charlie_wilkes wrote:
Samson wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
charlie_wilkes wrote:It might be scratch wasn't there on the day after the crime. Or perhaps the moderator really was on the gun at some point and scratched the paint. I doubt it.
Or the suspicious relatives might have noticed the scratch, drawn a connection and fortified the evidence. That I wouldn't doubt.
In any case it seems the court has stepped back slightly in the face of scrutiny. Now the story is that the moderator was or may have been removed after Nevill was shot but before Sheila was shot. So much for the electrophoretic protein separation. But the paint keeps the case afloat. She can't have committed suicide. He had to have gotten down on the floor with her to fire these two shots. Or did he get her to do it?
"Why don't you pass the time with a little solitaire, Sheila..."
Just letting everybody know that this discussion appears to be eating almost all my monthly bandwidth though images.
As such. I had to add an image blocker.
That said, I am confused. Was the moderator on or off the rifle by the prosecution argument. . . .And if it is off, what about the blood flake?
From what I understand the CCRC have lately decided the moderator was on for June and Neville and off for Sheila.
My point and clearly Charlie is that you could not put this to a jury because no scenario allows the removal with Sheila at large in the house. I put a scenario earlier, maybe Myster can help with the latest guilter narrative. Or is there a way round it?
All you have to do is believe what you want, and anything becomes possible. If Sheila is the zombie slave who gets down on the floor and poses for two gunshots in her neck, you could take off the moderator and run out for a snack before shooting her.
We had an example of 'believing what you want' right here only the other day, I seem to recall. I do not 'want' to believe anything. I have made my position clear: I might well have been one of the minority on his jury but I think he probably did it having regard mainly to Julie's account. You have your One Great Thing (the supposed ability to detect suivide from a photograh despite not knowing whether it shows her body as found) and I have mine. You brush off what she says because she got immunity on the cheque fraud and a few grand from a newspaper while I recognise that neither of those things could have been in her mind when she voluntarily approached the police, leaving revenge as her only possble motive.
The real elephant in the room in this case is the veil of silence drawn over her obvious complicity in the murders as disclosed by herself:
- 'I didn't go to the police because it was fine with me if he had paid a mercenary and not done it himself and I was afraid of the mercenary''
- 'he called at 3.00 a.m. to say something was wrong at the farm and I told him to go to bed, without asking what it was'
- 'I got sleeping pills but only took one, oh sorry, now I remember I didn't take any - he took one to see if he could use them to knock out his family and burn the house down'
- 'I didn't think he was serious'
She played her part at the funeral while supposedly believing him responsible and consequently realising he had been serious all along. She was as greedy and venal as him. She came forward (in conspiracy with the equally malicious but not jilted nor out of pocket Battersby) once she had no reason to remain loyal and perhaps also because she began to realise: if the police ever turned on him she would be in the frame too, and that conspiracy had no connection whatever with the Boutflours' mass conspiracy or the seperate Essex police mass conspiracy or the wider conspiracy involving those willing to testify to his incriminating behaviour.
I will jettison my theory as soon as something emerges from the crime scene or elsewhere to refute it. Presently, I see a host of things that buttress it, including most importantly, Bamber's inconsistencies and improbable explanations of his conduct. I retain the ability to recognise good and bad points on both sides of the argument (the only participant here who does so) so your reference to people seeing what they want to see is misdirected and, as we now know, applies most aptly to yourself.
Statistics: Posted by Clive Wismayer — Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:17 pm