Ending the SJ/1 nonsense once and for all

[Adam]

At trial the defense argued perhaps the blood inside the moderator belonged to June and Nevill and after killing everyone Sheila put the moderator in the closet and washed and changed before killing herself. 

This was their way of trying to refute the moderator evidence proved she was murdered by someone and also an attempt to explain away the lack of evidence on her clothing and body to indicate she had killed the others.

Have you got a source ?

Wilkes's book said the judge said it would be hard to fathom why Sheila would shoot herself once and then put the moderator away. After saying it was Sheila's blood in it. He did not mention of the possibility of it not being her blood.

[David1819]

Have you got a source ?

Wilkes's book said the judge said it would be hard to fathom why Sheila would shoot herself once and then put the moderator away. After saying it was Sheila's blood in it. He did not mention of the possibility of it not being her blood.

[lookout]

 So who's telling the truth ?

[Adam]

Thank you David.

It was actually impossible for Sheila to shoot herself once, then  put the silencer into a box at the back of the gun cupboard.

But 'hard to fathom' that Sheila would shoot everyone and then put the silencer away. Before going upstairs to shoot herself.

It is human blood in the silencer and it looks bad for Jeremy. Thread already created.

[scipio_usmc]

Have you got a source ?

Wilkes's book said the judge said it would be hard to fathom why Sheila would shoot herself once and then put the moderator away. After saying it was Sheila's blood in it. He did not mention of the possibility of it not being her blood.

The reason why the judge said it would be hard to fathom was because the defense asserted such.  If they didn't assert it then there would have been no claim for the judge to even reference.

Are you honestly suggesting the defense didn't try to argue that it was June and Nevill's blood and that Sheila put it away before killing herself?  Had they not argued such they would not have had any defense at all to the prosecution's assertions with respect to the moderator. 

 

[Caroline]

So who's telling the truth ?

Neither one is lying, they are just giving their opinion.

[lookout]

Neither one is lying, they are just giving their opinion.

They're both wrong anyway. If it's got anything to do with AK1 being present,then it's rabbit blood.

[Caroline]

They're both wrong anyway. If it's got anything to do with AK1 being present,then it's rabbit blood.

Yes Lookout! 

[maggie]

Then explain how the change in designations undermines the evidence found inside the moderator.  The only way one can argue such is if one argues evidence was planted in multiple moderators and there was  aneed to hide such.  That is what Mike keeps claiming but it makes zero sense on top of not having any evidence to support it.

Scenario:

I am hired to represent Jeremy.

I want to allege the blood evidence was planted but have nothing valid to raise so I allege the family planted paint and blood on moderator SBJ/1, the family subsequently planted even more blood in another moderator that was labeled DB/1 and then the police changed the designation to conceal evidence was planted on 2 different moderators.

What would the result be?

I would be humiliated because the reason for the change from DB/1 to DRB/1 is unassailable/.  It is an absolute fact there already was a DB/1 from David Bird and it is not permitted to have 2 exhibits using the same reference so one of them had to be changed.  They changed the newer one retaining the older designation for the item that already had it.

The reason given for changing SBJ/1 to DB/1 is a valid one and their is considerable evidence demonstrating they changed it for the reason stated including the fact they changed all 4 items found by Boutflour not merely the moderator. 

While they give a valid reason for the change and I have no evidence to refute that reason worse still- my allegations make no sense.  It makes zero sense for the family to plant evidence on 2 different moderators that would demonstrate to everyone that they had planted evidence on at least 1 of them because only one moderator would have been used to commit the murders.  If the police were going to plant evidence on a moderator within their possession they would plant it all on the same moderator not multiple moderators.  Since I have no evidence to refute the claims made by the witness as to why the changes occurred I would already not be able to prevail.  But since these allegations make no sense I would be a laughing stock if I claimed such to a Court.

On rare occasion people do absurd things and if you have proof that someone did something ludicrous then you present such to a court but you don't make absurd allegations that you can't prove because you look ridiculous and lose credibility with the judges.

Do you believe in 'noble cause corruption' scipio? Just curious.

[David1819]

Thank you David.

It was actually impossible for Sheila to shoot herself once, then  put the silencer into a box at the back of the gun cupboard.

But 'hard to fathom' that Sheila would shoot everyone and then put the silencer away. Before going upstairs to shoot herself.

It is human blood in the silencer and it looks bad for Jeremy. Thread already created.

It depends on Shelia's personality. If she was an OCD type person she could have put the weapon and silencer away nicely packed away, Then several hours later believing a police raid was imminent took the gun out the cuboard went back upstairs then shot herself.

But Its extremely extremely unlikely

[maggie]

I can't believe that Jones didn't ask where it was found and who found it - especially the fuss made about it around the kitchen table just days before.

If it happened the way its stated I cannot believe AE ever saw it, her description doesn't stand up. No blood could have appeared like 'a blob of jam' after hours never mind days..... it doesn't make sense, as you proved.

[David1819]

If it happened the way its stated I cannot believe AE ever saw it, her description doesn't stand up. No blood could have appeared like 'a blob of jam' after hours never mind days..... it doesn't make sense, as you proved.

Yeah dried blood is brown not red. Also David Boutflour in an interview in 2005 claimed it was all "sticky"

[scipio_usmc]

Do you believe in 'noble cause corruption' scipio? Just curious.

1) I don't believe corruption is ever noble.

2) Some people do try to rationalize their corrupt behavior as benevolent but that doesn't make it so

3) That doesn't deal with the precise points at hand regarding the issue of the designation changes. If one is trying to argue the changes were done to enable planting of evidence that one must rational set forth how it is so and then provide evidence.  The suggestion the family planted evidence in multiple moderators or that the police did so is absurd. That is what people try to claim happened and rely upon the multiple designations as proof.  The multiple designations fail to prove the absurd happened though. For Jeremy it is thus a worthless legal issue and that is why it wasn't raised in the 2002 appeal. They lumped in other crap that was really weak but didn't lump in the allegation of the designation changes establishing the moderator evidence was fabricated. They didn't leave it out because of incompetence they left it out because they had no valid argument.

[David1819]

1) I don't believe corruption is ever noble.

That's not really the point.   The Elliot Turner case is a good example, He claimed he killed his girlfiend by accident but police obtained evidence of him and his parents in a convosation proving it was no accident.
This evidence was technically obtained illegally therefore should not have been shown to the jury but they did so anyway. corruption can in some cases be good.

 

[scipio_usmc]

If it happened the way its stated I cannot believe AE ever saw it, her description doesn't stand up. No blood could have appeared like 'a blob of jam' after hours never mind days..... it doesn't make sense, as you proved.

Different people have different descriptions for the same exact thing. One might think it looks nothing like the item someone else compared it to that is why such is subjective. People see colors differently as well mind you.  A dried blob of jam can in fact resemble dried blood in terms of shape and consistency.  The shape and texture of blood will vary by the nature of the location, amount and much more. The color of blood changes over time.  The color of jelly varies greatly from orange shades to brown, burgundy and even deep purple. For Christmas I got a thing with a bunch of tiny bottles of various jellies and cheeses and other crap.  They had all sorts of exotic ones in various colors. Just saying something looks like jelly doesn't mean much unless you nail down things further. 

She didn't say it looked wet people just assumed that because a blob often is wet but not always. If she said it looked wet that would be a different matter.  In the meantime she said she didn't get a good look at it because the men were busy with it.