so she slept through the beating up of Neville in the kitchen as well and then JB walked through the blood from June on the bedroom floor - got Sheila to sit down and shot her under the chin and even after the first shot she did not fight or flinch - even though her sons could have been alive? The JB gets out without leaving any blood on the sills or in the office when he puts the silencer away ( not noticing the blob of jam like blood on it)
really?
Yes she really could have slept through the silenced gunshots and struggle sounds that took place in a room on a different floor than her bedroom so would not be that easy to hear. We have no idea if the dog was barking or not. The boys clearly slept through it so why couldn't Sheila who was on a sedative which made her sleep sound? People not on sedatives have slept through gunshots that were not silenced so why can't Sheila?
This is a wonderful issue that demonstrates bias in favor of Jeremy. All those who are biased in favor of Jeremy ignore that there are documented cases of people sleeping through murders committed in rooms adjacent to their bedrooms. In this case the murders were not committed adjacent rooms and the gun had a moderator. Those who are biased don't care and simply make up that there is no way Sheila could have slept through the noise even though the evidence demonstrates the boys slept through it.
The bias is demonstrated further when looking at claims you made in the past. You are the ones claiming that the house walls were so thick it would prevent police from hearing any gunshots fired inside while they were outside int he dead of night trying to see if they could observe or hear anything. Never mind that the window in the bedroom was open you ignored that. But if you want to argue the walls were so thick and soundproof then you are stuck with the argument and demonstrate bias when you use the claim for one point but ignore it when it is inconvenient. That is called hypocrisy aside from demonstrating you are biased and have an agenda.
That hypocrisy and agenda is further demonstrated by suggesting Jeremy would have to get his mother's blood on his shoes and that such would result in leaving bloody footprints but SHeila walking through the same blood in bare feet would not result in the blood getting on her feet or leaving footprints. This is a very poor argument in terms of logic but demonstrates your agenda very well.
Stepping on small drops of blood on a carpet will not necessarily result in much of that blood transferring to a shoe and if it does transfer to a shoe there is not much material for the shoe to transfer let alone o so so in any pattern that can be discerned. You need to coat the treads for the treads of shoes to be able to leave the pattern of the tread. We don't know how long he was at the scene before he left. He could have washed the blood off before leaving, could have changed his clothes and stuck his bloody clothes in a bag to throw away or the blood could have dried sufficiently that there was no blood to transfer to the windows.
You make excuse after excuse to advance your agenda instead of actually following the evidence where it leads.
