Another Freudian Slip?

[susan]

Everything makes sense for the silencer to be on -

It was used for shooting vermin. So would permanently be on. Why take it off ?

AP said it was on the weekend before.

Jeremy went out to shoot rabbits. He would know the silencer should be on in this situation.

Jeremy as the killer would use a silencer. To try to prevent anyone waking.

Adam I thought Jeremy said the silencer was not on the rifle when he was going to shoot rabbits and also when he left it in the kitchen or where ever before he left to go home

[Adam]

Adam I thought Jeremy said the silencer was not on the rifle when he was going to shoot rabbits and also when he left it in the kitchen or where ever before he left to go home

Perhaps Jeremy was not telling the truth ?

[Jan]

The tests they did are worthless and have zero ability to prove that the moderator wasn't used.  The tests involve trying to see what a muzzle imprint from a hard contact shot with the moderator would look like and then to say that because such muzzle imprint is lacking it means the moderator wasn't used.

Neither wound to Sheila was a hard contact shot though so there was no muzzle imprint left and no muzzle imprint was thus observed on her or any other victim for that matter because none of them suffered a hard contact shot either.  Alternatively, they would like to pretend she did suffer a hard contact shot with the rifle sans moderator but again no muzzle imprint was observed the people who examined the wounds didn't determine them to be hard contact wounds and thus the efforts are a complete waste of time because there is no way to establish to the court of appeal she suffered a hard contact shot which left a muzzle impression from the rifle sans moderator.  They have no photos which reveal any muzzle impressions, no assessments from those who saw her body that she had any muzzle impressions and no reports that she suffered a hard contact wound that could have left a muzzle impression. They do all the tests they want but it won't change these facts so such tests are simply a waste of time because the tests have no ability to prove anything. ONLY if it were determined that she suffered a hard contact wound that resulted in a muzzle impression would testing be called for.  The testing would be to assess whether the muzzle imprint matches the gun with or without the moderator. 

What they are doing is akin to doing fiber tests they despite no fibers being found with the expectation that if they are able to get favorable results then to look for a way to try to pretend fibers had been found.

I never commented on the validity of the tests.

[Jane]

Not to me..........................................
   

Not to worry, Scipio. You were the very LAST person I would have expected to make any sort of sense of it. It's WAY too illogical for clever Vulcanites to comprehend :D

[scipio_usmc]

Adam I thought Jeremy said the silencer was not on the rifle when he was going to shoot rabbits and also when he left it in the kitchen or where ever before he left to go home

He did claim that.  He made up the claim he took the gun out and left it out.  This lie was to account for:

1) the gun having no scope and moderator (he claimed he didn't have time to attach them because he was scared the rabbits would get away)

2) Sheila wasn't interested in guns so would not have gone to find it herself, his story left a weapon of opportunity out for her to encounter and grab while she was raging

3) accounted for the magazine already being loaded because if she had to load the magazine that would give time for Nevill to grab the weapon because she couldn't load the magazine and hold the weapon the same time plus the unloaded gun would not be able to be used against him as he grabbed it from her. 

4) He left the extra ammo out so she could also reload to fire the other 15 shots.  He clearly staged these after the murders though because he staged too many.  There were 30 bullets left.  He claimed he took out a box that was either full or near full.  If full that means 50 and thus there should have been 25 left.  If near ful then less than 25 should have remained.

[Jan]

"Some people have decided they want to believe the moderator wasn't used and are especially coming up with excuses to justify their beliefs in their own minds but they fail under objective scrutiny"




What rubbish. If a poster believes JB is guilty then the easiest thing of all is to accept the silencer evidence . It justifies their whole stance.

To admit the silencer evidence could have been planted is a very difficult position to take - and not that I SPEAK for other posters ( like you do) I would imagine that the "evidence" that they have seen to them does not add up and has planted the seed of doubt - re-inforced by Jeremys persistence in challenging the documents in respect of the silencer.

I think you argue for the sake of arguing - and you must try and remember that you are not in control of other posters opinions or thoughts.

[Jan]

I don't keep repeating things. Just asked a question.

Please provide evidence that the silencer was not destroyed in 1996. The 'Crimes Hearts and Coronets' article says it was destroyed. Anyway there is nothing left to test.

You keep repeating the term 'if he is guilty'. Which is an improvement from saying he's innocent. Which you used to write.

Even you have to admit defeat in saying Jeremy is innocent. Especially after you bottled it and refused to say how Sheila committed the massacre. But unlike Susan, Caroline and April, you will bottle it again and refuse to change stance.

what year were the DNA tests done on the silencer  Adam?

[Adam]

I trust that in 1985, technology was advanced enough for scientists to determine between human and animal blood.

DNA was to become common later in the decade so surely it was easy enough to make this distinction in 1985. Experts at court were even able to state whose blood it was - Sheila's, with a remote possibilities of it being a mixture of Neville's & June's, which the 'Campaign for Freedom' team has disputed.

It was a new rifle, and doubtful anyone would be able to give a rabbit a contact shot. Jeremy said he went outside to shoot them without the silencer on, but they had all gone.

Regardless of whose blood it was, how did human blood get into the silencer ?

Did someone give themselves a contact shot accidentally prior to the massacre, creating the blood splatter effect ? A bit careless and I thought the gun was too long to shoot yourself.

Or did Ann Eaton give Robert Boutflour a contact shot prior to giving the silencer to the police. Taking a huge and optimistic risk that someone else's blood will convict Jeremy. But then how did experts say the blood was Sheila's or Neville/June's ?

Perhaps Sheila shot everyone else with the silencer on. Then put it away in a box and underneath other boxes, dartboards and other guns. That would also mean she put the silencer on the rifle beforehand, as the rifle was left in the kitchen without it attached.  The judge said this action 'would be hard to fathom'.

Jeremy also testified Sheila had 'limited' experience with guns. So she may not have been able to put the silencer on.  Anyway wasn't she in too much of a 'crazy' rage to be fiddling around with silencers ? And where was Neville while Sheila was rummaging around the gun cupboard ?

Perhaps the police or lab technicians deliberately contaminated the silencer. There is no proof this happened, Jeremy has not claimed this, preferring to accuse the relatives.

Jeremy has always optimistically claimed it was not Sheila's blood in the silencer. But if it is human blood at all,  and there is no proof of deliberate contamination, then surely the silencer was used on the massacre night. This again highlights Jeremy's guilt.

[susan]

He did claim that.  He made up the claim he took the gun out and left it out.  This lie was to account for:

1) the gun having no scope and moderator (he claimed he didn't have time to attach them because he was scared the rabbits would get away)

2) Sheila wasn't interested in guns so would not have gone to find it herself, his story left a weapon of opportunity out for her to encounter and grab while she was raging

3) accounted for the magazine already being loaded because if she had to load the magazine that would give time for Nevill to grab the weapon because she couldn't load the magazine and hold the weapon the same

time plus the unloaded gun would not be able to be used against him as he grabbed it from her. 

4) He left the extra ammo out so she could also reload to fire the other 15 shots.  He clearly staged these after the murders though because he staged too many.  There were 30 bullets left.  He claimed he took out a box that was either full or near full.  If full that means 50 and thus there should have been 25 left.  If near ful then less than 25 should have remained.

Scipio it seems Jeremy had it all worked out very well but guess he was too clever in this respect.

[Jan]

I trust that in 1985, technology was advanced enough for scientists to determine between human and animal blood.

DNA was to become common later in the decade so surely it was easy enough to make this distinction in 1985. Experts at court were even able to state whose blood it was - Sheila's, with a remote possibilities of it being a mixture of Neville's & June's, which the 'Campaign for Freedom' team has disputed.

It was a new rifle, and doubtful anyone would be able to give a rabbit a contact shot. Jeremy said he went outside to shoot them without the silencer on, but they had all gone.

Regardless of whose blood it was, how did human blood get into the silencer ?

Did someone give themselves a contact shot accidentally prior to the massacre, creating the blood splatter effect ? A bit careless and I thought the gun was too long to shoot yourself.

Or did Ann Eaton give Robert Boutflour a contact shot prior to giving the silencer to the police. Taking a huge and optimistic risk that someone else's blood will convict Jeremy. But then how did experts say the blood was Sheila's or Neville/June's ?

Perhaps Sheila shot everyone else with the silencer on. Then put it away in a box and underneath other boxes, dartboards and other guns. That would also mean she put the silencer on the rifle beforehand, as the rifle was left in the kitchen without it attached.  The judge said this action 'would be hard to fathom'.

Jeremy also testified Sheila had 'limited' experience with guns. So she may not have been able to put the silencer on.  Anyway wasn't she in too much of a 'crazy' rage to be fiddling around with silencers ? And where was Neville while Sheila was rummaging around the gun cupboard ?

Perhaps the police or lab technicians deliberately contaminated the silencer. There is no proof this happened, Jeremy has not claimed this, preferring to accuse the relatives.

Jeremy has always optimistically claimed it was not Sheila's blood in the silencer. But if it is human blood at all,  and there is no proof of deliberate contamination, then surely the silencer was used on the massacre night. This again highlights Jeremy's guilt.

What year were the DNA tests done on the silencer?

Why was the fact that there was some animal blood on the silencer not revealed in court?

How could there be a "blob" of blood on the outside of the silencer after it had been put away in a box?

Who actually gave the silencer back to the police ( it varies depending on whose statement you read by the way)

Why did Anne not note the fining of the silencer in her notes she was making every day?

[Adam]

Well DNA was first used in the 80's. I do not know the year Jeremy decided to have it tested again. Be good to know.

[Stephanie]

What year were the DNA tests done on the silencer?

Why was the fact that there was some animal blood on the silencer not revealed in court?

How could there be a "blob" of blood on the outside of the silencer after it had been put away in a box?

Who actually gave the silencer back to the police ( it varies depending on whose statement you read by the way)

Why did Anne not note the fining of the silencer in her notes she was making every day?

This is another similarity to a case I am familiar with. In this other case, It was believed blood was found on one of the fibre tapings but apparently it was too minute to obtain a DNA profile. Turns out it was irrelevant to the case. All those years of attempting to understand it's significance and have it tested, only to discover it made no difference.

[Caroline]

Even if I had not become a lawyer I still would recognize that the defense has to attack the evidence that resulted in conviction to get a conviction vacated but as a lawyer even moreso I recognize this.

To say that because they are trying to attack the main evidence that proves such evidence is invalid is ABSURD.  Only by SUCCESSFULLY attacking it can they refute it.  The mere fact they are trying doesn't negate it.

Caroline's argument is even worse and more illogical:

Jeremy knows he didn't use the moderator so knows the prosecution planted Sheila's blood inside.  Jeremy thus knew a DNA test of the moderator would clear him.  Knowing the prosecution planted her blood would not enable a DNA test to clear him.

The argument totally flops.

He wanted the test to try to find a way to spin the results to pretend it somehow helped him because without the test he had zilch and there was thus no harm in doing the test.  He would either still have zilch after the test or something he could try to spin.

You old smoothie you!! 

[Jan]

Well DNA was first used in the 80's. I do not know the year Jeremy decided to have it tested again. Be good to know.

Not for criminal cases it was not - it was about the 90s (funnily enough when a lot of the evidence was destroyed) when it came into serious contention in more criminal cases. It was originally used in paternity cases.

I believe it was about 2001 - and as far as I am aware the silencer and the rifle and still in existence now.

[Adam]

Jeremy has always jumped on the fact that the relatives found the silencer.

As if no one outside a police force has ever found evidence. Or approached the police with information or suspicions.

Everyone did this to frame Jeremy.