Scipio keep your posts non-personal please. If you're going to throw insults I shall simply ignore your posts. The choice is yours. If you want to debate the JB case with 'Top Totty' you need to keep me sweet 
You already ignore all posts that you are unable to address intelligently. For instance no response at all about the Bible though you brought it up. So spare me the rhetoric. I will post as I have always done, calling you out where necessary and you can continue running away becuase you have been bested and try to spin your running away as something else.
Yes JB's defence did him no favours at all. They accepted to readily:
1. The kitchen phone off the hook being connected to the call JB claim he received from NB.
2. The silencer being used by SC and returned to the cupboard.
3. Some sort of struggle taking place in the kitchen.
1. May be poss but BEFORE NB was shot upstairs. 2 & 3 I don't buy into at all.
You are free to ignore reality all you like to arrive at your opinions. Lawyers deal in facts and evidence.
You claim there is nothing suspicious about a perfectly good touchtone phone being unplugged, hidden and then replaced by the bedroom rotary phone. The jury and other rational people disagree. There was no reason to unplug the phone, hide it and replace it with a roatary dial phone other than to make sure there was no phone in the bedroom. What witnesses could the defense have called to try to dispute the obvious? None and that is how lawyers present evidence in a court, we interview witnesses. So right off the bat there is evidence the murders were planned in advance contrary to Sheila suddenly going crazy while everyone was asleep.
The phone in the kitchen was definitely off the hook when police entered and the last phone call made on that phone was to Jeremy. The telephone company had an agent testify to these points and testified it was never hung up at WHF rather the call to Goldhanger ended by the person at Goldhanger hanging up. Who did the defense have who could contradict the telephone company employee? No one. You say the telephone expert was wrong. What evidence do you have to prove him wrong though? None. You choose not to believe the agent simply because you want Jeremy to be innocent so you close your eyes to the evidence.
How could the defense have challenged the blood in the suppressor when their own witness found microscopic drops of blood on the first 7 baffles? They needed an expert to testify to challenge the blood. Their expert said he found type A blood on the 1st seven baffles. How would microscopic traces get on these 1st seven baffles? Accidental contamination is impossible. It had to have been sprayed there just like the spray from back spatter. They had no witness who would testify it couldn't be back spatter and had to be planted. I have yet to see any expert come forward to explain a spray device that could have been used to replicate the pattern found. The defense would need to produce such a witness and to establish there is a reasonable likelihood that someone obtained type A blood and used such device to insert it in the suppressor. There is no evidence that the defense could find someone to help establish such was possible at all let alone a reasonable probability it happened.
The best they could do was argue the blood might not be Sheila's because of a chance it was a mixture of Nevill and June's blood. The prosecution's own expert admitted such was a possibility. The defense tried to ge thim to testify that there was a reasonable probability it was a mixture but the best they could get him to admit to was that it was a remote possibility. That was their only real shot at diminishing the significance of the blood int he suppressor.
You failed miserably at suggesting the blood was planted and you are not limited by the same rules of evidence that lawyers are. I completely crushed you in the debate about the blood which is why you ran away from said debate. The fact you refuse to face facts and evidence doesn't change those facts and evidence it just makesyou look like a fool.
The evidence of a struggle in the kitchen is overwhelming. Nevill was battered and bruised, the bruises prove the rifle was used and he has defensive wounds on his arms indicating he was still conscious and trying to defend himself. His head was eventually bashed in though, so hard that the stock broke. The ceiling light was broken as they wrestled over the gun and the suppressor hit the shade, various items knocked off the counter or turned over. Also the suppressor was scratched against the mantle as the gun was wrestled over. What evidence coudl the defense use to try to rebut this? They had no witness who was willing to deny this evidence proves there was a struggle.
You insist that there was no struggle, Nevill was unconscious and his limp body was needlessly beaten including bashing his arms. What basis do you have for such a claim? None and your claims make no sense. You just insist that is the case because you want Jeremy to be innocent and during the course of such a struggle Sheila would have damage a nail at minimum if not received other injuries so you just say there was no struggle at all.
You also say that Sheila woke Nevill up and threatend him with the gun. Instead of disarming her, he went downstairs and made a phonecall to Jeremy asking Jeremy to come disarm her. It took Jeremy a while to get out of bed and go answer the phone which was downstairs. Despite the length of time required just to get Jeremy to even answer, Sheila did not interfere with the call until after he already spoke to Jeremy so he had quite a bit of time to make this call and wait for Jeremy to answer and then to speak. Why didn't Sheila just shoot him as he was dialing? Nope nor does she shoot him as he was speaking or after he drops the phone. Shes marched him upstairs to the bedroom so she could shoot her mother and father the same time. She makes both parents get back in bed and begins shooting them. Nevill is wounded but runs down to use the phone again but passes out. She then beats his limp body and shoots him.
Your fairytale makes no sense and there is absolutely no evidence to support it. You just made it up to suggest that Nevill really did make the phone call because you want to believe Jeremy is innocent. How could the defense find someone who would testify to such a story. They couldn't. The evidence is clear, the killer went into the master bedroom and began shooting the parents while they were in bed, Nevill was shot 4 times but managed to get to the kitchen where the struggle over the gun took place, he was beaten, the killer regained sole control of the weapon and shot him 4 more times in the head killing him. Police did not originally know this is what happened it took a full analysis of the crime scene to determine this is how it went down and this drastically calls the claim of Nevill phoning Jeremy into question because his injuries would have precluded him from speaking and if by some miracle he could speak he would have announced he and June had been shot and needed medical attention. This is why you make up the fairytale of Nevill making a call before she ever fired the gun but since the shooting started in the bedroom it requires a whole convoluted fairytale of him being marched back upstairs at gunpoint because this "crazy" person decided to wait and shoot him in the bedroom instead of while he was calling for help. It makes no sense and what would June be doing still in bed knowing what was going on?
You also keep ignoring that the killer used additional bullets than those left in the kitchen and might not have used the box left in the kitchen at all. If Jeremy is telling the truth that the box was either full or only missing 1-3 rounds that means the killer used 5-8 additional rounds secured from the gun closet. If he is lying and the box always had 30 rounds then all 25 rounds came from the closet.
Why would Sheila use 17-20 rounds from the box in the kitchen but go to the closet to get 5-8 more rounds? The box still had 30 rounds why would she go get 5-8 from the closet instead of taking all 25 rounds needed from the box?
You ignore all these things and just make up anything you feel like. Lawyers go by facts and evidence they don't have the luxury of making up anything they feel like and testifying themselves to a jury declaring their wild tales as fact.
On TV they show lawyers making statements as they question witnesses. In real life you have to ask questions you can't make statements and if a witness doesn't answer to your liking you have to try to remedy that with additional witnesses of your own to contradict them.
You fault Rivlin for being confined to the rules of evidence and facts of the case. You wanted him to make up things the way you do but he would have little basis to do so and no means to get such before a jury. The prosecution would rip such nonsense apart anyway even if a defense expert claimed it were possible.
