The killlers

[scipio_usmc]

Caroline and Scipio - You both seem to be totally ignorant as to the nature of psychotic episodes as shown by the use of 'It makes no sense... It's simply stupid... It isn't logical...' etc to describe Sheila's possible actions. People having psychotic episodes do things that are rational to THEM while to the observer they are completely irrational. In fact that is one of the prime definitions of delusion! Absurd? Yes, the actions not the claim.
My original assertion was not about the tampon but some people are too prudish to discuss such things.
Would you consider it ludicrous that someone would decide to go shopping at 3 a.m. wearing nothing but 10 pairs of boxer shorts? It does to me but to my cousin during a psychotic episode it was perfectly normal. He couldn't understand why I was trying to stop him and accused me of keeping him prisoner.
A drop of blood entering the silencer could end up on the 8 baffles by a force called GRAVITY! Don't you think a spray would result in a more even distribution?

Gravity can't atomize a blood drop.  It takes tremendous force to atomize blood like a gunshot or explosion.  Moreover gravity would result in a drop of blood hitting 1 baffle not multiple baffles let alone 8 in a row.  Each baffle blocks the baffle behind it.  The only way to hit multiple baffles is with a spray that shoots blood at many different angles so that the blood can get behind each successive baffle.

Your claims are absurd on every single level. 

[lebaleb]

Gravity can't atomize a blood drop.  It takes tremendous force to atomize blood like a gunshot or explosion.  Moreover gravity would result in a drop of blood hitting 1 baffle not multiple baffles let alone 8 in a row.  Each baffle blocks the baffle behind it.  The only way to hit multiple baffles is with a spray that shoots blood at many different angles so that the blood can get behind each successive baffle.

Your claims are absurd on every single level.

You are assuming the silencer was static when it could have been in motion

[lebaleb]

OK, so, would you like to consider the possibility that Sheila inserted the silencer inside herself?

Apart from ridiculing the idea, you haven't told me why it couldn't possibly have happened. I am trying to show that the statement that the blood could only have got into the silencer by Sheila being murdered or deliberate contamination is false. If in fact it was Sheila's blood and not a mixture of Junes and Nevilles which even the experts couldn't rule out.

[scipio_usmc]

You are assuming the silencer was static when it could have been in motion

That would still not result in atomizing the blood.  You are presenting the absurd scenario where blood is flowing throughout the moderator despite a very limited amount of blood being found in it not a flow as would happen from a period.

Every single aspect is absurd form her going to that closet to look for a tampon to mistaking the moderator for a tampon.  That you refuse to admit how stupid it is just makes you look like an even bigger fool than you have already demonstrated yourself to be.

[Adam]

Are supporters saying Sheila used the silencer as a tampon ?

After making this amazing mistake, she then put the silencer away in a box, in the back of the gun cupboard.

Oh dear.

[scipio_usmc]

Are supporters saying Sheila used the silencer as a tampon ?

After making this amazing mistake, she then put the silencer away in a box, in the back of the gun cupboard.

Oh dear.

One supporter not plural. This can only be ascribed to one person no used against others.

[Adam]

One supporter not plural. This can only be ascribed to one person no used against others.

Lebaleb, if it's you, you need to quit posting rubbish.

[Jane]

Lebaleb, if it's you, you need to quit posting rubbish.

ET TU BRUTE

[Jan]

Lebaleb, if it's you, you need to quit posting rubbish.

Pot/ kettle

[guest154]

What do you make of Lebaleb's point, Jan?

[Jan]

What do you make of Lebaleb's point, Jan?

to be honest I don't really have an opinion on this.

I do know that as a woman I find it extremely surprising that she left sanitary objects just around her parents house ( not in her own bedroom discreetly) because most women would never do that - or clothes soaking in the kitchen ( especially when there was a "back kitchen" scullery area).

As for the rest  its probably as unlikely as JB committing the murders in a wetsuit or naked - and or cycling across fields/ footpaths on a sit up and beg bike without lights.

That's why I don't have an opinion - If we have to accept the seemingly impossible for guilt why not for innocent ?

[Adam]

to be honest I don't really have an opinion on this.

I do know that as a woman I find it extremely surprising that she left sanitary objects just around her parents house ( not in her own bedroom discreetly) because most women would never do that - or clothes soaking in the kitchen ( especially when there was a "back kitchen" scullery area).

As for the rest  its probably as unlikely as JB committing the murders in a wetsuit or naked - and or cycling across fields/ footpaths on a sit up and beg bike without lights.

That's why I don't have an opinion - If we have to accept the seemingly impossible for guilt why not for innocent ?

Nobody said Jeremy committed the massacre naked. Only two people have suggested a wet suit - RB & BW.

RB said it was a  easy bike ride. Julie saying he planned to cycle. Bob Miller and RB both said no one would see him cycling.

[Adam]

Regarding the wet suit, if he did wear one, I believe it is possible he wore it under his clothes.

It would not restrict his mobility. Being of strong material it would also protect his skin. Being a skin tight outfight it would not hinder his chances of getting in and out of windows.

[nugnug]

Nobody said Jeremy committed the massacre naked. Only two people have suggested a wet suit - RB & BW.

RB said it was a  easy bike ride. Julie saying he planned to cycle. Bob Miller and RB both said no one would see him cycling.

i suggested it.

[susan]

Regarding the wet suit, if he did wear one, I believe it is possible he wore it under his clothes.

It would not restrict his mobility. Being of strong material it would also protect his skin. Being a skin tight outfight it would not hinder his chances of getting in and out of windows.

Hello Adam

what would be the advantage of wearing a wet suit under his clothes