Good grief that could be me 8-)(--) Oh I see you have used the words "sad" and "worship" phew...
Why do you have difficulty accepting the fact that I have simply arrived at a different conclusion from yours and others based on my interpretation/perception of all the available information? I am not an apologist for JB at all as I believe he is the victim of a MoJ. And I have already stated that IF JB is guilty as charged then as far as I am concerned in his case life should mean life. My mind is always open.
MoJ's do occur. How many thought Stefan Kiszko was innocent? Not the appeal court judges first time around that's for sure. And YET in the end it was proved 100% he was innocent and the perpetrator, Ronald Castree, was eventually caught and charged using DNA evidence.
You didn't interpret anything differently, you chose to intentionally change facts to suit your agenda. The medical examiner said that the wounds to Nevill's left (elbow and shoulder) were minor. The most severe shot he suffered upstairs was the one that shattered his jaw. These wounds would take a long time before he would pass out. That is why Nevill had no problem running downstairs to the kitchen with these wounds. Both sides conceded there was a major struggle in the kitchen. Since you recognize that 5'7" skinny Sheila would have difficulty overpowering a fit 6'4" man who outweighed her by nearly 100 pounds at all let alone to do so without receiving a scratch in the process you consciously decide to ignore the evidence that this struggle occurred and say it didn't. How are you following the evidence when you simply are intentionally ignoring it?
The following narrative is not supported by the evidence but rather was entirely made up by you as a way to claim that Sheila did it, "Nevill was so weak from all his wounds he passed out upon entering the kitchen" [your supposed evidentiary basis is that if his 4 wounds were left untreated and no one did anything to stop the bleeding from these wounds then EVENTUALLY he would have passed out from blood loss and bled to death. The relevant issue is whether he would have been weak and passed out 1-2 minutes after being shot not an hour later. The medical examiner said these woulds were not severe enough to incapacitate him right away. So he wasn't dragged to the kitchen he had every ability to walk there under his own power and to engage in the struggle that the evidence says occurred.] "Then Sheila beat his lifeless body striking his arms, chest, face and head. Because he was lifeless she was able to beat his body without damaging herself in any way and she flung the rifle around as opposed to wielding it and that is how the stock broke" [your evidentiary basis for this is what? Well she suffered no wounds and you want to believe she did it so in your eyes that means making up that she repeatedly threw the gun at a lifeless body because if she actually struck him with her hands or held the gun while beating him with it then she would have received some kind of wound. So you say she threw it around and this is how it broke without harming her. You completely ignore the evidence of the thinks knocked over in th ekitchen as well as the marks that were made by the silencer as the parties wrestled over the gun. The reason why the scratches zigzag all around is because one person pulled one way while the other pulled a different way.]
Your claim she would beat a lifeless body is ridiculous. Why would she beat his arm in particular? His arm was clearly wounded as he raised it to block the blocks she was delivering. Even if he had been passed out it still would have resulted in her receiving injuries anyway hence your suggestion she threw the rifle around at him and this is how it broke as opposed to breaking in he rhands. Your claim she would repeatedly throw a rifle at a lifeless body is even more ridiculous than the claim she would beat a lifeless body.
So your explanation for her having no abrasions or scratches of any kind and no broken nails is that there was no scuffle and she simply repeatedly threw the rifle at a nonmoving body. What about your explanation as to how she could shoot the gun 25 times and get no gunshot residue on her body and clothing and no blood from the victims on her body not even her bare feet?
You suggest that after she killed everyone else she took a bath and changed her clothes. Supposedly she was aware that Nevill had called Jeremy and he could be there any minute but she decided she had plenty of time to take a bath and change her clothes even washing her hair so the gun shot residue would not be in her hair. She cleaned herself so thoroughly that she was able to fire 2 shots into herself wihtout any residue being deposted on her from these shots though she was hugging the rifle to fire. What evidence was there that she took a bath and changed her clothes? None. Why would she do so? What motivation would she have? None. Can you come up with any examples of killers decided to kill themselves and their family who killed the family, took a bath and then immediately killed themselves? No because it makes no sense. You claimed there are people who go about their ordinary life after committing murders who later end up committing suicide. You said you gave an example of this with a guy who washed his car after murdering his family. In fact the guy washed the car before. He stabbed his family and himself and then set the house on fire. 2 of the victims died before the fire was set but he and one of his sons died from smoke inhalation. He didn't wash himself or his car after murdering them he killed himself right away.
The only examples out there are people of people who committed murderedsuicide who bathed before commiting suicide ar epeople who initially planned to commitmurde rbut not suicide as well. They planned to escape liability so washed and acted as if nothing had happened. After being cornered by authorities that is when they committed suicide rather than be prosecuted and go to jail. Your fantasy acoc..t is entirely made up by you not based on any evidence.
The defense including those supporting his latest appeal argued that it was June and Nevill's blood in the suppressor. They admit the suppressor was used in the murders. They simply deny that there is evidence to prove it was used when Sheila was shot. Back in 1986 their own expert analyzed it and found blood on 7 ballfles but none beyond. That blood came back as Sheila's blood group. The expert came to the same conclusion as the prosecution expert. If complete mixing had not occurred than potentially it was June and Nevill's blood mixed together but there was only a very slight chance of this it was most likely Sheila's. The pattern was not idicative of blood being simply dripped in which would likely go from end to end but instead was consistent with spray becaus eit shot up into the baffles instead of dripping down the middle. Both sides agreed it was either Sheila's or June and Nevill's blood because the gun was not used to shoot any people prior to these murders let alone to shoot someone with the same blood groups as any of these victims.
This is very damaging because Jeremy insists he left the gun out without a suppressor. It means that Sheila would have had to go seek out the suppressor, install it prior to the murders and then to put it away after killing everyone else but before shooting herself. To go get it and install it contradicts the notion that she was in th emiddle of a psychotic episode and simply found the gun on the table and grabbed it. It shows making preparations and full understanding of what was going on. Going downstairs to put it away afterwards and then go back upstairs to shoot herself makes no sense at all. There is only one reason to do that- so no one who finds the bodies would know it had been used to commit the crimes. The only reason someone would do that is if they planned to leave the scene and escape liabiliy. Since this is so damaging how do you respond?
You ignore the defenses own expert who said the blood was back spatter that sprayed into the silencer when it was pressed against a victim and suggest that Jeremy's cousin somehow knew he shared the same blood type as Sheila, cut himself and planted his own blood in the silencer and he also scraped the silencer against the mantle shelf to frame Jeremy. You are not following the evidence you are intentionally ignoring the evidence and making up anything you can think of to try to suggest Jeremy is innocent.
You also ignore all the evidence of preplanning with respect to the phone. Prior to committing the murders the killer made sure the bedroom phone was relocated to the kitchen. The killer unplugged the kitchen phone, hid it and then plugged the bedroom phone in the kitchen. Who would do such a thing? Only a killer who intended to prevent the victims from identifying the killer to anyone would do that because the killer intended to try to escape liability. A crazy person bent on killing herself after everyone else would not be worried about her identity being revealed and would not even think up to do that in advance. Sheila spoke to her aunt at 9PM and was not in an agitated state.
You ignore this issue completely and just pretend there is nothing wrong with assuming she preplanned even though this is not consistent with the claim she had a psychotic episode in the middle of the night. There is no evidence she preplanned anything especially not preplanning to kill everyone else and then start a new life on her own. You also intentionally ignore that Nevill was shot before he could have used the phone and therefore would have been unable to speak. You suggest the following absurd scenario:
Sheila had a psychotic episode and went and woke up her parents. Rather than disarm her before she could do any harm, Nevill went downstairs to use the kitchen phone to call Jeremy and asked him to come disarm her even though Nevill had 7 inches and almost 100 pounds on Sheila. Sheila knocked the phone out of his hands and ordered him upstairs into the master bedroom. For some reason June didn't bother to move. He complied then she began shooting June and Nevill. June was immobilized but Nevill was't so he ran back downa into the kitchen and then passed out. She beat his limp body, shot him to death then went upstairs to finish off her mother and children.
Why would she not open fire in the bedroom the initial time she went in to wake them? Why wouldn't she shoot him in the kitchen as he was on the phone? She is supposedly in a crazy rage, why would she march him back upstairs into the bedroom before opening fire? This suggests a rational execution not a crazy rage. This stopry is not supported by anything, It conflicts with the very claims made of her being in a crazy rage. It was invented SOLELY to find a way to claim Nevill phoned Jeremy before SHeila opened fire because if she had shot Nevill before the call then:
1) Neville would have gotten blood on the phone
2) Neville would not have been able to speak because his jaw was shattered and voicebox damage
3) If Neville could talk by some miracle he would say Sheila shot him and his wife send medical help and in fact under these conditions would have called 999 to request medical help not to call his son who could do nothing for them and certainly couldn't keep it in the family under these conditions.
There is no evidence you are following to reach your conclusions. You decided that you will ignore all the evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Jeremy is guilty and insist he is innocent. Everything you do to try to justify your position involves you dismissing the evidence by making up nonsense that could explain how Sheila could have done it and yet there would be no physical evidence to establish she did it.
only 1 of the 2 people who could have committed the murders:
had a reason to remove the phone from the bedroom prior to the murders
had a reason to put the silencer away afterwards
had enough time to wash up and change clothes after the murders
had a motive to wash up and change clothes after the murders
was not inspected for wounds of gunshot residue after the murders
That person is Jeremy.
This doesn't even take into account how Jeremy called to wake his girlfriend before calling the police. Why would he wake her up to say something might be happening at the house instead of finding out what if anything happened before waking her? His action makes no sense and her account is that he told her his family was killed. She testified that before this he spoke about plotting to kill them and that his chance was when all were staying together under the same roof. If his nephews were not there then they would get Sheila's half of the estate he needed them all dead to get everything.
Her account is bolstered because instead of going there like a normal person would, Jeremy called her and then the police. He would not even go over after calling police he insisted they pick him up but they refused to he sat in his car, waited for them to pass him and then followed them there. Instead of being concerned enough to go investigate he was more concerned with police seeing that he arrived after them. Why was he so concerned with police seeing that he wasn't there before them? He could have safely sat outside the house spying before police arrived but chose not to do so because he didn't want them to know he was only 3 minutes away from their house. Upon arriving he lied to police telling them she fired every gun in the house and was proficient with them? Why did he lie? He conceded at trial he never saw her fire any gun as an adult. The guns in the house were all obtained while she was an adult so base don his own testomony he never saw her fire any of them. So why did he lie to police? He wanted police to believe she was capable of using the murder weapon and killed everyone. That is the only possible reason for his lie.
You intentionally choose to ignore all the evidence because for some odd reason you have decided to claim he is innocent and you well know the evidence is against you so you make up outrageous things to suggest he is innocent. That is the bottom line.
