Author Topic: The main prosecution forensic case  (Read 37497 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #705 on: March 02, 2015, 06:35:PM »






When people don't have firsthand knowledge they are forced to ask others what happened and surmise.  The people they speak to can provide wrong information and can even be misunderstood.


This is wrong though Scipio. A mass murder.A man's life hanging in the balance and NO first-hand knowledge, so rely on surmising. Definitely a recipe for a MOJ eventually.



But Lookout, if those same words had categorically and irrefutably made Sheila culpable, would you still be saying it was wrong?

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #706 on: March 02, 2015, 06:38:PM »






When people don't have firsthand knowledge they are forced to ask others what happened and surmise.  The people they speak to can provide wrong information and can even be misunderstood.


This is wrong though Scipio. A mass murder.A man's life hanging in the balance and NO first-hand knowledge, so rely on surmising. Definitely a recipe for a MOJ eventually.

Woodcock did provide first hand knowledge about the sugar but people are suggesting that AE's second hand knowledge must be correct because it's possibly more favourable to an innocent Jeremy.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #707 on: March 02, 2015, 06:49:PM »
Actually you're saying that - I was suggesting something else. Jeremy didn't just indicate that Sheila had a gun, he also indicated that 'She had gone crazy'. The disarray may not have been set up to look like an altercation but simply to show that someone had indeed 'gone crazy'.

So you are suggesting some of the damage was done during the altercation and it was enhanced to suggest she was making a mess before she started shooting?  That makes it less likely for June to have stayed in bed.  To stay in bed as she hears dishes flying makes no sense.

If there had been no altercation in the kitchen but rather everyone died in their rooms and I could buy him perhaps making the error of staging a mess afterwards to try to suggest she was flipping out (I say mistake because it defies them being found in bed so ruins the narrative he was trying to present) but given the altercation I don't buy it. Especially since breaking the lamp and scratching the mantle is not something that would happen from staging a mess.

When he says she went crazy I take that as meaning was having delusions not she was tossing things around in a fit of rage. If she is pushing chairs over and so forth that puts her in an easy position to be disarmed. Disarming someone holding a weapon with both hands and aiming it is harder to disarm though if they are close enough you can do it.  The easiest way is to get so close the rifle can't be effectively aimed at you, (side step the rifle) then grasp it with both hands and try to maneuver the stock into the jaw of the gunman.

 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #708 on: March 02, 2015, 06:55:PM »


But Lookout, if those same words had categorically and irrefutably made Sheila culpable, would you still be saying it was wrong?




 Given Sheila's medical condition,I suppose so.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #709 on: March 02, 2015, 07:36:PM »
So you are suggesting some of the damage was done during the altercation and it was enhanced to suggest she was making a mess before she started shooting?  That makes it less likely for June to have stayed in bed.  To stay in bed as she hears dishes flying makes no sense.

If there had been no altercation in the kitchen but rather everyone died in their rooms and I could buy him perhaps making the error of staging a mess afterwards to try to suggest she was flipping out (I say mistake because it defies them being found in bed so ruins the narrative he was trying to present) but given the altercation I don't buy it. Especially since breaking the lamp and scratching the mantle is not something that would happen from staging a mess.

When he says she went crazy I take that as meaning was having delusions not she was tossing things around in a fit of rage. If she is pushing chairs over and so forth that puts her in an easy position to be disarmed. Disarming someone holding a weapon with both hands and aiming it is harder to disarm though if they are close enough you can do it.  The easiest way is to get so close the rifle can't be effectively aimed at you, (side step the rifle) then grasp it with both hands and try to maneuver the stock into the jaw of the gunman.

Jeremy was simply setting a scene - not trying to win an argument  ;D. I don't know if e staged the mess or not, but is is a possibility - that's all.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #710 on: March 02, 2015, 07:52:PM »
Jeremy was simply setting a scene - not trying to win an argument  ;D. I don't know if e staged the mess or not, but is is a possibility - that's all.



Seems pretty obvious to me. If I was trying to set a stage to look as if it had been demolished by someone deranged, I would have to set it in the way my own imagination allowed me to believe a deranged person would act.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #711 on: March 02, 2015, 08:13:PM »
Does anyone know how heavy the rifle was ?

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #712 on: March 02, 2015, 08:17:PM »
Jeremy was simply setting a scene - not trying to win an argument  ;D. I don't know if e staged the mess or not, but is is a possibility - that's all.
Well that's what I like about your way of debating Caroline. You use the word "possibility", which makes what you say far more digestible. There are those posters who whilst have good reasonable arguments haven't learned those skills yet. ;)

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #713 on: March 02, 2015, 08:18:PM »
Does anyone know how heavy the rifle was ?
Hartley does.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #714 on: March 02, 2015, 08:20:PM »
Hartley does.





I'll see if I can find out another way.

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #715 on: March 02, 2015, 08:22:PM »




I'll see if I can find out another way.
Just google it lookout it will probably tell you the weight.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #716 on: March 02, 2015, 08:23:PM »
Does anyone know how heavy the rifle was ?
I don't exactly but I believe it was quite light and easy to use, am sure have read a child could use it.

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #717 on: March 02, 2015, 08:26:PM »
Just google it lookout it will probably tell you the weight.
http://www.eme421.com/anschutz.html
Here it is Lookout  :)

Mr. Gee

  • Guest
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #718 on: March 02, 2015, 08:26:PM »
I don't exactly but I believe it was quite light and easy to use, am sure have read a child could use it.
Well according to the firearms expert in the video it was as light as you say it was Maggie.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: The main prosecution forensic case
« Reply #719 on: March 02, 2015, 08:42:PM »
Well that's what I like about your way of debating Caroline. You use the word "possibility", which makes what you say far more digestible. There are those posters who whilst have good reasonable arguments haven't learned those skills yet. ;)

Thank you Grahame :)
Few people have the imagination for reality