can anyone who believes Jeremy is innocent actaully provide a basis for such

[scipio_usmc]

I have only been worried by the apparent lack of evidence that Shiela was ever in the kitchen walking on broken glass.  But I have seen a photograph that strongly suggests that her feet were cut by something, probably broken glass.

The photo you are referring to doesn't have any cuts so far as I can see.  Worse though such photo has never been established to be Sheila's foot.  It looks more like June's though might not even be from the case for all we know.  The defense has been rather silent about this issue.  There is a blotch of dirt on it and then little marks that could be anything even simply blemishes of the skin.  I do not know what the technical name is but there are discolorings that form right under the initial layer. The only person in a position to say what definitely was found on her body was Vanezis.

[Eleanor]

Scipio.  No need to be quite so scathing.  In My Opinion.

[Eleanor]

PS. No need to be quite so scathing to Holly Goodhead, I meant.  You can be as scathing as you like to me.

[Myster]

PS. No need to be quite so scathing to Holly Goodhead, I meant.  You can be as scathing as you like to me.

You maccanochist, you!

All I see is an area of dirt (circled right), which might have come from her slipper/shoe insoles or from the floor anywhere in the house, and a couple of reddish marks (circled left) which may or not be cuts, but possibly blood spots. Again these marks could have come from insoles, or from blood picked up from the carpet as she (was) walked through the master bedroom. Looks like it was taken on a stainless steel gurney/mortuary table from the mirrored reflection you can see, not solid black as you would expect from a non-reflective surface like a carpet.

[Eleanor]

You maccanochist, you!

All I see is an area of dirt (circled right), which might have come from her slipper/shoe insoles or from the floor anywhere in the house, and a couple of reddish marks (circled left) which may or not be cuts, but possibly blood spots. Again these marks could have come from insoles, or from blood picked up from the carpet as she (was) walked through the master bedroom. Looks like it was taken on a stainless steel gurney/mortuary table from the mirrored reflection you can see, not solid black as you would expect from a non-reflective surface like a carpet.

Thanks for the photo.  But her foot might have been cleaned up by then.  May or may not be cuts. So there could be some doubt.

Maccanochist?  You could be right about that that.  But at least I am trying to get around the forum a bit.  Even if only for a smidgeon of light relief.

[Holly Goodhead]

PS. No need to be quite so scathing to Holly Goodhead, I meant.  You can be as scathing as you like to me.

Thanks Eleanor    Scipio can be as scathing as he likes to me too.  His posts really are full of flaws, factual errors etc, etc but even when pointed out he refuses to accept it.  It is a waste of time going round in circles with him.  He thinks he is an authority on everything from the law to history to ballistics and yet  provides no links to support any of his assertions.  He expects us to take everything he says at face value. Then he refers to my links from the likes of Dr Daniel Siegel and Dr Allan Schore as "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery"   

Do they sound "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery" to you?

http://www.allanschore.com/bio.php

http://www.drdansiegel.com/about/biography/

[scipio_usmc]

You maccanochist, you!

All I see is an area of dirt (circled right), which might have come from her slipper/shoe insoles or from the floor anywhere in the house, and a couple of reddish marks (circled left) which may or not be cuts, but possibly blood spots. Again these marks could have come from insoles, or from blood picked up from the carpet as she (was) walked through the master bedroom. Looks like it was taken on a stainless steel gurney/mortuary table from the mirrored reflection you can see, not solid black as you would expect from a non-reflective surface like a carpet.

That's the problem with photos, the obvious things you can tell from photos are often things that don't matter.  The finer details like is this dirt, blood or something else can only be determined from actual physical testing.  Likewise to know if something is a cut, bruise, burn etc.

[Eleanor]

Thanks Eleanor    Scipio can be as scathing as he likes to me too.  His posts really are full of flaws, factual errors etc, etc but even when pointed out he refuses to accept it.  It is a waste of time going round in circles with him.  He thinks he is an authority on everything from the law to history to ballistics and yet  provides no links to support any of his assertions.  He expects us to take everything he says at face value. Then he refers to my links from the likes of Dr Daniel Siegel and Dr Allan Schore as "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery"   

Do they sound "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery" to you?

http://www.allanschore.com/bio.php

http://www.drdansiegel.com/about/biography/

No, they don't sound like mumbo jumbo or psychological quackery to me.  Just an attempt to get at what might have happened.

Apart from a brief period in between, I went from Innocent, and then back to Possibly Innocent.  I am still at Possibly Innocent.

And this is a Discussion Forum where everyone's opinion is valid, and worth considering.  What else does Miscarriages of Justice mean?  It is an invitation to express an opinion without fear of being ridiculed.

Although you might wonder about that on The McCann Forum from time to time.

[scipio_usmc]

No, they don't sound like mumbo jumbo or psychological quackery to me.  Just an attempt to get at what might have happened.

Apart from a brief period in between, I went from Innocent, and then back to Possibly Innocent.  I am still at Possibly Innocent.

And this is a Discussion Forum where everyone's opinion is valid, and worth considering.  What else does Miscarriages of Justice mean?  It is an invitation to express an opinion without fear of being ridiculed.

Although you might wonder about that on The McCann Forum from time to time.

Opinion that has no evidentiary basis and doesn't make sense has no value.  Unfortunately that is all Holly posts though.

[scipio_usmc]

Thanks Eleanor    Scipio can be as scathing as he likes to me too.  His posts really are full of flaws, factual errors etc, etc but even when pointed out he refuses to accept it.  It is a waste of time going round in circles with him.  He thinks he is an authority on everything from the law to history to ballistics and yet  provides no links to support any of his assertions.  He expects us to take everything he says at face value. Then he refers to my links from the likes of Dr Daniel Siegel and Dr Allan Schore as "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery"   

Do they sound "mumbo jumbo" and "psychological quackery" to you?

http://www.allanschore.com/bio.php

http://www.drdansiegel.com/about/biography/

You are the queen of making nonsense unsupported claims.  A perfect example is right now saying my posts are full of factual flaws.  Identify them and prove these flaws.  The fact of the maatter is that you can't.  Youa re simply living in a world of denail.

The same way you simply deny that there was any struggle int he kitchen with Nevill you deny my posts are accurate. 

In the meantime I can and do constantly estbalish yours are factually baseless.

From your claim that 2 pairs of underwear and a pair of leggings stained in the crotch with blood is evidence Sheila changed her clothing after the murders to your nonsense claim about police taking blood form the samples vanezis took before relaying them to the lab.

You are the one who was factually wrong about the dates the samples were conveyed and much more including the date the lab notified police human blood had bene found in the moderator.  You challenged that it was the 14th and posted some worhtless blurb form the 2002 court of Appeal decision concerning the rifle trying to pretend the blood being discussed was found on the rifle. But COLP made clear it was blood from the moderator you were wrong not me.

You are the one with no command of the facts and no concern for facts.  You just make up things and then when people prove you wrong you ignore it go into denial mode, pretend it never happened and then tell fairytales about how they are always wrong. 

All it does is make it appear you need to stop playing fake psychiatrist and to go visit one.

 

were likely worn during the murders andunderwear

[Holly Goodhead]

You are the queen of making nonsense unsupported claims.  A perfect example is right now saying my posts are full of factual flaws.  Identify them and prove these flaws.  The fact of the maatter is that you can't.  Youa re simply living in a world of denail.

The same way you simply deny that there was any struggle int he kitchen with Nevill you deny my posts are accurate. 

In the meantime I can and do constantly estbalish yours are factually baseless.

From your claim that 2 pairs of underwear and a pair of leggings stained in the crotch with blood is evidence Sheila changed her clothing after the murders to your nonsense claim about police taking blood form the samples vanezis took before relaying them to the lab.

You are the one who was factually wrong about the dates the samples were conveyed and much more including the date the lab notified police human blood had bene found in the moderator.  You challenged that it was the 14th and posted some worhtless blurb form the 2002 court of Appeal decision concerning the rifle trying to pretend the blood being discussed was found on the rifle. But COLP made clear it was blood from the moderator you were wrong not me.

You are the one with no command of the facts and no concern for facts.  You just make up things and then when people prove you wrong you ignore it go into denial mode, pretend it never happened and then tell fairytales about how they are always wrong. 

All it does is make it appear you need to stop playing fake psychiatrist and to go visit one.

 

were likely worn during the murders andunderwear

Re the title of the thread it is not necessary for anyone to prove that Jeremy is innocent.  Based on English law the criteria at trial is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  Why do YOU want to impose a higher threshold?  Are YOU able to prove JB is guilty?  As far as I am concerned the answer to that is most definitely NO! 

I am not interested in raking over the above.  It is not where it's at!  The whole world has moved on in the last 30 years but you seem like some sort of Neanderthal man in a time warp.  The significant advances in neurobiology and neurochemistry are the way forward in resolving the WHF case.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034

[scipio_usmc]

Re the title of the thread it is not necessary for anyone to prove that Jeremy is innocent.  Based on English law the criteria at trial is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  Why do YOU want to impose a higher threshold?  Are YOU able to prove JB is guilty?  As far as I am concerned the answer to that is most definitely NO! 

I am not interested in raking over the above.  It is not where it's at!  The whole world has moved on in the last 30 years but you seem like some sort of Neanderthal man in a time warp.  The significant advances in neurobiology and neurochemistry are the way forward in resolving the WHF case.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4513.msg163034#msg163034

Innocent until proven guilty.  He was proved guilty so anyone asserting he is innocent does indeed bear the burden of deonstrating it.

The fact of the matte ris that I haven't found a single Jeremy supporter who can lay out in detail their views of why he is innocent let alone to provide evidence that helps prove their views.

You most certainly can't do so.  Anything you do try to post as evidence is inaccurate or at the very least fails to prove anything at all let alone what you assert like the 2 pairs of soaking panties which clearly have no relation to the murders at all let alone evidence Sheila had victim blood on her and washed and changed such clothing.

[John]

We know when the lampshade and crockery was smashed just as we know when the stock of the rifle was damaged.  It all occurred in the kitchen during the altercation between Nevill and his attacker.

Maybe Sheila did go down the stairs in a futile attempt to get help, maybe she was forced back up to the master bedroom at gunpoint.  Assuming for a moment that the photo posted above is that of Sheila then what is very obvious is that there are no fresh cuts on her foot and no blood smears consistent with having trod on broken glass or crockery.  Indeed, inspection of Sheila in the morgue present no evidence of cuts to her feet, another blue forum dead-end I'm afraid.

[scipio_usmc]

We know when the lampshade and crockery was smashed just as we know when the stock of the rifle was damaged.  It all occurred in the kitchen during the altercation between Nevill and his attacker.

Maybe Sheila did go down the stairs in a futile attempt to get help, maybe she was forced back up to the master bedroom at gunpoint.  Assuming for a moment that the photo posted above is that of Sheila then what is very obvious is that there are no fresh cuts on her foot and no blood smears consistent with having trod on broken glass or crockery.  Indeed, inspection of Sheila in the morgue present no evidence of cuts to her feet, another blue forum dead-end I'm afraid.

The killer and Nevill fought over the rifle. Think about 4 hands on the rifle pulling it in different directions. How would that particular rifle be tall enough to break the lampshade?  Wihtout the moderator attached the barrel will not extend above the heads of those struggling.  A struggle with Sheila would feature the gun lower than Jeremy because she was shorter.  Even with Jeremy and Nevill the barrel would have been below their heads not above.  The only way the gun would have been long enough is with the moderator attached.  The scratches to the aga confirm it was indeed attached as they struggled. 

[John]

I envisaged the rifle was swung like a baseball bat with the stock end used to inflict damage.  In that way the attacker came to strike the glass lampshade shattering it.