If it was all so obvious why did experienced police officers, including soc, the pathologist, dr etc run with 4 murders/1 suicide for over a month AND allow JB to leave the country? He returned voluntarily I hasten to add! Oh I forget JB was clever, devious and convincing...well for a month at least and then hey presto it all fell into place and his 'monumental errors' were... well... so glaringly obvious!
You always ignore that when the pathologist was given the full story he changed his mind and lambasted the police for giving him limited erroenous information originally.
As for police, many of them had differen tviews than Taff Jones who spent a very short time there and didn't bother to investigate thoroughly. A more thorough investigation including receiving the results of the forensic tests changed police perception tremendously which is OFTEN the case. That is why a full investigation is necessary instead of just going by gut impressions.
You basically suggest that the initial reactions have to be right though it is often the case that things are found to be not what they appear to be. How could initial police know which wound Sheila sufffered first? How could initial police know Nevill was unable to speak by the time he reached the kitchen so the phone call can't have happened? How coudl initial police know the phone was neve rhung up at WHF? How could initial police know Jeremy lied about Sheila firing all weapons in the house and being proficient with them? How could police know he lied about teaching her how to use the murder weapon? How could police know there were for sure only 25 shots fired and therefore the ammo left out by Jeremy could not have been the ammo used? How could police know which wounds are contact wounds and thus there should have been back spatte rin the weapon and whose back spatter should be in there and if it was in fact there? How oculd initial police know that Jeremy knew how to get in and out of the house while it was bloted fromt he inside? I can go on and on about the variables that are ascertained DURING the course of an investigation not immediately upon reaching a scene.
Your position is chilidish and can be summarized as follows: police initially believed that Sheila comitted murder suicide so she had to have comitted murder suicide and tha tmeans the evidence against Jeremy was planted even though you can't provide a shred of evidence to establish any of it was in fact planted.
Such a position is not a sound position it is a position of someone living in denial and not something that oculd even be raised in court let alone have any impact in juror's minds.
The funny thing is that you attack Rivlin constantly yet you are unable to challenge the evidenc ein any manner that could have been made in court. Your unsupported, vague allegations mean absolutely nothing to a court. What matters in court is what you can prove with evidence. The evidence is all against Jeremy and you have no way to refute the evidence soo you don't want to discuss it in detail you instead just cop out and make the generalized claim it all must have been planted because he is innocent and must have been planted because the evidence goes against the assessment made by the initial hunches of those on the scene. With people who don't want to believe Jeremy is guily this might get you somewhere but to objective people it is a non starter.
The laws of physics and recoil are not susceptible to bias. A gun held in the manner asserted will recoil away from her so even if she mananged to fire the gun again after being killed the second shot would be higher not lower. There is no way she could have fired a second shot anyway after being killed your death grip theroy holds no water because there were no signs of death grip and moreover death grip will not cause a thumb to push down on a trigger a second time it means the hand freezes in the position it was in at death. Instant rigor. Only a fully automatic weapon will continue to fire if death grip occurrs. These are just a couple of things which could not be discerned from the initial look at the scene but needed further investigation to reveal.
The botom line is that your defense of Jeremy is not driven by the evidence but rather driven by your emotions and your emotions make you ignore evidence because you don't want to face he is guilty. It is your right to live in denial but that is not going to convince anyone to share your views it will just drive peopel away from your views and render you lacking in credibility.
