Reason to believe cops shot Sheila, and how her blood ended up inside Silencer!

[Adam]

This were the questions. In direct response to claims in reply 479 -

What physical evidence existed at the scene that 'implicated Sheila as the killer' ? How do you know this ?

What evidence were the relatives given that saw two of them 'accept that Sheila could have been the killer' ? How do you know this ?

What two relatives were these ? How do you know this ?

What evidence was concealed that had shown Sheila was the killer ? How do you know this ?

Why did the police conceal evidence to frame an innocent man ?

When do you believe the truth will be made public ? It's been 32 years.

[susan]

Did you not think to ask the questions I did to Roch ?

Or have you already got the answers & sources ? If so please divulge.

Adam so sorry I have forgot the questions will have to go and have a wee look Roch is so busy answering all the questions

[Roch]

Right so if it's 'conclusive' evidence of Jeremy's innocence, how come those who know about (and to be fair including yourself) are sitting on it?

It's not my evidence to sit on and I have no influence over defence strategy.  But it might be a mistake to assume that it's being sat on.  This is why I am trying to communicate about what I think will happen further down the line. 

 

[susan]

This were the questions. In direct response to claims in reply 479 -

What physical evidence existed at the scene that 'implicated Sheila as the killer' ? How do you know this ?

What evidence were the relatives given that saw two of them 'accept that Sheila could have been the killer' ? How do you know this ?

What two relatives were these ? How do you know this ?

What evidence was concealed that had shown Sheila was the killer ? How do you know this ?

Why did the police conceal evidence to frame an innocent man ?

When do you believe the truth will be made public ? It's been 32 years.

Adam I think the post Roch has just made to Caroline answers all your questions the evidence is not his to tell you guess we will have to wait and see what happens further down the line.

[Roch]

Without knowing, there is nothing to prove he did.

Actually there is: as Simpson knew there was evidence that Sheila was responsible. 

[Jane]

OK.  Do you agree though that telling lies a dangerous strategy to convict a 'guilty' person? It's not exactly a sound base to begin from is it?

It wouldn't be my first choice for convicting a guilty person, but if it was one of my family who'd been robbed, hurt, raped or killed I don't think I'd be precious about it.

[Roch]

However it is dangerous as gullible posters will be influenced by long posts. Even if they are unsourced.

You sound worried that I may be influencing members' thinking on the forum.

[Caroline]

Actually there is: as Simpson knew there was evidence that Sheila was responsible.

We can't really debate this Roch without you saying what and how he knew it. You were right when you said it would be frustrating. All I can say is, that if he did have such evidence, it would have been all he needed to get the relatives off his and EP's back once and for all and he would have saved EP a LOT of embarrassment.

[Adam]

Adam so sorry I have forgot the questions will have to go and have a wee look Roch is so busy answering all the questions

I re posted the questions in reply 548. Which are not going to be answered.

If huge claims are made by a poster, you need to request they are justified. With sources. The same applies to me. Rather than just accept the post.

Yesterday I said the evidence showed there was no conversations at supper regarding fostering. This was backed up with 4 WS's regarding over 40 minutes of phone conversations.

[Roch]

It wouldn't be my first choice for convicting a guilty person, but if it was one of my family who'd been robbed, hurt, raped or killed I don't think I'd be precious about it.

Isn't that the whole point though?  Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

You and others are providing the relatives with excuses - when there is no guarantee in the first place that they were correct in their suspicions.

They will try to blame police and possibly Mugford, for the wrongful conviction.  Without the relative's intervention - there would be no wrongful conviction.

[Caroline]

Isn't that the whole point though?  Which came first - the chicken or the egg?

You and others are providing the relatives with excuses - when there is no guarantee in the first place that they were correct in their suspicions.

They will try to blame police and possibly Mugford, for the wrongful conviction.  Without the relative's intervention - there would be no wrongful conviction.

Or just conviction.

[Roch]

We can't really debate this Roch without you saying what and how he knew it. You were right when you said it would be frustrating. All I can say is, that if he did have such evidence, it would have been all he needed to get the relatives off his and EP's back once and for all and he would have saved EP a LOT of embarrassment.

Either something went wrong in the farmhouse - TFG complications / informatives / economical with the truth / scene staged etc or  Robert Boutflour had something on Simpson.

By agreeing to investigate (frame) Jeremy - the police effectively bought time to control the evidence that Robert would have threatened to expose - if they didn't agree to. 

[Roch]

Or just conviction.

No - it was Sheila.  I'm giving you all the opportunity to reconsider your positions - and the case.

[Caroline]

No - it was Sheila.  I'm giving you all the opportunity to reconsider your positions - and the case.

I won't be doing that.

[Caroline]

Either something went wrong in the farmhouse - TFG complications / informatives / economical with the truth / scene staged etc or  Robert Boutflour had something on Simpson.

By agreeing to investigate (frame) Jeremy - the police effectively bought time to control the evidence that Robert would have threatened to expose - if they didn't agree to.

Just how would RWB be party to such information? The man thought Bamber wore a wetsuit for goodness sake.