Gunshot residue can travel over 1 meter and is typically deposited on surfaces close to the discharged weapon.
You are referring to unburned powder that is what will travel a distance towards the victim. At intermediate range stippling is left on the victim and such will help reveal the distance the shot was fired at. If the shot was at a distance then it will be too far for there to be stippling. If at close range the unburned powder will be in the wound or in tight concentration around the wound. Only a shot at a distance would be able to permit a dispersion of unburned powder to be able to get on her gown instead of simply a tight concentration around her wound. Neither shot was at a significant distance. If powder burned were on her gown that would have been horrible for Jeremy because it would prove the gun was fired too far away for Sheila to have pulled the trigger. So if the powder burns you suggest had actually been found then Jeremy would be even worse off than now.
Since the nightdress was underneath the rifle, regardless of who pulled the trigger one would expect to find GSR. The fact is the nightdress was never tested. Similarly, GSR can be transfered by handling of a fired weapon.
The particles were no longer airborne by the time the gun was placed upon her. Taking a weapon and jsut laying it down will not necessarily transfer GSR to the place it was sat down. You have to vigorously rub the item against the place it is sat to make sure there is a transfer. She was dead she didn't hold and handle the weapon it was simply sat upon her.
The nightgown was tested, it tested negative for GSR and soot. Had she fired it then her gown would have had soot because soot is ejected out of the vents and ejection port and such would have been near her gown had she fired the weapon at herself or any of the victims. In contrast if she was shot the vents and ejection port were near the killer not her.
It is not 'obvious' when or how the lampshade was broken.
It is to someone objective and honest. The light was above the table and at a high level that the only way it would be damaged was if the gun had the moderator attached and was being held high in the air as would have occurred while Nevill and the killer were fighting over control of the weapon. During such struggle the lampshade was broken and the mantle scratched.
Or it could be a mixture of NB and June's blood. Or the flake of blood DB scraped from the silencer... or other ways.
It could not be a mixture of June and Nevill's blood, they didn't suffer any contact wounds and had it been June's blood then AK2-1 would have been detected. It would be impossible for there to have been a mixture that went undetected unless blood doesn't mix intimately and there was no way that the blood of victims that got inside the moderator would not mix intimately unless one was shot a very long time prior to the other so such blood had the opportunity to dry. The prosecution did tests to see if blood would be able to rapidly dry inside the moderator and those tests proved it would not. Even if a significant time had passed between shots and blood of one victim had been able to dry it is still highly unlikely for a trained expert to miss a mixture but it is possible to make an error in such case. But there is no chance of an error if the blood intimately mixed and the defense failed to come up with a way it would not intimately mix. At trial the defense offered nothing because their own expert disagreed that it could have been their blood mixed. They thus didn't have him testify. On appeal they made a few pathetic unsupported claims which the judges tore apart:
"The final and most important criticism of Mr Webster is as to his findings in relation to the possibility of a mixture of blood drying in such a way that it would not thoroughly mix. We should have thought that before advancing such a theory, a scientist would inevitably satisfy himself that there was a proper basis for the theory. That might be done by some form of experimentation, by drawing upon identifiable findings in other cases of relevance or by reference to the recent conclusions of other scientists. So far as we can judge, Mr Webster has done none of these things. He rejects experimentation because he asserts that it is impossible to reproduce the exact situation that arose in this case and because he did not have available to him sufficient facilities to do anything that came close to the circumstances of this case. He pointed to one instance he had come across where a single bloodstain was a mixture of more than one person's blood, which had not completely mixed. When asked to identify the relevant case, he was unable to do so and when asked for further details it transpired that it was blood that had soaked into cloth and not, as had occurred in this case, blood that had fallen upon a non-porous surface, a wholly different situation.
Mr Webster was asked about support for his theory amongst other scientists or in published material. As to the former, he said that his theory had been "looked at by an extremely senior forensic scientist from Germany and he thinks that it is a theory worth consideration". As to the latter he referred to a paper by Stringer, Vintner, Stowel and Thomson which included the passage:
"In forensic investigations, it can be mistakenly assumed that a particular blood stain originated from a single individual. In our experience, there have been occasions when blood stains consisting of blood from more than one individual have occurred; for example crime scenes where more than one person has been stabbed. Grouping of blood mixtures in such cases can give rise to false exclusions."
We find no support for Mr Webster's theory in that passage."
"Vanezis didn't know if she would have been able to walk around or not. He said she could have been stunned and gone into shock or might have been able to move around some. All he could say for sure is that she didn't get up and walk around and was shot fatally within seconds of her first wound. He had no solid way to estimate what she could have done if she had not been killed seconds later."
In other words 'He didn't know.' What is for sure is that the second shot was some time after the first and that at some point Sheila was in a reclined sitting position above the bible.
This is a perfect example of how you ignore facts and evidence that you don't like.
Vanezis said that he could tell the second shot was fired mere seconds after the first shot because there would have been a lot more blood if a significant period of time passed between the first and second shot.
She wasn't shot with the Bible close to her the Bible was placed afterwards in the pool of blood that had formed.
The facts she was seated when shot but found lying down flat is evidence the killer moved her body flat in order to place the gun on her.
The kitchen table was still set for breakfast, a couple of chairs were knocked over, hardly the scene of a brawl.
The kitchen table was moved, the items on the table moved or were knocked off, various other things were knocked off counters, the lampshade was broken and the mantle scratched. Nevill had defensive wounds from a severe beating, the stock had blood spatter from Nevill on it that resulted from his beating and his head was bashed in so hard that the stock broke. The struggle is obvious and only someone extremely biased refuses to face it but that merely amounts to living in denial.
"More nonsense her dosage was cut in half to 100MG which is the maximum effective dosage she never should have been prescribed more. The manufacturer stopped making dosages higher than 100MG precisely because 100MG is the maximum safe dosage to inject. The shots lasted 6 weeks and she had a shot 3 weeks before the murders."
Get your facts straight. Her injections were monthly. So Sheila had been receiving a dangerous dose of 200mg which was causing her coordination problems and probably building her resistance to the drug.
My facts are straight. The shots lasted 6 weeks. This provided a 2 week extra window in case she failed to get her shot exactly on time that 4th week. There is nothing to suggest she built up resistance so it was no longer preventing her from having delusions.
All of the shots were fired from close distances, a few meters at most. A lot being close contact.
People still miss at that range, particularly when targets are moving and you still missed the point that you are making a false argument that because 8 year olds who were trained to use the weapon can load and fire it that means Sheila would know how to use it despite not being trained how to load and operate it. That is like saying because an 8 year old can be taught Chinese it means I should b able to speak and write Chinese despite not being trained to do so.
"There wasn't blood spatter of any victims on her gown or body. The blood on her neck wasn't smeared there was substantial blood flow from her wounds. Her fingers weren't wiped on her dress blood that was on her outer palm/wrist got on her gown when her wrist/palm was placed on her gown."
The gown was never tested besides Sheila probably showered before donning the nightgown.
It was indeed tested and all that was found was her own blood. There were no traces of spatter. Spatter is distinctive in shape and size of droplets.
Anytime you say something is probable you have no basis to make such a claim. You just make up that things you wish happen are probable. To establish something as probable you have to post evidence that makes it probable.
It is improbable that someone who decides to commit murder suicide would change their clothing after killing the other victims and change into something before killing themselves. It is so improbable that the only example any Jeremy supporter could come up with if this happening was in the context of mass ritual murder suicide by a cult.
If she had actually done this then the clothing she wore during the murders would have been found at the scene.
In the meantime if she shot herself then her down would have had soot and GSR on it. There was no soot or GSR. Soot is visible to the naked eye. They looked for sooting visually and found none. This was more significant than whether any GSR was present because a tiny drop of GSR could get on her gown potentially from the gun simply being deposited the sooting though would only be present if she fired the weapon at herself and would have been present for sure had she fired it at herself. Thus at trial they devoted most attention to the lack of sooting and lack of spatter from the victims.
"Pulling a trigger and wildly beating someone are vastly different than playing a guitar. The former not only damage nails but cause damage to hands in general unless wearing gloves. The gun stock broke exactly where the killer's hand would be. "
The gun was probably being wielded like a club when the stock broke.
Once again you are reckless with your probable claims. You just make up anything you feel like is probable without regard to the evidence. Not only is is awkward and difficult to wield a rifle like a club, had that been done then the stock would have broken side to side instead of lengthwise cracks. The lengthwise cracks indicate the back of the stock was being forcibly pressed against something. Furthermore, the wounds to Nevill's head and the wounds on his arm are consistent with the back of the stock hitting him. The spatter on the rifle stock was consistent with the back of the stock bashing the victim and spatter being projected onto the stock. There was no cast off spatter anywhere which is a sign of a clubbing or axing motion. So the evidence doesn't in any way support your claim it is probable it was used like a club you just made that up from thin air.
You're saying if you fire a gun without gloves it will damage your hands? Give me a break.
I noted that beating someone with the rifle would result in damage to their hands because the rifle slips and it broke exactly where the person wielding it would have had a hand so the hand on the stock would have been at minimum scratched from such.
"Someone who decided to commit murder suicide would have no reason to wash up and shower in between killing everyone else and her self nor would such person change their clothing and if they did do so then their clothing would be found."
People having psychotic episodes are unpredictable and do things beyond the realm of logic. Clothing was found soaking in buckets.
People having delusions still do things for a reason. There are no cases of anyone who committed murder suicide during a psychotic episode washing and changing clothes in between murdering others and committing suicide. The only time people do such is when they don't plan to commit suicide and hope to avoid liability for the murders.
The clothing soaking in the buckets were children's pants and female panties. There was nothing soaking that she could have worn to commit the murders in but changed out of.
"No most likely it is true. If she were making it up then she would not have made up the claim Jeremy hired a hitman and certainly would not have named the hitman so police could find out in short order he wasn't involved. Furthermore there is substantial evidence which corroborates Sheila didn't do anything and thus that Jeremy was responsible."
Substantial evidence?
Why did JM plead with the dead bodies to tell her what had happened when according to her Jeremy had told her that already? Why did she wait so long to tell the police?
The evidence that Jeremy made up the phone call, that Sheila didn't load or fire the weapon period let alone at any of the victims and that she could not have shot herself but rather her body was staged and moved are all substantial pieces of evidence supporting Julie's story.
Note you did not address my point about Julie not having any reason to make up the hitman claim.
Jeremy only told certain details to Julie he didn't tell her all the fine details about the murders and even made up that a hitman did it so he would not know all the details to tell her.
You make it sound like she waited years to tell the truth she waited a month. She loved Jeremy despite his actions so tried to protect him but her conscience got the better of her and they broke up so she no longer had any reason to keep protecting him. It is still unclear though whether she went forward to police or her friend talked to police about what she had said and thus they approached her.
"you have zilch to suggest she lied you just don't want to believe Jeremy did it but all that proves is your bias and frankly you lost all credibility once you posted that nonsense about Sheila mistaking the moderator for a tampon and sticking it inside her and that being how the blood got there. You outdid even Mike with that garbage."
Something you fail to disprove could have happened.
I don't have to disprove such a stupid suggestion you have to prove it reasonably likely to have occurred. In any event as I pointed out there would be blood throughout the moderator and all over the outside if it were stuck in a bleeding vagina not tiny drops of blood that get on the first 8 baffles and a tiny splash on the smooth face. So I did disprove your absurd suggestion and what makes it absurd is why would a woman decide to go look in a gun closet in the office for her tampons instead of in the location where she stored her tampons? Furthermore how could someone mistake a moderator which is metal and much larger than a tampon for a tampon? Mike has suggested some outlandish things but you managed to out do him by far.
"Freddie was so scared he stayed with her for hours...In the meantime his fears were unrealized."
She had no reason at that moment to see him as a threat.
You are the one who suggested his fear she would do something violent proves she was capable of violence though his unrealized fears prove nothing of the sort and if he were overly frightened then he would have fled instead of staying with her.
"That Sheila could not have done it is not speculation it is established fact. It is quite clear Jeremy made up the phone call and murdered everyone he is the only one who knows every minor detail of what happened though after all this time he might not even remember every little detail."
Quite clear to you maybe but I still don't believe it beyond reasonable doubt.
It is quite clear to most who are informed about this case including the courts which is what matters. The opinion of the courts matter not yours. In the meantime you demonstrate quite clearly your opinion is not based on facts or evidence you just live in denial and are so biased yo umake up ridiculous tripe to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent.
Part time foster help which Sheila had in the past and would have welcomed.
Yeah, loosing her kids and being sent off to the loony bin. She would have loved that.
She wasn't going to be sent to the looney bin or going to lose her kids. Part time foster care is exactly what it sounds like someone would help watch the kids at times.
