Colin said he would have killed June

[Caroline]

[scipio_usmc]

As I said Ann Eaton botched it and erroneously claimed they told her to be quiet about shoes though it was paint.

There has been no evidence posted to prove they actually took any shoes into evidence.  They didn't note anything of the sort anywhere in their notes or statements and none of the exhibit references pertain to any shoes.  They may simply have pretended they were taking shoes though they ultimately didn't.

You don't know if the shoe in the photo is cotton canvas or not because the photo is not good enough. It is black and could indeed be the shoes they asked about which they thought looked big but that she confirmed were Sheila's because she had big feet.

 

[Jane]

As I said Ann Eaton botched it and erroneously claimed they told her to be quiet about shoes though it was paint.

There has been no evidence posted to prove they actually took any shoes into evidence.  They didn't note anything of the sort anywhere in their notes or statements and none of the exhibit references pertain to any shoes.  They may simply have pretended they were taking shoes though they ultimately didn't.

You don't know if the shoe in the photo is cotton canvas or not because the photo is not good enough. It is black and could indeed be the shoes they asked about which they thought looked big but that she confirmed were Sheila's because she had big feet.

Faux fur lined slippers are n ever made of cotton canvas NOR do they have rope soles. Rather like you the police seem not to know the difference between paint and shoes. I find it UNBELIEVABLE that you have the gall and arrogance to say that those who made the statements, ie both AE and the police have all got it wrong and your version is the correct one.

[Caroline]

As I said Ann Eaton botched it and erroneously claimed they told her to be quiet about shoes though it was paint.

There has been no evidence posted to prove they actually took any shoes into evidence.  They didn't note anything of the sort anywhere in their notes or statements and none of the exhibit references pertain to any shoes.  They may simply have pretended they were taking shoes though they ultimately didn't.

You don't know if the shoe in the photo is cotton canvas or not because the photo is not good enough. It is black and could indeed be the shoes they asked about which they thought looked big but that she confirmed were Sheila's because she had big feet.

They all botch it when it doesn't suit your argument! As long as you're right eh? You have a serious problem!

[Steve_uk]

Faux fur lined slippers are n ever made of cotton canvas NOR do they have rope soles. Rather like you the police seem not to know the difference between paint and shoes. I find it UNBELIEVABLE that you have the gall and arrogance to say that those who made the statements, ie both AE and the police have all got it wrong and your version is the correct one.

I'm not surprised because he used selective information on the David Bain case and drew a similar erroneous conclusion. I'm not overly concerned whether his grandmother was a transvestite either,but I wouldn't want him banned as he is entertaining at least.

[Jane]

I'm not surprised because he used selective information on the David Bain case and drew a similar erroneous conclusion. I'm not overly concerned whether his grandmother was a transvestite either,but I wouldn't want him banned as he is entertaining at least.

Steve, with the way he likes to adorn his slippers it's very possible that his grandmother isn't the only one in the family.

[scipio_usmc]

They all botch it when it doesn't suit your argument! As long as you're right eh? You have a serious problem!

The police account that they told her to be quiet about the paint is much more reliable than her claim it pertained to shoes which there is zero evidence they actually took and that for sure were never sent to the lab for examination.  They didn't go there for shoes it was a ruse they couldn't care less if she told Jeremy they took Sheila's shoes.

Moreover her original account was not that they told her to keep quiet about the shoes she said this years later in her COLP statement when her memory was fuzzy.   She originally said it about the paint which resulted in Jeremy alleging she saw police damage the mantle and they told her not to tell anyone.

[Caroline]

The police account that they told her to be quiet about the paint is much more reliable than her claim it pertained to shoes which there is zero evidence they actually took and that for sure were never sent to the lab for examination.  They didn't go there for shoes it was a ruse they couldn't care less if she told Jeremy they took Sheila's shoes.

Moreover her original account was not that they told her to keep quiet about the shoes she said this years later in her COLP statement when her memory was fuzzy.   She originally said it about the paint which resulted in Jeremy alleging she saw police damage the mantle and they told her not to tell anyone.

There is the same evidence for both unless you're suggesting that AE is a liar! She said she was told to keep quite about both but because one doesn't suit you, that must be a mistake. You can't make these judgements and try to pass them off as fact - you are assuming one is right and the other not.

[scipio_usmc]

There is the same evidence for both unless you're suggesting that AE is a liar! She said she was told to keep quite about both but because one doesn't suit you, that must be a mistake. You can't make these judgements and try to pass them off as fact - you are assuming one is right and the other not.

Ann Eaton was wrong about the victims being in bed and many other things.  She was wrong about Jones saying she didn't see him take the shoe she said she didn't see him take the paint samples.  There is no reason to believe they took the shoes unless you produce evidence since they had no reason to take them, didn't go there to take them and failed to note taking them in their statements, pocketbook's etc.  It is just as suspect as the claim the bodies were in the bed.  But rational objective thought was never your strong suit and you flat out lied about Cook saying they took the samples because the family found damage to the mantle so honesty is another thing you lack.

You are good at coming up with hairbrained nonsense but little else.  Your claims are EXACTLY like Mike's.

Mike: Ann Eaton said June and Sheila were in the bed so this means they were in the bed despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Caroline: Police took Sheila's Shoes because Ann Eatons says so and they even told her to keep it quiet.  Nevermind that Jones said he told her to keep quiet about the paint samples.  Nevermind tha tno police say they took the shoes and didn't writ in their pocketbooks that they took the shoes and that there are no log entries on property records corresponding to the shoes and that they all stated they went there from the express purpose of taking the paint samples...
 
You both ignore evidence and rely on errors in support of revisionist claims.  In the meantime the claim doesn't even help your claims.  Your SOLE evidence tha tthe photo shows a male slipper belonging to Nevill is an unclear photo which you say is clear in your opinion and that your assessment is proven fact.

Your assessment is not evidence of anything except what your opinion is.

You take this fake fact then make the giant leap it means Nevill switched beds with Sheila, that is the same kind of giant leap Mike makes.  You are 2 peas in a pod.

[Caroline]

Ann Eaton was wrong about the victims being in bed and many other things.  She was wrong about Jones saying she didn't see him take the shoe she said she didn't see him take the paint samples.  There is no reason to believe they took the shoes unless you produce evidence since they had no reason to take them, didn't go there to take them and failed to note taking them in their statements, pocketbook's etc.  It is just as suspect as the claim the bodies were in the bed.  But rational objective thought was never your strong suit and you flat out lied about Cook saying they took the samples because the family found damage to the mantle so honesty is another thing you lack. You have to make up support for yourself because you have NONE. You make stuff up all the time; like when you supposedly cut yourself and used the base of you palm to stop the blood. Every time you post BS like that, you expose yourself. Evidence? AE said they took the shoes, you're calling her a liar because it suits your agenda. What do you have that they didn't? Oh, that would be nothing!!

You are good at coming up with hairbrained nonsense but little else.  Your claims are EXACTLY like Mike's. You keep saying this because you think it will wind me up but it just show how petty you are when you're losing face!

Mike: Ann Eaton said June and Sheila were in the bed so this means they were in the bed despite all the evidence to the contrary. I was arguing against that long before you were here 

Caroline: Police took Sheila's Shoes because Ann Eatons says so and they even told her to keep it quiet.  Nevermind that Jones said he told her to keep quiet about the paint samples.  Nevermind tha tno police say they took the shoes and didn't writ in their pocketbooks that they took the shoes and that there are no log entries on property records corresponding to the shoes and that they all stated they went there from the express purpose of taking the paint samples...

Scipio - AE was wrong because I can't find any reference to police taking the shoes and police always tell the truth about everything. I don't want them to have said 'You haven't seen this' because that doesn't fit with what I believe and my opinion ABOVE ALL is what counts. I'm not interested in what people have said, the story needs to fall in line with what I think because I know everything and I'm NEVER wrong! If it doesn't, then it's because they were wrong or were lying!
 
You both ignore evidence and rely on errors in support of revisionist claims.  In the meantime the claim doesn't even help your claims.  Your SOLE evidence tha tthe photo shows a male slipper belonging to Nevill is an unclear photo which you say is clear in your opinion and that your assessment is proven fact.

Your assessment is not evidence of anything except what your opinion is. Just like you except that the picture shows an old mans slipper - the fact that you would rather argue the toss because you have a grudge, doesn't change the fact that it's an old mans slipper!

You take this fake fact then make the giant leap it means Nevill switched beds with Sheila, that is the same kind of giant leap Mike makes.  You are 2 peas in a pod. Opps! More pettiness - it's not arguing that you're good at, it's being petty and crying when you lose. Go make-up more friends for yourself - you need them. Perhaps you could make up a little excursion with them and get yourself out of the house and away from your computer for 5 mins. I'm sure whatever adventure you have, you'll always come out on top - but you're the one in control of these fantasies - so that's inevitable!

[Steve_uk]

Russell Faria was convicted on a pair of bloodied slippers. Watch this if you have time: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dateline/54680533#54680533

[scipio_usmc]

Russell Faria was convicted on a pair of bloodied slippers. Watch this if you have time: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dateline/54680533#54680533

Let's start from square one.

He alleges he came home and found his wife dead.  She was stabbed many times (55 total) and had the knife still sticking out of her neck.  Anyone seeing this would believe she was murdered but not him- he told police she committed suicide.

That alone made police suspicious that he called it suicide. It was ruled out as a suicide for sure because she died after a very early blow most of the stabs were post mortem and thus the amount of blood wasn't that much like normally is the case with a victim stabbed 55 times.

Indeed his slippers were worn during the killing and spatter got on them and then they were put away in the closet.  I don't find it particularly persuasive that someone else wore his slippers during the murder in order to frame him...

[Steve_uk]

Let's start from square one.

He alleges he came home and found his wife dead.  She was stabbed many times (55 total) and had the knife still sticking out of her neck.  Anyone seeing this would believe she was murdered but not him- he told police she committed suicide.

That alone made police suspicious that he called it suicide. It was ruled out as a suicide for sure because she died after a very early blow most of the stabs were post mortem and thus the amount of blood wasn't that much like normally is the case with a victim stabbed 55 times.

Indeed his slippers were worn during the killing and spatter got on them and then they were put away in the closet.  I don't find it particularly persuasive that someone else wore his slippers during the murder in order to frame him...

It's an interesting case scipio because he does seem to have an airtight alibi. There's also another person who has an interest in his wife's demise,namely Pamela Hupp. He's been released pending a retrial. I think he did it but can't make out how. http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-inexplicable-case-of-russ-faria.html

[lookout]

It would have seemed that the canvas shoes in which Sheila wore had to be removed in rather a hurry and without explanation which naturally leaves people guessing.

[Steve_uk]

It would have seemed that the canvas shoes in which Sheila wore had to be removed in rather a hurry and without explanation which naturally leaves people guessing.

Yes because why would they need to disappear were they so innocuous?