Does anyone who believes Sheila killed everyone believe that she...

[scipio_usmc]

attached the moderator, used it to kill everyone and then removed it and put it away before killing herself?

If so why. If she was in a rage and found the gun in the kitchen and grabbed it as a weapon of opportunity to use why would she bother to go get the moderator and install it and why would she bother to put it away after removing it?  If she needed to remove it to kill herself why not just remove it and leave it in the bedroom instead of going downstairs to put it away and then going back upstairs to kill herself in the master bedroom? 

Unless someone believes she did such then the whole argument over whether it was June and Nevill's blood or Sheila's is moot because the blood of any victim inside the moderator means Jeremy did it unless one believes Sheila would do such. 

[Caroline]

Of course not!

[grahameb]

No

[lookout]

 No.

[scipio_usmc]

So far the majority say no and that is unlikely to change.  It is unanimous so far but it is still early and that could potentially change.

But this illustrates 2 important things:

1) that finding any victim blood on the moderator serves to rule out Sheila having committed the murders because few if any would believe she would get it out herself, use it then put it away in the closet before going upstairs to kill herself.

This pretty much renders all speculation by the defense experts like Webster worthless because at worst he says it was Nevill and June's blood though he said it could have been Sheila's or even Sheila's June's and Nevill's. 

2) that victim blood on the moderator (any of the 5 victims) would equally end up establishing it had been attached during the murders and implicate the same disbelief that Sheila would have attached it before and then removed it after.

People keep ignoring all the different avenues open to people who wanted to plant blood evidence.  Not only the outside of the moderator but also on clothing.  Clothing in Jeremy's house or in his car or somewhere else on his property would be especially damning but even just mimicking spatter on a short and pants and hiding them in the barn would be suggestive of someone having killed the victims and hiding the clothing worn. 

At any rate unless someone actually believes Sheila would get the moderator and use it there is no reason to discuss any issue about the blood except allegations of planting because that is the only way that Jeremy could be innocent.  Unless the moderator was not used even many staunch supporters seem to face he is guilty. 

In the legal field it is called a stipulation when a party admits that something is true and thus both sides arge on something.

So it seems both camps stipulate that if the moderator was used then Sheila did not commit the murders.  There might be a rare exception but this seems ot be the consensus and the significance of such stipulation would be that it would be pointless to debate which victim's blood was inside but rather debate whether there is any evidence to establish it was planted.


     

 

[Jan]

The only scenario I can see where Sheila used the silencer was if she did remove it and it was left somewhere else in the house and the police missed it which would have made them look totally stupid - hence the "story" about how it was found .

But no I can not see in her state of mind she would have used it , took it off and go to the trouble of putting it in a box in a cupboard.

[lookout]

 I would have said that for someone other than the police to have found the silencer,would have been illegal ? Nobody in their right mind holds a trial involving " evidence " which was found other than by the police themselves,it's not right,nor lawful !
 

[scipio_usmc]

I would have said that for someone other than the police to have found the silencer,would have been illegal ? Nobody in their right mind holds a trial involving " evidence " which was found other than by the police themselves,it's not right,nor lawful !

Finding and holding evidence till turned over to police is not illegal.

Finding evidence that obviously is evidence and intentionally withholding it is a crime - obstruction and tampering for starters. 

If you don't have any reason to know it is evidence and take it without turning it over because yo uhave no idea it is pertinent that is not intentionally concealing evidence.

So your intentions, what you know and what you do (thus the facts) determine whether you broke the law or not.

[scipio_usmc]

The only scenario I can see where Sheila used the silencer was if she did remove it and it was left somewhere else in the house and the police missed it which would have made them look totally stupid - hence the "story" about how it was found .

But no I can not see in her state of mind she would have used it , took it off and go to the trouble of putting it in a box in a cupboard.

The story of how it was found makes them look more stupid.  It would be vastly superior to say they searched the scene again and found it in the closet than to say the family had to find it in the closet because they didn't look.

The fact of the matter is that they should have take every bullet and gun in the house as well as accessories to the weapon.  It was stupid on their part to leave weapons and ammo behind. Anyone can buy ammunition in the US and yet cops will routinly take all ammunition and firearms related materials when there is a murder.

Ammunition in the UK is regulated in contrast so why would you just leave it behind when the licensed owner is dead?  What they did was stupid from any standpoint. 

[Caroline]

The story of how it was found makes them look more stupid.  It would be vastly superior to say they searched the scene again and found it in the closet than to say the family had to find it in the closet because they didn't look.

The fact of the matter is that they should have take every bullet and gun in the house as well as accessories to the weapon.  It was stupid on their part to leave weapons and ammo behind. Anyone can buy ammunition in the US and yet cops will routinly take all ammunition and firearms related materials when there is a murder.

Ammunition in the UK is regulated in contrast so why would you just leave it behind when the licensed owner is dead?  What they did was stupid from any standpoint.

No it doesn't! It would only make them look stupid if it was obvious from the wounds that a silencer had been used. This wasn't the case so they had no reason to think a silencer HAD been used.

[Alias]

If this crime had happened in this day and age, the silencer would not have been allowed into evidence at trial.
First, five different police officers had searched the gun cupboard without finding it.
Secondly, it was found by people who stood to gain considerably by Jeremy being found guilty.
Thirdly, the people in the house when the silencer was found all have differing accounts of the events. Fourthly, they brought the silencer home with them, handled it, discussed what to do with it.
There was a POSSIBILITY of tampering - it would never enter into evidence today. Not saying anyone did anything other than what they have talked about, like for instance scraping a flake of blood off of it with a razor blade, because it was "fascinating" (!!), but the mere possibility of tampering would render that silencer unsafe evidence.

[lookout]

Finding and holding evidence till turned over to police is not illegal.

Finding evidence that obviously is evidence and intentionally withholding it is a crime - obstruction and tampering for starters. 

If you don't have any reason to know it is evidence and take it without turning it over because yo uhave no idea it is pertinent that is not intentionally concealing evidence.

So your intentions, what you know and what you do (thus the facts) determine whether you broke the law or not.

I say it's illegal. The police were the first inside the property and so it was up to THEM to have found the silencer and NOT an outsider who immediately pinned the murders down to Jeremy just because he,DB, " found " it. Instead of phoning the police there and then,DB proceeded to take the damn thing home,contaminated to high Heaven and start scraping it ? And THIS was USED to convict Jeremy ? Because they had bugger all else. The only reason he was arrested was because of the burglary,as the police while they had him,questioned him about the murders at the same time simply because they HADN'T got any evidence that he'd committed them,and no matter how much shouting and bawling they did,try as they may,they couldn't/didn't get a confession out of him,because he DIDN'T do it.

[scipio_usmc]

No it doesn't! It would only make them look stupid if it was obvious from the wounds that a silencer had been used. This wasn't the case so they had no reason to think a silencer HAD been used.

A) Poline find moderator in closet down the road

B) Family finds moderator in closet and let's police know

C) Police find moderator down the road in a very unusual location in the bedroom

Put these in order of making police look most dumb to least dumb:

B) most dumb because police never figured looked thoroughly in the ost obvious place to look and needed someone else to help them figure it out

A) dumb because police missed it in an obvious place to look but at least they eventually figured it out

C) least dumb because it was a place that they would not have expected to find it and can't be faulted for not immediately realizing it was ther ebut instead finding it during a more thorough search

Involving the fmaily and saying they found it in the closet makes the police look much more dumb than either of the other options.  So claiming it was a ruse invented to mask either of the other 2 situations to make the police look less dumb makes no sense at all.

[grahameb]

So far the majority say no and that is unlikely to change.  It is unanimous so far but it is still early and that could potentially change.

But this illustrates 2 important things:

1) that finding any victim blood on the moderator serves to rule out Sheila having committed the murders because few if any would believe she would get it out herself, use it then put it away in the closet before going upstairs to kill herself.

This pretty much renders all speculation by the defense experts like Webster worthless because at worst he says it was Nevill and June's blood though he said it could have been Sheila's or even Sheila's June's and Nevill's. 

2) that victim blood on the moderator (any of the 5 victims) would equally end up establishing it had been attached during the murders and implicate the same disbelief that Sheila would have attached it before and then removed it after.

People keep ignoring all the different avenues open to people who wanted to plant blood evidence.  Not only the outside of the moderator but also on clothing.  Clothing in Jeremy's house or in his car or somewhere else on his property would be especially damning but even just mimicking spatter on a short and pants and hiding them in the barn would be suggestive of someone having killed the victims and hiding the clothing worn. 

At any rate unless someone actually believes Sheila would get the moderator and use it there is no reason to discuss any issue about the blood except allegations of planting because that is the only way that Jeremy could be innocent.  Unless the moderator was not used even many staunch supporters seem to face he is guilty. 

In the legal field it is called a stipulation when a party admits that something is true and thus both sides arge on something.

So it seems both camps stipulate that if the moderator was used then Sheila did not commit the murders.  There might be a rare exception but this seems ot be the consensus and the significance of such stipulation would be that it would be pointless to debate which victim's blood was inside but rather debate whether there is any evidence to establish it was planted.


   

No to the first and no to the second. Because the silencer was probably not used at all? I will also again issue the challenge to anyone to prove that a .22 rifle would produce any drawback of blood into the silencer or the barrel of the gun. As far as I can see this phenomenon was never tested to see (1) that is actually occured? and (2) if it did occur that the same pattern of blood was achieved?

[lookout]

No to the first and no to the second. Because the silencer was probably not used at all? I will also again issue the challenge to anyone to prove that a .22 rifle would produce any drawback of blood into the silencer or the barrel of the gun. As far as I can see this phenomenon was never tested to see (1) that is actually occured? and (2) if it did occur that the same tattern of blood was achieved?

I've always thought that myself about the drawback. It's a vacuum,so it's highly feasible.