Were YOUR words not something along the lines of Pam and June TELLING RWB that they had seen Jeremy getting Sheila to load a rifle? The statement has June -alone- ASKING him what he would have thought if he'd observed such. She THEN says Sheila didn't do it because she wasn't interested. Something YOU failed to include. You altered the meaning to suit your own purposes, I believe.
The argument comes from Michael Turners COA notes in 2002 I quote
Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases. That's where the argument comes from I am simply quoting him.
Then you must consider this
A) RWB never wrote this in his August dairy when discussing the Jeremy planting prints
B) Pam never corroborated this
C) Police tested the casings for prints, that's on record both forensic and written
D) Police found prints on the shell casings and RB was given information "in confidence" by the police
E) Later on the Police denied the existence of and covered up the testing of the prints and never mentioned.
F) Jeremy denied ever showing Sheila how to reload a rifle. (I can introduce testimony from Jeremy because its corroborated by points ABCDE)
Does ABCDEF prove Jeremy innocent? No but what it does prove is
1. The fingerprints on the shell casings was something they wanted to cover up
2. Police are dishonest
3. RWB is being untruthful
4. Jeremy is being truthful (on this issue at least)
