The Myths of Circumstantial Evidence

[Adam]

The other way to look at it is that they also may have destroyed evidence that proved Sheila was the murderer.

And I have always said that it was a crime scene even if murder suicide and there still should have been a proper investigation. If I had been Colin I would have been fuming about how they handled the crime scene - and assuming that JB is guilty - nearly let him get away with it.

For Jan.

You don't have to keep reminding me.

You reminded me about the ten sources I said I would get. It takes time to get them. But to be nice I got 17.

[Jan]

What the hell are you going on about Adam - you stated a lie about what I said - so apologise.

I was talking about them burning carpets etc in haste that was EP who admitted they did that - they may have accidentally destroyed evidence in their haste.

I never said what you accused me of . Where did I say they cleaned Sheila up ?

So apologise

[Jan]

And by the way you still don't understand what a source is.

[Adam]

'The other way to look at it is the police may have destroyed evidence that shows Sheila was the killer'.

Carpets. How is that destroying evidence that Sheila is the killer ?

You didn't answer my questions in previous posts on this thread. I will re post.

[Caroline]

And by the way you still don't understand what a source is.

I gave up on that one long ago but he isn't the only one (to be fair).

[Adam]

Thats it. EP destroyed all the evidence on Sheila which showed she was the killer. Painstakingly arranging her so nothing could be found by the crime scene investigators.

Can't anyone be trusted these days ?

When and who did this ? It must have been done soon afterwards. I assume dead bodies are examined soon after a massacre.

If the evidence on Sheila showed she was the killer, why did the police decide to frame an innocent man ?

[Adam]

How would the police know whether the evidence showed Sheila was the killer ? They would not be trained in this.

The crime scene investigators and pathologists would examine Sheila and write their report.

This means if Sheila was the killer,  the police asked them to change their statements.

The conspiracy widens.

[Jan]

"But as Jan said. The police may have cleaned her up before the pathologist and crime scene investigators arrived. "



WHERE DID I SAY THIS?

Stop pussy footing around with irrelevant posts and answer the question.

[Adam]

Can you answer my questions which were asked before.

So you don't believe the police cleaned up Sheila (destroyed the evidence) before the pathologist and crime scene people arrived ?

The police must have told all the pathologists and CSI's to change their statements (destroy the evidence). To show Sheila was not the killer.

That's the way to do it. If the evidence shows Sheila is not the killer, accuse the police of destroying evidence which showed she was the killer. Some proof would help.

[Jan]

Can you answer my questions which were asked before.

So you don't believe the police cleaned up Sheila (destroyed the evidence) before the pathologist and crime scene people arrived ?

The police must have told all the pathologists and CSI's to change their statements (destroy the evidence). To show Sheila was not the killer.

That's the way to do it. If the evidence shows Sheila is not the killer, accuse the police of destroying evidence which showed she was the killer. Some proof would help.

Its no good changing what you said to try and change your lie.

You know very well what I said and it was not that.

[Adam]

'The other way to look at it is the police may have destroyed evidence that shows Sheila was the killer'. 

My apologies. I was not aware you were referring to the carpets. And that destroying this with Jeremy's permission, could have destroyed the evidence that Sheila was the killer.

[Jan]

'The other way to look at it is the police may have destroyed evidence that shows Sheila was the killer'.

My apologies. I was not aware you were referring to the carpets. And that destroying this with Jeremy's permission, could have destroyed the evidence that Sheila was the killer.

very funny

what I said was that in their first assumptions of murder/suicide it was still a major crime - Sheila in their eyes was a murderer and therefore the crime should still have been investigated and the scene treated correctly. As the officers themselves testified there were so many people going in and out that they lost count. Also the police in court stated they drew the list of things to be destroyed and asked Jeremy to sign it. This was all done in haste - and there was also a training exercise before the bodies were removed .

So obviously because the investigation was not conducted properly there may have been evidence that showed either Sheila or Jeremy was responsible that was destroyed or not investigated properly.

Is that clear enough ?

[Adam]

The other way to look at it is the police may have destroyed evidence that shows Sheila was the killer'. 

Thank you Jan.

Silly me, I thought you were saying the police deliberately cleaned Sheila before she was examined. Or they destroyed the original reports and requested new false reports be submitted by the CSI's and pathologists.

[Jan]

The other way to look at it is the police may have destroyed evidence that shows Sheila was the killer'.

Thank you Jan.

Silly me, I thought you were saying the police deliberately cleaned Sheila before she was examined. Or they destroyed the original reports and requested new false reports be submitted by the CSI's and pathologists.

yes silly you - very silly .

I have not a clue how you could twist that round to the words you then attributed to me . Be more careful next time.

[Adam]

The other way to look at it is the police may have destroyed evidence that shows Sheila was the killer'.

Would you so kind to elaborate when making serious claims.

At the time posters were saying the evidence showed Sheila was not the killer. It is natural for supporters to then say the police destroyed evidence which showed Sheila was killer.

Claiming the police 'destroyed' evidence that Sheila was the killer is a weak argument, as there is a mountain of evidence showing Sheila was not the killer.

It would have to be a  big deliberate attempt by the police to remove oil, gun residue, replace false finger nails and clothes. Or get experts to falsify documents.  Rather than accidental mistakes or carpet removal which you have since back tracked and claimed you're statement was saying.