

A major red flag is his lack of questions for police about what happened to the victims.  Isn't it funny that the extended relatives asked police for detials but he did not and supposedly got details from the family.  He knew what happened because he did it so had no need to ask.   

purely assumption not fact. in his interview he said he did not want too many details in case it was upsetting .After all it was not going to bring them back was it.

But it does beg the question if the police kept so much information to themselves why were the family so SURE he was going to be convicted that they started moves to get him written out of the will so quickly ( not assumption evidence provided)

[grahameb]

They were told more details than they should have been if it had been handled properly.  Until they knew it was a sucide they should have been more general about the details they released.  There is no set policy of how much information to release but the most competent and most successful investigators have historically released general information.  When someone know details not released it means they should be spoken to because they either were involved or might know someone involved who provided it.  Thus hiding some detials is an investigative tool wise police use.

But we have no way of kowing exactly which police told them what, because not even they remembered who told them what and when they were told.  It could have been police without first hand knowledge themselves.  Worse we don't know how accurately they understood what they were told by police or accurate in their memory later.

Down the road not only do memories fade they blend.  People pick up knowledge from a variety of places and end up isattributing a detial to a different source than they actually got it and mess up the date as well.

For example, in 1 case the relative of a cop wrote a book concerning investigations in 10 different murders.  There was a chapter devoted to each murder.  She declared that the ballistic expert had identified the caliber of bullet on the scene within hours of the murder and thus police knew right away what weapon to look for so knew within hours what weapon was used.  She messed up, the ballistic expert's testimony she relied upon was that he suspected right away the caliber but did not tell anyone until after he had measured the bullets in the lab and made sure.  1 cops who worked the case read her book and repeated her claims because he no longer remembered the details after so much time had passed and just accepted it as true.  Conspiracy theorists jumped all over his statement and in a documentary the ballistic expert set the record straight.

Suppose there was some stupid cop running around saying they were shot once to the family.  Is that evidence the claim is true?  No you look at the autospy results for how many wounds there were.

I rather feel that we are giving this subject more attention than it deserves? Ann Eaton was told that both Sheila and June were found on the bed with the rifle between them. But unless there is a picture to support such a statement then all we know is what the current pictures show us.

[scipio_usmc]

purely assumption not fact. in his interview he said he did not want too many details in case it was upsetting .After all it was not going to bring them back was it.

But it does beg the question if the police kept so much information to themselves why were the family so SURE he was going to be convicted that they started moves to get him written out of the will so quickly ( not assumption evidence provided)

The police obviously did not keep back much information.  They even interviewed Jeremy with the fmaily present which is how they saw Jeremy saying things that they viewed as lies and that made no sense.

In them meantime they say it wa sgranny who wanted him out of her will and there is no evidence to prove the contrary which is where the burden lies.  Ann Eaton doesn't know and was not involved in such Boutflour was and his claim is granny wanted lawyer suommoned to change her will.

We have no statements from Pam about this or other relatives who might have been present or from the lawyer who would be the ultimate source of what she did and why.

The family in the meantime saw right off the bat the insanity of many of the claims and the dishonesty.  They witnessed first hand what we are treated to as spectators. Also they personally knew the parties so knew first hand Sheila's physical limitations and Jeremy's poor relationship with his parents which he misrepresent to police as a great relationship.

I posted in depth all about how the call from Nevill made no sense.  That is a mjaor block of my case against Jeremy and they endured that firsthand.  They endured first hand his lies about the gun not fitting in the closet with the moderator attached and how he had removed the scope to use it for target practice and how his whole story of getting the gun to shoot rabbits made up sense since he didn't like rabbits being shot. 

Police had to interview a lot of witnesses to recognize these lies.  The family recognized them instantly.
The moderator is not why police thought Jeremy was guilty it ismply is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that enabled them to prove it.  The way it proved it wound up not being anything the family or even cops had envisioned.  The lab used it to prove Sheila could not have killed herself.  Jeremy was already questioned as a suspect before the lab made such assessment.  After such assessment that gave the police enough evidence to arrest and charge him simply.

[Caroline]

The police obviously did not keep back much information.  They even interviewed Jeremy with the fmaily present which is how they saw Jeremy saying things that they viewed as lies and that made no sense.

In them meantime they say it wa sgranny who wanted him out of her will and there is no evidence to prove the contrary which is where the burden lies.  Ann Eaton doesn't know and was not involved in such Boutflour was and his claim is granny wanted lawyer suommoned to change her will.

We have no statements from Pam about this or other relatives who might have been present or from the lawyer who would be the ultimate source of what she did and why.

The family in the meantime saw right off the bat the insanity of many of the claims and the dishonesty.  They witnessed first hand what we are treated to as spectators. Also they personally knew the parties so knew first hand Sheila's physical limitations and Jeremy's poor relationship with his parents which he misrepresent to police as a great relationship.

I posted in depth all about how the call from Nevill made no sense.  That is a mjaor block of my case against Jeremy and they endured that firsthand.  They endured first hand his lies about the gun not fitting in the closet with the moderator attached and how he had removed the scope to use it for target practice and how his whole story of getting the gun to shoot rabbits made up sense since he didn't like rabbits being shot. 

Police had to interview a lot of witnesses to recognize these lies.  The family recognized them instantly.
The moderator is not why police thought Jeremy was guilty it ismply is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that enabled them to prove it.  The way it proved it wound up not being anything the family or even cops had envisioned.  The lab used it to prove Sheila could not have killed herself.  Jeremy was already questioned as a suspect before the lab made such assessment.  After such assessment that gave the police enough evidence to arrest and charge him simply.

Oh I think it was envisioned!!

[grahameb]

A bit toooooo convenient for my liking, the so called silencer evidence. Almost like "the hand of God" so to speak? Interpret that how you like. To me it was pretty near impossible. A bit too much of a coincidence to be true?

[scipio_usmc]

I rather feel that we are giving this subject more attention than it deserves? Ann Eaton was told that both Sheila and June were found on the bed with the rifle between them. But unless there is a picture to support such a statement then all we know is what the current pictures show us.

In the sense of what Ann Eaton claism to have been told- I agree it is meaningless.

We have more than the photos though we have blood evidence to establish where their bodies were and also testimony of the cops who saw the bodies before the pitcures were taken.

ALl of that trumps hearsay from Ann Eaton and the reaosn why hearsay is not relaible is in part because the person could misinterpret what they were told or be told by someone unreliable.  Either is possible with Ann.  She is not sure if the information came from a cop who actually saw the bodies and she could have misinterpreted what she was told anyway.

When it comes to what Ann personally witnessed that is one thing, the rest is something else entirely.

[scipio_usmc]

Oh I think it was envisioned!!

For a very stupid reason though that I have shown makes no sense.

You stopped debating the issue because your beliefs are not supported by anything except illogic and you pornounced you don;t care you will not change your mind no matter what.  So basically you have decided to believe something for no valid reason and simply operate from such basis no matter what.

Nevermind that evidence stablishes police cared about the moderator to look for fingerprints, nevermind that the retives would not have understood about drawback so early on, nevermind that no one can even come up with a way for the blood to have been planted to have been distributed in the matter found you operate based solely on that Jermey wanted it tested so that means he can't have used it even countless guilty criminals have requested DNA tests that ended up confirming their guilt.  You say you don't care that they did such Jeremy would not have and this proves police and the family planted it to prove she can't have shot herself.

Peter sellers wants to talk to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3pr2cUC2Aw

[lookout]

All we're really doing is taking the cops words that the bodies were found where they were. The same as all the other details in this case where we're relying on the fact that this is how it all was.

[scipio_usmc]

All we're really doing is taking the cops words that the bodies were found where they were. The same as all the other details in this case where we're relying on the fact that this is how it all was.

1) their words are corroborated by the physical evidence including blood pools and assessments of the positions of the bodies at death.

2) there is no reason to question their claims.  No one alleging they lied has ever presented a motive for them moving the bodies let alone any evidence to establish it.  Why would they move the bodies?  Alleging they did so to frame Jeremy doesn't work since at the time they allegedly moved them they assessed that Sheila was responsible.

Let's test a claim:

Sheila is in bed and kills herself.  How would blood leak down her shoulder and arm?  She had to be seated when she was shot for such to occur.

The physical evidence easily dismisses all the ridiculous allegations being made.  This is why conspiracy theorists who proffer such are mocked as liars and fools.