Jeremy's court testimony:

[Jan]

from scipio aimed at me

"
I will pose the same quesitons to you I do anytime you post the moronic claim that because relativels found the moderator that means the blood inside was planted"


where in my post did I say the blood was planted?

[Alias]

from scipio aimed at me

"
I will pose the same quesitons to you I do anytime you post the moronic claim that because relativels found the moderator that means the blood inside was planted"


where in my post did I say the blood was planted?

This is skippy´s MO: making up lies about other posters so that he can attack them. He seems to thrive on that.

[Jane]

This is skippy´s MO: making up lies about other posters so that he can attack them. He seems to thrive on that.

Alias, if you keep knocking your head against that brick wall all you'll do is ruin your looks. You WON'T change Scipio's MO and MORE importantly, you won't make a dent in his ego, either, by approaching him the way you currently are.

[Alias]

Alias, if you keep knocking your head against that brick wall all you'll do is ruin your looks. You WON'T change Scipio's MO and MORE importantly, you won't make a dent in his ego, either, by approaching him the way you currently are.

So I should just lean back accepting that a poster makes up lies about me (and others), then attacks with a broad sortiment of insults?
OK, April.

[Jan]

well I for one am not going to let him get away with twisting what I posted and then accuse me of making moronic statements.

[scipio_usmc]

from scipio aimed at me

"
I will pose the same quesitons to you I do anytime you post the moronic claim that because relativels found the moderator that means the blood inside was planted"


where in my post did I say the blood was planted?

The usual strawman argument.

I said your theory that blood stains from the crotch of panties could have jumped off the panties, out of the garbage can and into the moderator to result in blood drying onto the first 8 baffles and leaving a quarter of inch flake between baffle 1 and 2 was stupid.

You said the evidence was not reliable because contamination could have resulted in the blood that was found.  But there is no way at all to claim blood stains could transform into wet blood that would be able to to transfer into the moderator and be distributed in the manner the blood was actually deposited in the moderator.

You also said that the simple fact anyone can lie means police should not be trusted.  Using that logic no one can be convicted.  One needs evidence of lying to disregard police testimony not simply the theoreticla possibility they can lie. But you always bow out when ressed for actual evidence of police lying in this case you just keep saying in the abstract lying is always possible.

You are too biased to think rationally and to try to excuse your irraitonality you accused me of doing the same thing in the opposite direction which is nonsense.  I follow evidence where it leads I didn't decide before viewing the evidence that Jerey is guilty no matter what and to disregard the evidence.  The evidence overwhelmingly proves Jeremy is guilty you and other supporters of Jeremy have no evidence that suggests his innocence which is why you are forced to resort to denial to pretend he is innocent.

Far form living in denial of evidence supporters raise I refute that evidenc ean dprve it is not evidence at all but rathe rmyths an dlies.  It is a lie that Nevill called police the evidence clearly establishes no such thing happened.  it is a lie that Sheila was in the kitchen and moved by police to the bedroom.  There is no evidence to support someone having answered police when they issued challenges to the house other than a dog that barked. The dog barking in response is the only response they got.  The list goes on and on.

When the myths are stripped away there is nothing left for Jeremy supporters to poit to all they ca do is say they don't care they have nothing to refute the evidence that proves Jeremy did it but refuse to accept it anyway.  That is an admission there is no raitonal basis to believe he is innocent just blind faith in his despite such.  Most Jeremy supporters have no guts to admit that is where they stand so instead hug the myths and cite them to give the appearance they are acting based on something other than blind faith.  Some though are hinest and gutsy enough to admit they have no evidence and just are going on blind faith.  While Adam tries to win such people over I don't because as long as they are not misrepresenting by posting bogus claims I don't care what they personally believe and it is a waste of time trying to convince someone who operates on blind faith to abandon their blind faith.

[Patti]

The usual strawman argument.

I said your theory that blood stains from the crotch of panties could have jumped off the panties, out of the garbage can and into the moderator to result in blood drying onto the first 8 baffles and leaving a quarter of inch flake between baffle 1 and 2 was stupid.

You said the evidence was not reliable because contamination could have resulted in the blood that was found.  But there is no way at all to claim blood stains could transform into wet blood that would be able to to transfer into the moderator and be distributed in the manner the blood was actually deposited in the moderator.

You also said that the simple fact anyone can lie means police should not be trusted.  Using that logic no one can be convicted.  One needs evidence of lying to disregard police testimony not simply the theoreticla possibility they can lie. But you always bow out when ressed for actual evidence of police lying in this case you just keep saying in the abstract lying is always possible.

You are too biased to think rationally and to try to excuse your irraitonality you accused me of doing the same thing in the opposite direction which is nonsense.  I follow evidence where it leads I didn't decide before viewing the evidence that Jerey is guilty no matter what and to disregard the evidence.  The evidence overwhelmingly proves Jeremy is guilty you and other supporters of Jeremy have no evidence that suggests his innocence which is why you are forced to resort to denial to pretend he is innocent.

Far form living in denial of evidence supporters raise I refute that evidenc ean dprve it is not evidence at all but rathe rmyths an dlies.  It is a lie that Nevill called police the evidence clearly establishes no such thing happened.  it is a lie that Sheila was in the kitchen and moved by police to the bedroom.  There is no evidence to support someone having answered police when they issued challenges to the house other than a dog that barked. The dog barking in response is the only response they got.  The list goes on and on.

When the myths are stripped away there is nothing left for Jeremy supporters to poit to all they ca do is say they don't care they have nothing to refute the evidence that proves Jeremy did it but refuse to accept it anyway.  That is an admission there is no raitonal basis to believe he is innocent just blind faith in his despite such.  Most Jeremy supporters have no guts to admit that is where they stand so instead hug the myths and cite them to give the appearance they are acting based on something other than blind faith.  Some though are hinest and gutsy enough to admit they have no evidence and just are going on blind faith.  While Adam tries to win such people over I don't because as long as they are not misrepresenting by posting bogus claims I don't care what they personally believe and it is a waste of time trying to convince someone who operates on blind faith to abandon their blind faith.

Don't forget that the sound moderator had a life of its own prior to the 7th August 1985. It could have been on the rifle many times and placed in the kitchen underneath the AGA. In fact it could have been touched by anyone that lived in the house.

AK1 can relate to dead animals in 1985 they only had ABO blood grouping technology. In 2001 they could not determine if any of the LCN DNA came from blood.  What if the moderator was handled by anyone who lived there and they sneezed over the moderator, or had a cut finger. Sounds daft, but nonetheless, it could be possible.

Can we also attack the post and not the person posting please.  I have asked you to do this many times and its been ignored.   :D :D :D :D

[Jan]

The usual strawman argument.

I said your theory that blood stains from the crotch of panties could have jumped off the panties, out of the garbage can and into the moderator to result in blood drying onto the first 8 baffles and leaving a quarter of inch flake between baffle 1 and 2 was stupid.

You said the evidence was not reliable because contamination could have resulted in the blood that was found.  But there is no way at all to claim blood stains could transform into wet blood that would be able to to transfer into the moderator and be distributed in the manner the blood was actually deposited in the moderator.

You also said that the simple fact anyone can lie means police should not be trusted.  Using that logic no one can be convicted.  One needs evidence of lying to disregard police testimony not simply the theoreticla possibility they can lie. But you always bow out when ressed for actual evidence of police lying in this case you just keep saying in the abstract lying is always possible.

You are too biased to think rationally and to try to excuse your irraitonality you accused me of doing the same thing in the opposite direction which is nonsense.  I follow evidence where it leads I didn't decide before viewing the evidence that Jerey is guilty no matter what and to disregard the evidence.  The evidence overwhelmingly proves Jeremy is guilty you and other supporters of Jeremy have no evidence that suggests his innocence which is why you are forced to resort to denial to pretend he is innocent.

Far form living in denial of evidence supporters raise I refute that evidenc ean dprve it is not evidence at all but rathe rmyths an dlies.  It is a lie that Nevill called police the evidence clearly establishes no such thing happened.  it is a lie that Sheila was in the kitchen and moved by police to the bedroom.  There is no evidence to support someone having answered police when they issued challenges to the house other than a dog that barked. The dog barking in response is the only response they got.  The list goes on and on.

When the myths are stripped away there is nothing left for Jeremy supporters to poit to all they ca do is say they don't care they have nothing to refute the evidence that proves Jeremy did it but refuse to accept it anyway.  That is an admission there is no raitonal basis to believe he is innocent just blind faith in his despite such.  Most Jeremy supporters have no guts to admit that is where they stand so instead hug the myths and cite them to give the appearance they are acting based on something other than blind faith.  Some though are hinest and gutsy enough to admit they have no evidence and just are going on blind faith.  While Adam tries to win such people over I don't because as long as they are not misrepresenting by posting bogus claims I don't care what they personally believe and it is a waste of time trying to convince someone who operates on blind faith to abandon their blind faith.

I have not said any of the above words. You just wasted time accusing ME of words I have never used . And you have NEVER had the good manners to ask me why I am even on the forum.

Again YOU just assume and throw personal insults.

I said that I did not think the moderator should have been accepted as evidence because of the way it was handled . I did not say that any of the above HAD happened .

Btw you said I want Jeremy to be innocent? Why would that be I have no personal  association with him ?

[scipio_usmc]

Don't forget that the sound moderator had a life of its own prior to the 7th August 1985. It could have been on the rifle many times and placed in the kitchen underneath the AGA. In fact it could have been touched by anyone that lived in the house.

AK1 can relate to dead animals in 1985 they only had ABO blood grouping technology. In 2001 they could not determine if any of the LCN DNA came from blood.  What if the moderator was handled by anyone who lived there and they sneezed over the moderator, or had a cut finger. Sounds daft, but nonetheless, it could be possible.

Can we also attack the post and not the person posting please.  I have asked you to do this many times and its been ignored.   :D :D :D :D

A cut finger would not deposit blood on 8 baffles.  The blood was sprayed inside.  The claim animal blood could have been mixed inside and ended up part of the flake of human blood is ludicrious.

To be sure a number of stupid and frivolous claims were raised on appela but there is still a large disconnect between what was raised on appeal and what is bandied about generally by Jeremy supporters who see fit to just toss out any crap imaginable.

His defense lawyers were not stupid.  There was no possiiblity of innocent contamination resulting in the distribution of blood found and it was human not human blood mixed with animal.  That is why they never claimed innocent contmaination coudl have occurred.

Nor did they have any basis to allege intentional contamination occurred.

That is why they resorted to the highly undesirable claim the blood inside was June and Sheila's.  That still implicates Jeremy because there is no way Sheila would have gone to the closet, got the moderator out attached it, used it then removed it and then bothered to put it away.

But it was either make that claim or just admit it was used to shoot Sheila and that someone else shot her and put it away.  Obviously that is even more undesirable.

So they went with what they could even though it wasn't good.

There was no blood left in the gun in 2002 because it was all removed in 1985 and 1986 by the lab and defense expert Lincoln.  What was removed by the prosecution was blood on the outside and the inside hole that was tested only to detemrine whether it wa shuman.  Then they removed all remaining visible blood which consited of blood on the first 5-8 baffles and a flake trapped between the first and second baffle.  The defense expert removed microscopic blood from the first 8 baffles.   After that it was tested for blood and found to contain no more.  So the DNA tests were worthless at establishing whose blood was inside.  That would require DNA testing the blood that was removed years earlier.  But the blood was destroyed during testing. No one predicted DNA testing would come about and thus decided to preserve some for future tesing.   

[Jan]

I thought Junes DNA was found ? how would that happen if all the blood had been cleared away and there had been no contact shot with June?

[tyler]

Wasn't June's shot between the eyes a contact,or near contact shot?

[scipio_usmc]

I thought Junes DNA was found ? how would that happen if all the blood had been cleared away and there had been no contact shot with June?

What part of "there was no blood left in the moderator after defense expert Lincoln removed the last traces in 1986" confuses you? 

After his removal of blood, tests for any remaining prosecne of blood, including in 1999, came up negative.

That means the DNA found subsequent to this was not blood based.  Tha tmeans such DNA was deposited from something other than blood.

The moderator was contaminated with June and Sheila's DNA by people handling items containing their DNA, getting their DNA on themselves and then transferring it to the moderator when they had the moderator apart.  They no doubt transferred it to other items as well not just the moderator. 

LNC DNA testing wa sinvented for use in identifying human remains.  For all other applications one has to be very careful in what they try to assess from it because it can detect DNA that was innocently transferred.   

So for instance a tiny speck of your DNA in the apartment of someone who you had contact with doesn't prove you were ever there period let alone there when such person was murdered.

If you had no prior contact with that person or anyone else who visited her who coudl have transferred it then in that case it would be evidence you were there yourself. 

When contamination is ruled out as being possible that is when there is some significance. 

If it is proved to be DNA from a specific source such as blood based or semen based then that also has implicaitons but that wa snot the case we know the DNA was not blood based so it had no probative value at all.

[Jan]

oh yes that would explain it then - and I NEVER said it came from  blood I asked how it got there you rude man.

So it is excused because of contamination - but anything before that can not be excused by contamination.

How convenient

[Jan]

The moderator was contaminated with June and Sheila's DNA by people handling items containing their DNA, getting their DNA on themselves and then transferring it to the moderator when they had the moderator apart.  They no doubt transferred it to other items as well not just the moderator.



So lets get this perfectly clear - you are saying that in Lab conditions because the moderator was handled and taken apart it could have been contaminated? Or are you saying it happened after the lab? If so why would Junes DNA have been anywhere near it?

[Mr. Gee]

The moderator was contaminated with June and Sheila's DNA by people handling items containing their DNA, getting their DNA on themselves and then transferring it to the moderator when they had the moderator apart.  They no doubt transferred it to other items as well not just the moderator.



So lets get this perfectly clear - you are saying that in Lab conditions because the moderator was handled and taken apart it could have been contaminated? Or are you saying it happened after the lab? If so why would Junes DNA have been anywhere near it?

Mike said that Taff Jones had the silencer sitting on his desk as a paper weight for a long time and that that was the reason he was taken off the case. For witholding evidence? But where he got that from I don't know?