Sheila not fighting back. Why ?

[scipio_usmc]

There were police and SOCO people present at autopsy, so they must have known about the contact wound.

That depends on whether Vanezis assessed at the time of autopsy it was a contact wound and then told them or he waited to evaluate everything together, decided it was and then wrote it in his report simply.

A lawyer trying to find out would have asked the police present whether he old them such and ask Vanezis when he assessed it and when he told them such.  There are indications the lab personnel spoke to him before his report was prepared and that after all conferred it was agreed the wound was a contact wound so they knew before the report.  What police knew and when has never been established. 

If one wants to establish the ability police knew that is done by finding evidence through questioning police and Vanezis regarding such. Just assuming he figured it out right away and told them right away isn't enough.

[Alias]

Mike has reiterated his such claims numerous times.  Bu he makes things up constantly and offered no evidence to support his claims.

As was pointed out already one of June's initial shots was to the head and that shot would kill her in a very short period of time.  It is somewhat amazing she managed to get out of bed after receiving such shot but she didn't get far she got up then collapsed and when she was shot in between the eyes was either already dead or passed out so in no position to attempt to defend herself.

She must have made it to the other side of the bed, since drops of blood from June were found on the carpet on "Sheila´s" side. Maybe she tried to move away from the shooter.

[Jane]

In 2011,Mike had stated that there'd been soot on both the hands of June and Sheila.

From recent examples, hardly, IMO, a reliable statement, Lookout.

[scipio_usmc]

Also it is ridiculous to suggest that the family who were by their own admittance very experienced in guns and shooting would not know that blood gets in the barrel or silencer with close shots - the term is irrelevant .

they would know because you often have to finish of a kill with a close shot and they would clean their guns.

Again I am not saying the family did anything like that - but to suggest they would not know is just plain ridiculous .

And DB admitted that the police gave them lots of information about the way the family were shot on their first visit.

And as one recent expert stated he could not be 100% sure it was not animal blood and as mike has shown there was animal blood on the outside.

Actually I wonder where the animal blood came from if everyone is saying JB never shot anything before that night?

that's an interesting question?

Blood can't travel more than 5mm deep into a barrel unless the barrel is within 1mm of the skin.  Shooting targets and game would not result in them knowing about drawback.  Even today most shooters are unaware of it.  They would also not be in a position to know how to mimmick drawback or know about the contact wound let alone have a source of her blood to use.

You spend all your time in fantasy land ignoring reality and pretending that Jeremy's defense team is stupid so tha tis why they can't even find a way to allege that the blood was planted.  The reality is they have no evidence to make the allegation the blood was planted.

You can make up any BS you feel like but lawyers don't have that luxury especially when alleging wrongdoing evidence it needed to demonstrate it.

As for animal blood Mike has demonstrated there was animal blood on it how?  Mike has produced lie after lie which people here fall for which demonstrate how gullible people are or demonstrate people are too biased to care about the truth so are willing to adopt his BS without question.

At any rate blood ON the rifle is vastly different from IN a rifle or moderator.  Blood can get on a rifle by firing it several feet away and even by simply having blood on you hands or clothign and transferring ti onto a gun/moderator.  To get more than 5mm inside a gun/moderator requires a contact wound. 

Moreover, human blood and rabbit blood are quite different.  The fact that the Ak1 enzyme in rabbits and people are close is meaningless.  They are still different and not going to be confused moreover human blood and rabbit blood are very different only the enzyme is close.  The notion the prosecution and defense expert Lincoln mistook rabbit blood as human blood is absurd.  It is so absurd Jeremy's lawyers didn't even attempt to make such a stupid claim.

[scipio_usmc]

She must have made it to the other side of the bed, since drops of blood from June were found on the carpet on "Sheila´s" side. Maybe she tried to move away from the shooter.

If her blood was indeed on the other side (which I still have not seen evidence that establishes it definitely was) then it either dripped from the killer or she got up on Nevill's side of the bed and rapidly ran to the door but collapsed before she could get out.  I doubt she would have managed to walk all the way around the bed though with her head wound had she gotten up on Nevill's side of the bed. Much more likely is she  got up on her side and fell and Jeremy dripped her blood there by accident or on purpose.  Getting up on her side walking around to the pother side then walking back to her side not only makes no sense it is not something possible considering the severity of her head wound that she received in bed.   

[Jane]

Also it is ridiculous to suggest that the family who were by their own admittance very experienced in guns and shooting would not know that blood gets in the barrel or silencer with close shots - the term is irrelevant .

they would know because you often have to finish of a kill with a close shot and they would clean their guns.

Again I am not saying the family did anything like that - but to suggest they would not know is just plain ridiculous .

And DB admitted that the police gave them lots of information about the way the family were shot on their first visit.


And as one recent expert stated he could not be 100% sure it was not animal blood and as mike has shown there was animal blood on the outside.

Actually I wonder where the animal blood came from if everyone is saying JB never shot anything before that night?

that's an interesting question?

Hang on a minute! Hasn't it been said that it was a brand new gun? If Jeremy never shot anything with it, WHO did? Animal blood didn't find its own way into it whilst it was in the gun cupboard.

[scipio_usmc]

Hang on a minute! Hasn't it been said that it was a brand new gun? If Jeremy never shot anything with it, WHO did? Animal blood didn't find its own way into it whilst it was in the gun cupboard.

Picking up an animal gets blood on your hands and thus blood can be transferred to the weapon by touching it or even putting it down in a place where animal blood was.  Removing the moderator with animal blood on your hands is enough to transfer it.

At any rate I still have not seen any documents that indicate animal blood was found on the weapon or moderator.  Let's start with the supposed evidence to see if there really was any animal blood or there is no point in further discussion even. The lab notified the police on 8/14/85 they found human blood and paint on the moderator nothing about animal blood.  Nor has animal blood been mentioned in any court documents.  The post conviction analysis done by "Justice for All" doesn't mention animal blood being found.  So where is the source for this claim.

[lookout]

From recent examples, hardly, IMO, a reliable statement, Lookout.

I'm going back a few years,April.

[Jane]

Picking up an animal gets blood on your hands and thus blood can be transferred to the weapon by touching it or even putting it down in a place where animal blood was.  Removing the moderator with animal blood on your hands is enough to transfer it.

At any rate I still have not seen any documents that indicate animal blood was found on the weapon or moderator.  Let's start with the supposed evidence to see if there really was any animal blood or there is no point in further discussion even. The lab notified the police on 8/14/85 they found human blood and paint on the moderator nothing about animal blood.  Nor has animal blood been mentioned in any court documents.  The post conviction analysis done by "Justice for All" doesn't mention animal blood being found.  So where is the source for this claim.

Yeh, OK I can take that...........................BUT if we assume that the gun in  question hadn't previously been used, but stored in the understairs hatch which served as a gun cupboard, would it not be highly unlikely, other than the storing of dead animals in the same cupboard, that said gun could have become contaminated.

[Alias]

If her blood was indeed on the other side (which I still have not seen evidence that establishes it definitely was) then it either dripped from the killer or she got up on Nevill's side of the bed and rapidly ran to the door but collapsed before she could get out.  I doubt she would have managed to walk all the way around the bed though with her head wound had she gotten up on Nevill's side of the bed. Much more likely is she  got up on her side and fell and Jeremy dripped her blood there by accident or on purpose.  Getting up on her side walking around to the pother side then walking back to her side not only makes no sense it is not something possible considering the severity of her head wound that she received in bed.

Can´t see how Jeremy would have gotten so much blood on him that it dripped from him - he was at the other end of a rifle, no need to get close. Very unlikely.

[scipio_usmc]

Yeh, OK I can take that...........................BUT if we assume that the gun in  question hadn't previously been used, but stored in the understairs hatch which served as a gun cupboard, would it not be highly unlikely, other than the storing of dead animals in the same cupboard, that said gun could have become contaminated.

Storing it with dead animals would accomplish nothing.  The blood had to be transferred to a gun while it was still wet to adhere to it.  It means either shooting an animal withing several feet so that it was the result of back spatter or to have animal blood on your hands/clothing and transfer such wet blood to the weapon. You can get animal blood on you through back spatter or touching the animal to move it.  Some skin animals, some eat them and some just pick up dead animals to dispose of them. Any of those can result in getting wet animal blood on you and until it dries on you, you can transfer it

If there was animal blood what it is a sign of is that the weapon wasn't cleaned to well because if you clean it very well then the animal blood would have been removed. How much blood and the nature of the stain would help inform whether it was more likely back spatter or transferred. 

Which brings us to full circle of was there actually animal blood found on the weapon or moderator and thus evidence one or the other were poorly cleaned. 

[scipio_usmc]

Can´t see how Jeremy would have gotten so much blood on him that it dripped from him - he was at the other end of a rifle, no need to get close. Very unlikely.

Back spatter gets on the rifle as well and drips off until it dries.  He also could have intentionally planted it there some failed effort we are unaware of.  Jeremy didn't confess and didn't tell Julie every minute detail of what he tried doing and thus we don't know what things he might have done that were not as smart as he thought.  Indeed it is still a mystery what he was trying to do in full with the Bible.

[Alias]

Back spatter gets on the rifle as well and drips off until it dries.  He also could have intentionally planted it there some failed effort we are unaware of.  Jeremy didn't confess and didn't tell Julie every minute detail of what he tried doing and thus we don't know what things he might have done that were not as smart as he thought.  Indeed it is still a mystery what he was trying to do in full with the Bible.

Most logically the blood dripped from June, it looked as if there was rather much. Sometimes it is amazing what people do after being shot.
Heard of a man who went outside to get his newspaper as he did every morning, then he prepared breakfast, don´t know how far he got before he died.

[scipio_usmc]

Most logically the blood dripped from June, it looked as if there was rather much. Sometimes it is amazing what people do after being shot.
Heard of a man who went outside to get his newspaper as he did every morning, then he prepared breakfast, don´t know how far he got before he died.

One of the problems is that if she did get off the bed on Nevill's side (because the killer was so close to her side so obviously she would want to run away) why would she then walk around to the killer on her side?  Either the killer was chasing her around the bed (and there doesn't seem to be that much room in the bedroom for that) or she went to the door, and collapsed before managing to get out, after the killer already left for the kitchen.  That would mean the shot between her eyes was fired after Nevill was killed in the kitchen like Harters thinks, (Harters believes she was shot between the eyes after Nevill was killed in the kitchen just to make sure she was dead). Either the shooting in the bedroom happened very fast (and Jeremy and Nevill left the room very quickly) for her to be able to survive long enough to do that or she survived longer than one would expect possible from such a severe head wound.  Either way it is hard to imagine her having the ability to walk around the bed through the killer so the killer had to be out of the way for her to be able to move. 

[lookout]

Hang on a minute! Hasn't it been said that it was a brand new gun? If Jeremy never shot anything with it, WHO did? Animal blood didn't find its own way into it whilst it was in the gun cupboard.

Because the rifle was comparatively new,it would have had an end cap ? Where was this ? Who had it ?