Sherlock has solved the case at last ...

[Jane]

It had been noted that large areas of blood had been found on the back of Sheila,or her nightdress ? Where had this come from ? If she'd showered,these areas wouldn't be there unless she'd received an injury to her back after ? Which couldn't/wouldn't have been possible after having killed everyone then herself.
A strange place for blood to have been.

Yes, it's been noted, however, all I saw was a patch in the region of/just beneath her shoulder. It was NOT a "large area".

[Stephanie]

There is only one piece of "evidence" the silencer. That is "all the forensics point to Jeremy" Take the silencer out you don't have anything.

Oh but there is David, only you are choosing to ignore and dismiss it in a blinkered fashion due to the fact it doesn't support your theory

The silencer is circumstantial evidence but there is a wealth of other circumstantial evidence which Adam (and others) keep pointing out to you

[Kaldin]

Oh but there is David, only you are choosing to ignore and dismiss it in a blinkered fashion due to the fact it doesn't support your theory

The silencer is circumstantial evidence but there is a wealth of other circumstantial evidence which Adam (and others) keep pointing out to you

I would have said that the silencer was actually not circumstantial evidence, although much of the other evidence definitely is circumstantial.

[Stephanie]

I would have said that the silencer was actually not circumstantial evidence, although much of the other evidence definitely is circumstantial.

What is it then

[Stephanie]

It's indirect evidence

Circumstantial indirect evidence

[Kaldin]

What is it then

I would say it was direct evidence that the moderator had been used. It's only indirect evidence in that it depends if you believe that Sheila put it back in the cupboard or not.

[guest2181]

I would have said that the silencer was actually not circumstantial evidence, although much of the other evidence definitely is circumstantial.

I suppose it's both.

It's direct evidence in the sense that human blood was identified in the silencer, but it's circumstantial to say that Sheila couldn't have returned it to the cupboard containing her blood.

[guest2181]

Oh but there is David, only you are choosing to ignore and dismiss it in a blinkered fashion due to the fact it doesn't support your theory

The silencer is circumstantial evidence but there is a wealth of other circumstantial evidence which Adam (and others) keep pointing out to you

Of course, circumstantial does not mean 'weak'.

[Kaldin]

I suppose it's both.

It's direct evidence in the sense that human blood was identified in the silencer, but it's circumstantial to say that Sheila couldn't have returned it to the cupboard containing her blood.

Yes to both. However, it's the best bit of forensic evidence the prosecution had at the time.

[guest2181]

Yes to both. However, it's the best bit of forensic evidence the prosecution had at the time.

Perhaps that's why the Judge referred to it in his summing up.

[Stephanie]

Then there's the behavioural evidence

[guest2181]

Perhaps that's why the Judge referred to it in his summing up.

And also why the defence has tried to attack the circumstantial aspect over the years.

[lookout]

And also why the defence has tried to attack the circumstantial aspect over the years.

Why not,it doesn't always follow as hard evidence in a murder case ?

[Stephanie]

It was June's fault the way Sheila had ended up. Nobody else's. Psychological abuse at its worst from a controlling mother.

How do you think Jeremy faired with his mother Lookout? Do you think he was damaged in anyway, like you say Sheila was?

[Kaldin]

Then there's the behavioural evidence

That's very circumstantial and very open to interpretation.