The Murders at White House Farm - By Carol Ann Lee (A Taster!)

[lookout]

.  The expert who claimed there were no marks on the Aga blew up photos the defense had of the mantle in the background, he didn't even have negatives.  His process is not recognized as a valid means because blowing up a photo doesn't result in the level of detail necessary to be able to assess the mantle.  What you keep raising are things rejected by the CCRC and Court of Appeals or things entirely made up by Jeremy supporters thus never presented to the CCRC/Court of Appeals.

There is no evidence of police restaging anything-------it was Mick Gradwell who quoted this,not me !!

[Caroline]

Me selective??  The irony!!!

I copied the only part that I saw in the article that remotely spoke about what you saw. If you saw something about the appeal it isn't in that article that I can see.

Where is the article Mat?

[lookout]

The article is in the LEP-2011 with Mick Gradwell and his opinion of what SHOULD happen. A re-trial !

[Caroline]

The article is in the LEP-2011 with Mick Gradwell and his opinion of what SHOULD happen. A re-trial !

And where is that? (shrugs!  )

[Caroline]

Mat, have you got a link to the article you quoted? No idea what LEP-2011 is.

[guest154]

Mat, have you got a link to the article you quoted? No idea what LEP-2011 is.

Course, sorry Caroline only just seen this.

http://www.lep.co.uk/columnists/which-adopted-child-shot-farmhouse-family-1-3062813

[lebaleb]

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.

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 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.

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:



We find no support for Mr Webster's theory in that passage."

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 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.
 

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.

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.     


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.

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.
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.   


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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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.   


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.

 

No, I'm referring to GSR which ends up on the shooters hands, the weapon and surfaces within 1 or 1.5 meters. It can be transfered easily by touch. And can be easily washed off. The rifle was in the same position regardless of who pulled the trigger. The nightdress was given a visual examination only.

It was not possible to reproduce the exact conditions for an experiment to see if the blood mixture theory could be tested.
"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."
To me this seems to confirm the possibility.

Don't you think that someone staging a suicide would prefer to shoot his victim only once? Shooting twice could be a big mistake. The assertion that the shots were seconds apart would seem to confirm that this was a suicide. After shooting the victim once, don't you think Jeremy would have waited more than a few seconds before shooting the second time?
 
Vanezis says Sheila's position for the first shot was sitting upright but for the second was more reclined after which she dropped to the ground. The killer would have no reason to have to move the body.

You presume that the rifle stock was broken when it came into contact with Neville's head. This may not have been the case.

Psychotic behavior is not logical.

Sheila could well have been wearing just her underwear during the shooting. They were found at the scene.

In Sheila's psychotic state she could well have interpreted June's intentions as losing her kids and being institutionalised.

[Steve_uk]

How annoying that the book is available to read in Waterstones yet those of us who ordered it online have to wait another week. On a different matter I have to say I have been appalled by the tone of some of the attacks on Lookout recently,who has borne them with a stoicism and a dignity beyond the call of duty.

[Caroline]

Course, sorry Caroline only just seen this.

http://www.lep.co.uk/columnists/which-adopted-child-shot-farmhouse-family-1-3062813

Cheers Mat

[guest154]

Cheers Mat

No problem, I should have included it when I posted the snippet!

[Caroline]

The article is in the LEP-2011 with Mick Gradwell and his opinion of what SHOULD happen. A re-trial !

There is no mention of a retrial or an appeal and he even states that he thinks Jeremy is the most likely suspect. Read the article again Lookout, none of us here are the ability to alter it so your claim is incorrect.

http://www.lep.co.uk/columnists/which-adopted-child-shot-farmhouse-family-1-3062813

Steve, no one is attacking Lookout at all but anyone making incorrect claims should expect to be challenged - I'd expect it if I did it. I'm sure it's happened in the past.

[scipio_usmc]

No, I'm referring to GSR which ends up on the shooters hands, the weapon and surfaces within 1 or 1.5 meters.

Unburned powder exits the muzzle thus getting on those in front of the muzzle and a minor amount is expelled out of the vents and ejection port. Primer gunshot residue is expelled out of the vents and ejection port forming this cloud which deposits PGSR on the hands of the shooter and other areas discussed in the caption:



In addition soot is expelled out of the muzzle and vents/ejection port.  That soot will get in the wound or around the entrance wound of someone shot at very close distance.  It will also get on the shooters clothing.     

It can be transfered easily by touch. And can be easily washed off.

It can be washed off but something hads to be used to clean it off.  Touching it can result in transfer but Sheila was dead she didn't touch the weapon.  Just placing it on her body would not necessarily transfer any GSR to her.  Your claim it would have to transfer is not true.

The rifle was in the same position regardless of who pulled the trigger. The nightdress was given a visual examination only.

The Nightgown was tested for foreign blood spatter, GSR and soot and was negative for all of these all it had on it was Sheila's blood.

Your claim the gun would be in the same position whether someone else shot Sheila or she shot herself is complete nonsense.

The only way for Sheila to shoot herself would be with the moderator not attached which brings the ejection port and vents closer to her body. 

Furthermore, her body would be hugging the weapon if she shot herself which means the ejection port and vents would be against her gown and FOR SURE would have deposited the soot, unburned powder and PGSR on her lower gown.  There was none which means she was not hugging the weapon when she was shot.  If she was not hugging the weapon then it is impossible for her to have fired the fatal shot even if no moderator had been attached.   

The fatal shot was fired while she was int he seated position with her head bent back so that the killer could shoot her chin.  In contrast the killer fired the first shot with the weapon at nearly a 90 degree angle. Howard's video shows the natural position one would try to shoot oneself and neither is the position she was in or the weapon was in when she was shot.

The fact is that the moderator was attached when she was killed and thus the ejection port and vents were no where near her body when she was shot which is why only the materials that exit the barrel was on her and those materials were in/directly around the entrance wounds because the shots were a close range shot and contact shot.

 
It was not possible to reproduce the exact conditions for an experiment to see if the blood mixture theory could be tested.
"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."
To me this seems to confirm the possibility.

It doesn't to any rational objective people. They were unable to produce any examples of blood failing to intimately mix beyond an alleged situation where they asserted it happened on cloth but were unable to detail when and where this supposedly happened so it could be checked.  In the meantime cloth doesn't matter what matters is a non-porous metal surface.  They have nothing at all to suggest blood would not be intimately mix in the moderator and had no means to try testing their conclusions.  The prosecution lab did have the means to conduct testing and found that blood of one victim would not be able to rapidly dry before blood of another victim got inside.  The only way blood would not be able to intimately mix is if blood of one victim were totally dry before the blood of another got inside.

In the meantime, there is still a low chance of an expert failing to detect a mixture when there is non-intimate mixture. It simply is a low theoretically possible to make such a mistake.  It is not possible for an expert to fail to detect a mixture when there is an intimate mixture though.

The bottom line is that the defense claims were pure nonsense and should be embarrassed for even trying to raise them to a court.  The only reason they were even able to make these pathetic claims is because the CCRC referred the DNA evidence to the COA and the rules in existence at the time permitted the defense to raise anything else desired to the COA instead of just the DNA evidence.  The Court chastized the defense for raising such frivolous claims and noted the rules should be changed so that the only arguments the party can make is those approved by the CCRC hey should not be allowed to add on any garbage they feel like.

Don't you think that someone staging a suicide would prefer to shoot his victim only once? Shooting twice could be a big mistake. The assertion that the shots were seconds apart would seem to confirm that this was a suicide. After shooting the victim once, don't you think Jeremy would have waited more than a few seconds before shooting the second time?

Most killers would have preferred it they killed her with a single shot.  It one has such intention but fails to kill the person then that forces firing another shot.  Why would he wait an extended period to see if she eventually died on her own?  That would permit her to move around as he went to clean up and stage things and would have inhibited his desired staging of her body if she could move.  He certainly could not leave the gun on her while she was alive.  The natural thing for a killer to do when they fail to kill the first time is to fire again.  He shot her with the gun at nearly a 90 degree angle to her neck not in contact with her neck, she moved her hand to her neck, he freaked out and jammed the weapon under her chin and fired again at contact range this time to make sure the bullet went into her brain.  Whether the first shot was fired intentionally or he had to because she was reaching out to try to grab the weapon only Jeremy knows.     
 

Vanezis says Sheila's position for the first shot was sitting upright but for the second was more reclined after which she dropped to the ground. The killer would have no reason to have to move the body.

What Vanezis said is that she was seated while both shots were fired and she must have subsequently fallen backwards after the second shot.  He said this because blood evidence proved she was seated when she was shot but her body was found flat.  He noted that unless propped up against something she would not be able to stay seated after she was dead.

She was propped against something when she was shot that is why she didn't fall flat after the first shot.  She was still against it when shot the second time.  The blood from both wounds flowed down and that could only happen if she was not lying flat yet.

It is possible that she was pulled own somewhat to make it easier to target her chin.  There is no way to know whether the killer pulled her legs to move her down more after the first shot so that the second could be delivered easier.  She wasn't flat for either shot though.  She was moved flat after she was dead and that was in order to place the gun on her body.  The gun coudl only be placed on her body if she were lying flat.

So the killer had a potential motive to move her body lower after the first shot in order to more easily target her chin though the killer could have done the same by using the weapon to force her head back by jamming it into her chin.  Which to do is a matter of choice.

The killer had a motive to move her body flat after the murders to plant the weapon on her body and did so.

You presume that the rifle stock was broken when it came into contact with Neville's head. This may not have been the case.

It is quite clearly the case.  The nature of the break is from the face of the stock being forced into something.  The sides of the stock hitting something would result in up and down breaks instead of a break traversing the stock.  What was the killer hitting with the face of the rifle stock?  Nothing in the kitchen had damage that would be caused by such motions except Nevill's head and his arms.  In the meantime even if the killer had missed Nevill and hit the floor and this how the stock broke the killer was still the one forcing the stock into the floor and the killer's hand still would have been in the are where the stock broke.

Psychotic behavior is not logical.

There are distinct patterns and behavior still follows patterns.  While it is irrational for crazy people to believe they are being held back by those taking care of them some do have this belief and they kill in order to become free to pursue the irrational things they want to pursue.  The murder is in their eyes rational.  If they were right about being held back by such people they do have a logical reason to kill them though they should not do it. 

People having delusions don't just do things for no reason at all like plan to commit murder suicide and wash in between and destroy the clothing they committed the murders in.  That is why Jeremy supporters like yourself can't provide a single example of a crazy person who committed murder suicide doing such.  The only time people change their clothing and wash after murders is to try to avoid liability for such murders.   

Psychotic behavior is not logical.

Sheila could well have been wearing just her underwear during the shooting. They were found at the scene.[/quote]

The 2 pairs of panties at the scene had blood in the crotch area which means it was menstrual blood.  Sheila was in fact menstruating around the time of the murders hence purchased tampons found at the scene.

The notion she decided to commit the murders in only panties is silly enough but it is even more absurd to suggest before killing herself she decided to soak her panties which she would no longer need because she planned to kill herself then took a bath and put on a nightgown to kill herself in.

In the meantime even if she were the first person in history to do such things during the course of a murder suicide she still would have gotten evidence on her body and clothing while shooting herself and can't have shot herself with the moderator. 

So you want us to believe a series of illogical and extremely unlikely (some even impossible) things ALL happened in the same event though the chances of such actually happening are infinitesimal.

In Sheila's psychotic state she could well have interpreted June's intentions as losing her kids and being institutionalised.

More desperate babble.  All you do is make up nonsense to try to pretend that Sheila did it.  I don't know why you are so biased or why Jeremy's other supporters are but when the kind of tripe used to justify your stance is like the above it means you are just making up any BS you can find and choosing not to look at the case in a rational, objective legalistic manner.

This is in direct contrast to how people genuinely interested in MOJ's should approach things and they succeed because their approach results in evidence that actually demonstrates a MOJ occurred.

[Jan]

How annoying that the book is available to read in Waterstones yet those of us who ordered it online have to wait another week. On a different matter I have to say I have been appalled by the tone of some of the attacks on Lookout recently,who has borne them with a stoicism and a dignity beyond the call of duty.

Steve I totally agree with you on this one . 100%

[Jan]

"The Nightgown was tested for foreign blood spatter, GSR and soot and was negative for all of these all it had on it was Sheila's blood."

1) What tests where done exactly
2) I posted a document that showed various blood groups on her nightie that you saud you did not understand - how can you dismiss that evidence?

[Jan]

There is no mention of a retrial or an appeal and he even states that he thinks Jeremy is the most likely suspect. Read the article again Lookout, none of us here are the ability to alter it so your claim is incorrect.

http://www.lep.co.uk/columnists/which-adopted-child-shot-farmhouse-family-1-3062813

Steve, no one is attacking Lookout at all but anyone making incorrect claims should expect to be challenged - I'd expect it if I did it. I'm sure it's happened in the past.

its not what is posted - its how its posted - smiley icons don't sugar coat the post - and two wrongs don't make a right IMO