I wonder if there's a formulation of words that we could all agree on. In your post #250 in the sound moderator thread you write:
Why would Jeremy stage Nevill's body? In an attempt to exclude from evidence the moderator he had used in the killings, realising that a moderated gun in and of itself potentially implicates him, and also having realised at some point that Sheila could not kill herself with a moderated gun. His error was in not understanding the forensic possibilities of the moderator. He puts the moderator back rather than taking it with him because he thinks the moderator will be missed.
Whether you like it or not you have admitted that the sound moderator is classified in the forensic evidence category. Now I am perfectly prepared to admit that it is not the smoking gun the guilters are looking for and indeed many here deny its involvement in the crime. I thoroughly respect that view.
All I would say to you is that IF you believe the silencer was used by Jeremy and IF you believe that he left it in situ in the gun cupboard then I am entitled because of the purported telephone call from Nevill to himself to infer that the suspects are limited to two, namely Sheila or Jeremy. Therefore IF I rule out Sheila for many valid reasons I am entitled to say that as Sheila's blood was more likely present in the sound moderator than Robert Boutflour's (or anyone else's with Type A blood) then the sound moderator is a piece of forensic evidence which is incriminatory towards Jeremy.
I don't profess to know everything about the case, which is why I enjoy reading other members' opinions here. I might suggest that it is you who is trying to close off debate by framing it in paramaters that most of us here just do not accept.
No, no, no, no....Again, with great respect, you've misunderstood me. The point is that the evidence doesn't directly link Jeremy to the crime. I realise that, in and of itself, this isn't very important. I only attach significance to it in the sense of how I am reasoning the whole thing out. In other words, I'm (provisionally) concluding that the lack of direct forensic evidence is of no relevance (which, if anything, leans in favour of the anti-Bamber position, though I would argue it's a neutral conclusion on the basis that, oddly enough, the Crown could actually have used the lack of forensics in support of their case). Of course, you may find all that to be a statement of the obvious, but remember I am trying to delineate the issues here from
a neutral perspective. I'm not taking sides and I need to be able to think all this through as logically as my capabilities allow.
If I come across as frustrated and angry, it's because I am trying to understand this case from a neutral position and it is very frustrating when people want to 'take sides'. I've explained why taking sides is completely unhelpful given the special features of this case.
