Presumably, if there was irrefutable proof that Sheila had committed suicide, you'd be using what she said to Helen Grimster as evidence that she was contemplating it.
But I would not need to strain to pretend she told Grimster that she contemplated it recently. It woudl be sufficient to say she told Grimster and Ferguson she contemplated it in the past and there is irrefutable evidence she did so thus obviously she kept contemplating it and finally did so.
Also you would use evidence from anyone that says she was depressed because suicide can result from. By no stretch do most people with depression commit suicide but a majority of people who commit suicide suffer from depression.
The problem here is that there is evidence that cuts the opposite way which says she didn't commit suicide and it is being met with straining to say she definitely would have committed suicide.
We have the added problem of the murders in this case. The boys being killed would not be so problemmatic other than with respect to a lack of phycial evidence of having killed them. Mothers who commit suicide frequently (though not a majority of the time) kill their children first. They usually don't kill extended family unless they are also dependants. Family of schizohreniscs who are killed are usually caretakers who stand in the way of the aspirations of the schizophrenics in some way. They don't kill the caretakers then just commit suicide they go try to do something that they felt they were being prevented from doing.
So fitting in the murder of the parents is much harder. But at least itf there were the physical evidence it would be credible such had happened and that we just didn't figure out the motivation. The lack of physical evidence is the main problem. When you add that to all Jeremy's efforts to put the blame on his sister he is effectively screwed.
The key to Jeremy's defense is trying to get around that physical evidence and try to explain away othe rthings liek the staging of the bullets in the kitchen and phone he hid in the kitchen. Mike is the onyl supporter to consistently tackle such but he does so in a dishonest fashion which helps Jeremy not at all because none of such can be used in court since it is bogus (some was already rejected by the courts and CCRC) and when people realize he lied to them it makes them think not willing to listen to anything from Jeremy's side assuming all of it is rubbish.
The physical evidence seems unassailable so I can see why supporters want to avoid dealing with it but debating the periphery won't establish his innocence. Straining about peripheral issues seems even more pointless than straining over the main evidence. Mike's straining at least would mean something if true the strianing here would not change a thing and of course I am not defending Mike's actions. It is just he usually talks about the things that are critical that others usually avoid that I admire, not they way he goes about doing such.
