The killlers

[lookout]

 Which brings me to this very sensitive question. Why,after" knowing" for a year that you had it in mind to kill the family,would your chosen weapon be a .22 rifle. ?
 He had ample time to purchase or obtain a handgun.

[Jane]

No. What I am saying is that I find it very hard to understand that ruling . However many times I read it I don't really get it. As far as I can see that are admitting it was never proven a window could be or was locked from the outside on the night. And they did indicate that a certain window "could" have been the one used. But if he could not have got out of that window then why was that not queried.

Heheheee :D THANKFULLY, I'm not a law maker. I agree that the court didn't seem interested in the minutiae, BUT.....................if YOU were the one trying to get justice, would you be worried about it?

[Jan]

The court said there was no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt how he entered and exited because the only elements that need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt are the essential elements of the crime.  All other issues including motive need only be established by a preponderance.  The family testified they were able to lock the kitchen window from the outside and a cop (Barlow) had the family demonstrate to him how it was able to be accomplished.  Showing he had the ability to get in and out was all they needed to prove, not to prove he definitely used a particular window or door.

but in court Barlow said there was nothing unusual about the window he never said under oath that he saw the window being locked from the outside. And even if it could then if it was that small window that he got out of could he have physically done that ? Or are you saying he got through the bigger window then balanced and reached through the top window , closed the bottom one while hanging out of the window . Then lock
Ed the top one.?

[Jane]

Which brings me to this very sensitive question. Why,after" knowing" for a year that you had it in mind to kill the family,would your chosen weapon be a .22 rifle. ?
 He had ample time to purchase or obtain a handgun.

Where do you think Sheila would have got a hand gun from?

[Jan]

Heheheee :D THANKFULLY, I'm not a law maker. I agree that the court didn't seem interested in the minutiae, BUT.....................if YOU were the one trying to get justice, would you be worried about it?

no but if I was his defence I would have asked for a visit to the farm to physically see the window and if there was only that window that could be locked from the outside I would have then asked to see a person of his size get through it, because it is vital to the case. In my humble opinion.

[Caroline]

Which brings me to this very sensitive question. Why,after" knowing" for a year that you had it in mind to kill the family,would your chosen weapon be a .22 rifle. ?
He had ample time to purchase or obtain a handgun.

There would be records of him buying it and a little thing called a licence and how would he be able to blame Sheila?

[Adam]

but in court Barlow said there was nothing unusual about the window he never said under oath that he saw the window being locked from the outside. And even if it could then if it was that small window that he got out of could he have physically done that ? Or are you saying he got through the bigger window then balanced and reached through the top window , closed the bottom one while hanging out of the window . Then lock
Ed the top one.?

You go there girl.

Angela Lansbury would never accept 16 primary and secondary sources. And neither should you.

[Jane]

no but if I was his defence I would have asked for a visit to the farm to physically see the window and if there was only that window that could be locked from the outside I would have then asked to see a person of his size get through it, because it is vital to the case. In my humble opinion.

Which makes me wonder what did they really believe. Perhaps they thought the game was up.

[lookout]

Where do you think Sheila would have got a hand gun from?

I'm actually referring to Jeremy,as according to JM,he'd planned this months ahead.

[Caroline]

no but if I was his defence I would have asked for a visit to the farm to physically see the window and if there was only that window that could be locked from the outside I would have then asked to see a person of his size get through it, because it is vital to the case. In my humble opinion.

Because if someone his size could get through it, where would that leave them?

[maggie]

Which makes me wonder what did they really believe. Perhaps they thought the game was up.

Surely as he was paying them to defend him they should have done this to the best of their ability and followed up every lead .  I don't believe it was their place to make personal decisions, it had nothing to do with what they did or didn't believe on a personal basis, that should have been irrelevant.

[susan]

Adam we humble posters have so much to thank you for we would be stumbling along looking quite foolish had you not come along.

[Caroline]

Surely as he was paying them to defend him they should have done this to the best of their ability and followed up every lead .  I don't believe it was their place to make personal decisions, it had nothing to do with what they did or didn't believe on a personal basis, that should have been irrelevant.

They have to think of consequences. If they did the exercise of asking someone his size to get through the window and they managed it - it would have done JB more harm than good.

[Alias]

Adam we humble posters have so much to thank you for we would be stumbling along looking quite foolish had you not come along.

LOOOOOL!!!

[Jane]

I'm actually referring to Jeremy,as according to JM,he'd planned this months ahead.

But he was planning it to look as if Sheila had done it. If he'd bought a hand gun, applied for the licence, etc. how could he have explained Sheila getting hold of it, HIS gun OR how would he have explained Sheila BUYING the gun?