Ending the SJ/1 nonsense once and for all

[scipio_usmc]

Of course they do but they were unable to get their story straight. Even now you have BW stating that she saw the silencer with blood on it. I'm certainly not buying that.

They couldn't recall whether BW saw it or not because it wasn't significant. They admit she was there so she could very well have seen it.  If there were some grand conspiracy then they would have said she saw it and police would have made sure they had her put such in her statement.  They didn't need her or Cock to put it in their statements because they had the statements from the person who found it and the people who were given custody of it and turned it over to police.  that is all that was needed.

You have not posted anything rational to challenge the moderator with at all the most you do is post you choose not to accept it though you can't find anything to actually use to attack it.  What you choose to believe makes no difference at all.  In a debate what matters is what evidence can be brought to bear.

People keep saying they are not suggesting the family planted the blood but choose not to believe the moderator evidence.  To be able to rationally discount the moderator one has to believe the evidence was planted and would need to set forth who they think did it and how.

What I see are people who don't want to accept the moderator evidence and are struggling to find a way to justify what they choose to believe as opposed to following the evidence where it leads. 

If police decided to plant evidence in the moderator they would simply have made up finding it themselves prior to turning the house over to the family.  By rights they should have taken all the firearms related materials anyway.  Telling the family to lie would make no sense at all. In the meantime the evidence it was analyzed in the lab and paint and human blood found on July 13 and the police notified the 14th is ironclad.  I see no one able to deal with such.

The only one who has come up with a plausible planting scenario that takes all the evidence into account is me. That scenario requires:

1) the family to have planted human blood in the opening, on the face and paint on the knurled edge so that the lab was able to find such on July 13.

2) the lab to have planted more blood on the 8 baffles ad the flake in between baffles 1 and 2  in order to simulate drawback

3) conceal that blood was found inside the rifle muzzle

So there needs to have been 2 distinct plantings of evidence and a concealing of blood found in the rifle.

No one who wants to discount the moderator wants to face this because they know the chances to 2 plantings occurring are so remote.

People who want to discount it raise some cloud of suspicion which is a amorphous, non-specific and unclear. That demonstrates not only speculation but ill defined speculation to boot.

My scenario is surely speculation because there is no evidence it occurred but at least it is a well thought out speculation which if there were evidence to prove then it would actually undermine the moderator and since I constructed it around the evidence this makes it plausible in the theoretical sense. 

[Adam]

BW apparently said something different decades later. Was she in on the frame ?

Why would the relatives involve her ? They didn't need to.

[Adam]

Earlier today Nugs was saying the police should have found the silencer. Even Caroline argued against this.

The other thing asked is who was actually in the room when the silencer was found. No one knows or why it is important. However common sense suggests people were scattered around WHF.

[Adam]

Everything fits with the silencer -

It makes sense for Jeremy to use the silencer.

It makes sense for him to take it off. After realising before or during the massacre Sheila could not shoot herself.

It makes sense for him to put it away. Not expecting the police and certainly not the relatives to look for it.  He may not have been aware of back splatter either.

It makes sense for the police to not find the silencer. Thread already created.

It makes sense for suspicious relatives to find the silencer.

It makes sense for there to blood, paint and a hair on it. If it was not cleaned or not cleaned properly.

[Caroline]

if they dident see the silencer with blood on it why would they think it was of any significance.

I was talking about BW.

[Caroline]

Earlier today Nugs was saying the police should have found the silencer. Even Caroline argued against this.

The other thing asked is who was actually in the room when the silencer was found. No one knows or why it is important. However common sense suggests people were scattered around WHF.

OK Adam, this is pretty simple but because you don't seem to be able to grasp it - I'll explain. It's important BECAUSE several people claim to have been there at the moment it was found. However, DB (the guy who actually found it) doesn't mention anyone being there and talks about the find as though he were alone! OK? 

[maggie]

Hello Maggie

If the family tried to frame Jeremy for the murders it is because they firmly believed he was guilty and they were so worried he would walk away a free man just my humble opinion

Hi Susan I . Agree that could have been the case. I was telling scipio he was assuming I believe the family framed jeremy but I do not necessarily think that. I do believe the statements do not correspond and that DB spoke in his statement as though he were alone when he found the moderator but others contradict that.

[maggie]

Of course they do but they were unable to get their story straight. Even now you have BW stating that she saw the silencer with blood on it. I'm certainly not buying that.

I agree Caroline, BW was an unreliable witness imo, she seems to have been prone to exaggeration at times.

[Adam]

OK Adam, this is pretty simple but because you don't seem to be able to grasp it - I'll explain. It's important BECAUSE several people claim to have been there at the moment it was found. However, DB (the guy who actually found it) doesn't mention anyone being there and talks about the find as though he were alone! OK? 

Several people were there at the moment it was found. All inside WHF.

When the finder said 'I've found the silencer', other people near by would recall it as being there at the time.

If the statements differ slightly then there is nothing sinister in it.

[nugnug]

well it is a sigfifcant event so you would think they would remember.

[Adam]

I've not seen the statements which apparently have these great differences. Hopefully Caroline can highlight them.

[scipio_usmc]

Hi Susan I . Agree that could have been the case. I was telling scipio he was assuming I believe the family framed jeremy but I do not necessarily think that. I do believe the statements do not correspond and that DB spoke in his statement as though he were alone when he found the moderator but others contradict that.

David Boutflour said he wasn't sure if anyone was in the room at the time he found it or they came in after the find. He was asked more than a month later.  Similarly the others were not positive of exactly where they were when he first found it for the same exact reason.

SInce they were not framing Jeremy they were honest about their uncertainty and Robert Boutflour was honest about not having his glasses and thus not seeing it well. If they were framing him then they would say they were all definitely with him and definitely saw the blood and scratch instantly...

[Jane]

David Boutflour said he wasn't sure if anyone was in the room at the time he found it or they came in after the find. He was asked more than a month later.  Similarly the others were not positive of exactly where they were when he first found it for the same exact reason.

SInce they were not framing Jeremy they were honest about their uncertainty and Robert Boutflour was honest about not having his glasses and thus not seeing it well. If they were framing him then they would say they were all definitely with him and definitely saw the blood and scratch instantly...

You COULD be right...................on the other hand I can offer valid alternatives, and I wouldn't mid betting that were the boot on the OTHER foot, so, too, could you. You may even have found yourself being part of such.

You assert that if they were framing him they'd all have said the same thing and stuck to the story yet you must know that doing so CAN be seen as very suspicious -I believe police use every sort of trick to break these group stories. It maybe that at the last moment the enormity hit them of what they were attempting to do -was he REALLY guilty?  One sees this on a daily basis from class room to board room when people don't want to own responsibility. A group will swear undivided loyalty to each other in private but lose confidence publicly. This could explain BW's odd behaviour. Other than Cock, she was the only one who wasn't family. Although she was close to them, blood is thicker than water, they had each other for support and she may have felt unsupported and isolated with the -possible- lie and floundered. Her polarized statements suggest this may be true.

Re RWB not having his glasses. I'm inclined to say "Pull the other one." This was the person MOST responsible for pushing the case against Jeremy. He had gone to WHF with the intention of looking for something to further this. Of course, it's possible that he forgot his glasses, but I find it difficult to believe. Also difficult to believe is that he was SO short sighted that he couldn't have seen blood although I CAN see the difficulty he may have experienced with a colourless hair of only an inch long.

[maggie]

You COULD be right...................on the other hand I can offer valid alternatives, and I wouldn't mid betting that were the boot on the OTHER foot, so, too, could you. You may even have found yourself being part of such.

You assert that if they were framing him they'd all have said the same thing and stuck to the story yet you must know that doing so CAN be seen as very suspicious -I believe police use every sort of trick to break these group stories. It maybe that at the last moment the enormity hit them of what they were attempting to do -was he REALLY guilty?  One sees this on a daily basis from class room to board room when people don't want to own responsibility. A group will swear undivided loyalty to each other in private but lose confidence publicly. This could explain BW's odd behaviour. Other than Cock, she was the only one who wasn't family. Although she was close to them, blood is thicker than water, they had each other for support and she may have felt unsupported and isolated with the -possible- lie and floundered. Her polarized statements suggest this may be true.

Re RWB not having his glasses. I'm inclined to say "Pull the other one." This was the person MOST responsible for pushing the case against Jeremy. He had gone to WHF with the intention of looking for something to further this. Of course, it's possible that he forgot his glasses, but I find it difficult to believe. Also difficult to believe is that he was SO short sighted that he couldn't have seen blood although I CAN see the difficulty he may have experienced with a colourless hair of only an inch long.

Its unclear if RB's need for glasses was for age related long sightedness but due to him being mature that's a strong probability.  We were lead to believe by AE the blood was red and prominent, not inside the aperture f the moderator but on it, if that was the situation a long sighted person without reading glasses could hold an object further away to view more clearly. I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have been able to make it out. If his eyes were very bad I pretty certain a man such as RB would always carry his glasses, so frustrating being unable to read anything and not his style IMO.

[maggie]

If the blood on the moderator was more of a stain which is more likely and would have been difficult to see without magnifiers that is an acceptable statement by RB but leaves us wondering how AE saw a 'blob of jam' as she stated, this makes me question what was on the moderator, and who actually saw it ?