Conflicting Statements

[Kaldin]

No, I can harp on abut quite a few things but happy with this at the moment. It wasn't just that that convicted him. On it's own, it's suspicious but with all the other little coincidences it's damning!

How do you know what convicted him? Were you on the jury?

[Caroline]

Why not? He'd hardly be covered in blood would he?

That takes away the alibi that he was elsewhere when the murders occurred.

[Kaldin]

That takes away the alibi that he was elsewhere when the murders occurred.

He didn't have an alibi anyway. Calling the police from his house isn't an alibi.

[Jane]

Well no, because he might not have had a reason to delay the police.

I suppose there's always the possibility that elephants will develop wings and fly. It's more about a balance of probabilities.

[Caroline]

That takes away the alibi that he was elsewhere when the murders occurred.

Hardly, I wasn't old enough! What convicted him is a matter of record - it's not a secret. He behaviour rang alarm bells with some officers, that led to an arousal of suspicion, which eventually led to his arrest and remand - then conviction! I don't need to be on a jury to know that.

[David1819]

Perhaps he's a bit stupid.

Look, if he really wanted to delay the police, he would have said that he'd been to the farm and it was all silent so he became afraid and went home and called the police.

In a guilty scenario, he would call the police once he was prepared to. Also in such event the call from his father never happened, thus no real time gap between the calls. So what is there to delay?

This idea of delaying the police contradicts the claim that Jeremy drove slow because he wanted the police to arrive at the scene before he did.

[Kaldin]

I suppose there's always the possibility that elephants will develop wings and fly. It's more about a balance of probabilities.

It's strange that if anyone said something was probable, you'd just say it was their opinion.

It's actually about evidence. Speculate all you like, but don't put someone else down because they disagree.

[Caroline]

He didn't have an alibi anyway. Calling the police from his house isn't an alibi.

If he could convince the police that he father was killed after he had just called him then yes it is.

[Kaldin]

In a guilty scenario, he would call the police once he was prepared for to. Also in such event the call from his father never happened, thus no real time gap between the calls. So what is there to delay?

This idea of delaying the police contradicts the claim that Jeremy drove slow because he wanted the police to arrive at the scene before he did.

If he's guilty, he'd want a delay because Sheila needed time to shoot everyone after Nevill phoned him. Also, he wouldn't want the police getting into the house too soon because someone might realise that the five of them had been dead for longer than was possible if Nevill had phoned Jeremy.

I've always found it odd that the time of death wasn't slightly more specific.

[guest7363]

He didn't have an alibi anyway. Calling the police from his house isn't an alibi.

He probably thought it were better to distance himself from the scene as much as possible?  Saying he was at the farm before calling police would have raised suspicion, the line of questioning would have been totally different.  It would have looked suspicious him saying he didn’t get any answer so he scarped.

[Jane]

How do you know what convicted him? Were you on the jury?

It's not impossible that one or two had "gut feelings" -a bit like Lookouts, but with more common sense attached. It probably isn't a very logical or intelligent way of doing it, but there ARE those who make up their minds whatever the evidence might be.

[Kaldin]

It's not impossible that one or two had "gut feelings" -a bit like Lookouts, but with more common sense attached. It probably isn't a very logical or intelligent way of doing it, but there ARE those who make up their minds whatever the evidence might be.

Perhaps it was just the silencer evidence they went on.

[guest7363]

Perhaps it was just the silencer evidence they went on.

I can’t seem to ever find it so it’s just from memory, I think David Connett who was a reporter at the trial said “ he got the feeling Julie’s testimony’s  didn’t carry any weight with the jury”  I will try again, but I spent an hour the other day looking for it.

But that was his opinion I suppose.

[Jane]

Perhaps it was just the silencer evidence they went on.

Perhaps it was more than that. Perhaps they resented his cockiness and arrogance.  Not for one moment do I believe it was ONLY evidence which convicted him.

[Kaldin]

Perhaps it was more than that. Perhaps they resented his cockiness and arrogance.  Not for one moment do I believe it was ONLY evidence which convicted him.

If he was convicted on anything other than evidence, it should have been a mistrial.