Why Nevill didn't call the Police

[clifford]

... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...

Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.

In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?

One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.

As for the reason of the speed of JB when the police overtook him, is it not reasonable that JB would have slowed down to "allow" the police to pass him.
I assume the police had blue lights flashing

Yes it's possible he slowed down (I don't think we should assume anything, we don't know if the police had their blues on), however he still arrived a few minutes after police unit CA07 did, so he wasn't driving like Nigel Mansell, which he would have had to have done to make the journey in the time Mike suggests. I'm sorry but this theory is a dead end, it's just another twist to try and fit in a call from Ralph to the police.

Let us also not forget that Ralph could only have made the alleged call after Jeremy's call to the police, otherwise he would surely have mentioned it to Jeremy and as Jeremy has stated that he tried to call back but alleges that the phone was engaged.
Couple that with the advanced rigor mortis present in Ralphs body at the time of entry by the firearms unit, the theory and timings as put across in this instance do not add up.

I would suggest that a better theory would be to look at the apparent lack of rigor mortis in Sheila's body at the time she was photographed by Bird.

I agree it is an assumption Harters, but I think a fair one, they were on an emergency call after all.
I do not think it would have been likely they had sirens blaring, due to the time of day.
The police are trained to drive at high speeds, so it is likely they would have caught up withJB

[Hartley]

good point CLIFF

hmm those phone  logs...

The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?

she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!

Or JB simply told the police during his call that his sister was "26 or 27", and West and Bonnett recorded the age differently selecting from the "26 or 27".

[chochokeira]

It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.

The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.

The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)

By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.

He wasn't dressed when he took the call.

Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....

Impossible I'm afraid.

If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.

Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?

Hi Vic,

another one bites the dust!

See Mikes's reply.

[Hartley]

... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...

Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.

In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?

One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.

The 3 minutes to get to the car is rather ridiculous,,,
remember   the call from Ralph to JB was a while before JB decided to call the police...JB had plenty of time to get dressed , collect his car keys etc so could well have been ready to go as soon as the call to the police was ended.
Less than a minute seems far more credible.

This 10 or 11 minutes in which JB is allegedly in contact with the police on the phone...do we have phone logs from the police stating this time or is it just an estimate that may be  far longer than the time the real call duration actually was? From JB's perspective...I dont believe he was observing a clock at the time..and any waiting on the phone at a time of high anxiety would seem a lot longer than it really was.

Well I disagree. 

Even after Ralphs alleged call to Jeremy, he certainly wasn't in a panic or rush, hence he found the time to look up the local police number in the yellow pages, he also initially appeared calm when he made the call to West (according to witness statements and the 2002 Appeal Judgement).

What is ridiculous, is the suggestion that he could have got to whf in 7 minutes from the end of the call to West.

[chochokeira]

I would also add, that this claim has comeabout because of the now notorious 'logs'.

This subject was covered in the original trial and it was agreed by both sides that these logs related to one call from JB to Police at 3.26.

It is surely dangerous to devise entire theories around these logs which were being compiled third hand back at Chelmsford.

Did the Police not admit that on first glimpse through the kitchen window, with his pushed forward grey hair, that they originally thought Nevill to be a woman? Are we honestly expected to believe that SC was originally lying on the Kitchen floor and unseen by anyone, got up, went upstairs to shoot herself for the second time? Or was shot by the Police? And all this from logs, which as I've demonstrated above, are giving you very misleading info.

Hi again,

The various logs which suggest that Sheila was doing just what you claim she couldn't have done are clearly most inconvenient for all of you JB Dun Its. They are not, however, going to go away on account of wishful thinking.

Far better to address this issue as jerry does.

Unless of course, you can't....

[chochokeira]

The original version of Police Sergeant Woodcocks, witness statement, contained no fewer than 13 pages at its inception, which became transformed into 10 pages, by the time significant information, and evidence, which related to the first moments that armed police, entered the kitchen at whf, and discovered two bodies there - the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female...
(Mike Tesko).

I think what we are being asked to believe is that the body of a male was mistaken as the body of a female, from looking through the window (hair flopped etc). 

That this female body was jotted down in rough somewhere along the chain of communication...and then added on to the body of the male 'found on entry' in error.  (Nobody using radio communications has asked any clarification / confirmation questions, which seems odd given the brevity of the situation). 

And not only that... but also in this chain of communication somebody, somewhere has took it upon themselves to describe one of these bodies as a suicide when contacting SOCO Neil Davidson.

Furthermore, there exisits a non-disclosed report about a shooting incident in the kitchen.

Then, photographs of photographs of Sheila Caffell have been examined by professors... and they have given a time of death not superior to two hours prior to photography.

Good points, well made, Rocky! +1

[Hartley]

I would also add, that this claim has comeabout because of the now notorious 'logs'.

This subject was covered in the original trial and it was agreed by both sides that these logs related to one call from JB to Police at 3.26.

It is surely dangerous to devise entire theories around these logs which were being compiled third hand back at Chelmsford.

Did the Police not admit that on first glimpse through the kitchen window, with his pushed forward grey hair, that they originally thought Nevill to be a woman? Are we honestly expected to believe that SC was originally lying on the Kitchen floor and unseen by anyone, got up, went upstairs to shoot herself for the second time? Or was shot by the Police? And all this from logs, which as I've demonstrated above, are giving you very misleading info.

Hi again,

The various logs which suggest that Sheila was doing just what you claim she couldn't have done are clearly most inconvenient for all of you JB Dun Its. They are not, however, going to go away on account of wishful thinking.

Far better to address this issue as jerry does.

Unless of course, you can't....

Not really Choc, it's explained very clearly in the witness statements. To discard the various witness statements as inaccurate in favour of a completely different version of events simply because that's what the 'JB is Innocent' crowd would prefer is somewhat convenient.

But in any event, it doesn't really matter on here, it can be bounced back and forth forever and neither party will agree. The CCRC have access to the documents and will either accept it or dismiss it.

[smiffy]

good point CLIFF

hmm those phone  logs...

The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?

she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!

Or JB simply told the police during his call that his sister was "26 or 27", and West and Bonnett recorded the age differently selecting from the "26 or 27".

If actual age was uncertain then it would be indicated on the logs as " age approx 26"  or "about 26" or 26/27 or similar ..IT IS NOT..

THE POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO RECORD ACCURATELY   ...OH DEAR MISTAKES...ETC
IF WE DOUBT EVERY ENTRY THE POLICE MAKE AND WISH TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING OR ALLOW THIS APPROACH  THEN NOT A JOT OF POLICE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

So if they cant write someones age as reported to them clearly...then who is to say even the times of the logs are correct or anything reported on them.

The age being given differently is significant and cannot easily be explained away as yet another police cock up.


hmm  the suggestion of the police choosing from whatever options are available for them to record is rather a wild claim.
hi  pc x...how many bodies do you want to write down as being in the kitchen... 1 or 2  ...

what happened to recording what was observed or heard correctly?

for "hartley"s claim to stand then evidence of this giving age 26 or 27 must be produced and also evidence of the discussion between West and Bonnet..

I dont buy hartleys explanation one bit.

[Hartley]

good point CLIFF

hmm those phone  logs...

The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?

she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!

Or JB simply told the police during his call that his sister was "26 or 27", and West and Bonnett recorded the age differently selecting from the "26 or 27".

If actual age was uncertain then it would be indicated on the logs as " age approx 26"  or "about 26" or 26/27 or similar ..IT IS NOT..

THE POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO RECORD ACCURATELY   ...OH DEAR MISTAKES...ETC
IF WE DOUBT EVERY ENTRY THE POLICE MAKE AND WISH TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING OR ALLOW THIS APPROACH  THEN NOT A JOT OF POLICE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

So if they cant write someones age as reported to them clearly...then who is to say even the times of the logs are correct or anything reported on them.

The age being given differently is significant and cannot easily be explained away as yet another police cock up.


hmm  the suggestion of the police choosing from whatever options are available for them to record is rather a wild claim.
hi  pc x...how many bodies do you want to write down as being in the kitchen... 1 or 2  ...

what happened to recording what was observed or heard correctly?

for "hartley"s claim to stand then evidence of this giving age 26 or 27 must be produced and also evidence of the discussion between West and Bonnet..

I dont buy hartleys explanation one bit.

Not at all Smiffy. If the defence want to suggest that the two ages noted somehow imply a second call to the police from Ralph, then the defence would need to show evidence.

[vidvic]

It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.

The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.

The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)

By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.

He wasn't dressed when he took the call.

Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....

Impossible I'm afraid.

If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.

Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?

Hi Vic,

another one bites the dust!

See Mikes's reply.

err....quite the opposite Keira. I think these timings show the call was impossible.

[vidvic]

It is claimed that there were two calls to the Police. The first from Nevill at 3.26 and the second, by JB at 3.36.

The call from JB to the Police lasted 10-11 minutes according to JB. Even if this call was shorter, the timings do not work.

The drive from JB's cottage to WHF has been timed by Mike at 7 minutes.(Car was already moving too, no starting up, pulling out the drive.)

By JB's own website and all statements, he arrived at WHF at 3.48.

He wasn't dressed when he took the call.

Call at 3.36, +7 minutes to drive, 3.43..... allows 5 minutes for Call to Police, Call to Julie, Dress.....

Impossible I'm afraid.

If the call to Police only took 1 Minute then it might be possible, but we know that it was longer.

Maybe this claim will now be dropped from the official website?

The call to JM by JB was supposed to be before JB Called the police...so sorry "vidvic"....your version and flawed reasoning can be thrown into the rubbish bin straight away.

I think you need to read JB's statements. Maybe Mike is nearer to putting them up on site?

[smiffy]

good point CLIFF

hmm those phone  logs...

The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?

she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!

Or JB simply told the police during his call that his sister was "26 or 27", and West and Bonnett recorded the age differently selecting from the "26 or 27".

If actual age was uncertain then it would be indicated on the logs as " age approx 26"  or "about 26" or 26/27 or similar ..IT IS NOT..

THE POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO RECORD ACCURATELY   ...OH DEAR MISTAKES...ETC
IF WE DOUBT EVERY ENTRY THE POLICE MAKE AND WISH TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING OR ALLOW THIS APPROACH  THEN NOT A JOT OF POLICE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

So if they cant write someones age as reported to them clearly...then who is to say even the times of the logs are correct or anything reported on them.

The age being given differently is significant and cannot easily be explained away as yet another police cock up.


hmm  the suggestion of the police choosing from whatever options are available for them to record is rather a wild claim.
hi  pc x...how many bodies do you want to write down as being in the kitchen... 1 or 2  ...

what happened to recording what was observed or heard correctly?

for "hartley"s claim to stand then evidence of this giving age 26 or 27 must be produced and also evidence of the discussion between West and Bonnet..

I dont buy hartleys explanation one bit.

Not at all Smiffy. If the defence want to suggest that the two ages noted somehow imply a second call to the police from Ralph, then the defence would need to show evidence.

not at all..

hmm  a little phrase normally delivered by those delivering a falsehood...

do you think the police invite legal representatives or accused persons full access to all information they hold in regards to a case....
the defence can suggest what they like and if 2 different ages are given by the prosecution in documents they are using...then its for the prosecution to explain and provide evidence as to why this discrepancy exists for the case they are making.
until otherwise the defence suggestion holds...and this may be that 2 different callers made calls and one gave the wrong age....oddly the rest of those logs also supports such a contention as being viable and credible.

[Hartley]

good point CLIFF

hmm those phone  logs...

The only good explanation for Sheila's age being given differently on one log to the other is if two calls were made and one of the different callers gave the wrong age.
If copying the age from one log to another its not something your going to get wrong now is it?

she cant be both 26 and 27...so one of the callers got it slightly wrong!

Or JB simply told the police during his call that his sister was "26 or 27", and West and Bonnett recorded the age differently selecting from the "26 or 27".

If actual age was uncertain then it would be indicated on the logs as " age approx 26"  or "about 26" or 26/27 or similar ..IT IS NOT..

THE POLICE ARE SUPPOSED TO RECORD ACCURATELY   ...OH DEAR MISTAKES...ETC
IF WE DOUBT EVERY ENTRY THE POLICE MAKE AND WISH TO CHANGE ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING OR ALLOW THIS APPROACH  THEN NOT A JOT OF POLICE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ALLOWED.

So if they cant write someones age as reported to them clearly...then who is to say even the times of the logs are correct or anything reported on them.

The age being given differently is significant and cannot easily be explained away as yet another police cock up.


hmm  the suggestion of the police choosing from whatever options are available for them to record is rather a wild claim.
hi  pc x...how many bodies do you want to write down as being in the kitchen... 1 or 2  ...

what happened to recording what was observed or heard correctly?

for "hartley"s claim to stand then evidence of this giving age 26 or 27 must be produced and also evidence of the discussion between West and Bonnet..

I dont buy hartleys explanation one bit.

Not at all Smiffy. If the defence want to suggest that the two ages noted somehow imply a second call to the police from Ralph, then the defence would need to show evidence.

not at all..

hmm  a little phrase normally delivered by those delivering a falsehood...

do you think the police invite legal representatives or accused persons full access to all information they hold in regards to a case....
the defence can suggest what they like and if 2 different ages are given by the prosecution in documents they are using...then its for the prosecution to explain and provide evidence as to why this discrepancy exists for the case they are making.
until otherwise the defence suggestion holds...and this may be that 2 different callers made calls and one gave the wrong age....oddly the rest of those logs also supports such a contention as being viable and credible.

The fact that JB's current address is not of his own choosing then I would indeed suggest that it is the defence who need to provide evidence of their theories.

[chochokeira]

... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...

Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.

In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?

One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.

Hi Harters,

Have you ever slowed down when a police car drives up behind your car, to allow it to pass, then speeded up again when it's passed? That's surely a normal human reaction? Jeremy had been caught speeding too, during the previous week, I believe. Paulg says the police vehicle would have been going like a bat out of hell, so once that had passed Jeremy could revert to his normal speed.

[vidvic]

... I would invite everyone to consider the following - (1) Jeremy makes his call to the police at around 3.36am, (2) call lasts around 10/11 minutes, terminating at around 3.45/3.46am, (3) Jeremy's timed arrival at the scene is/was 3.52am, but it remains possible that it could have been as late as 3.53am because of overlap. Based on these timings, it would have been possible for Jeremy to have made the 7 minute journey from his cottage at 9 Head street, Goldhanger to WHF...

Not at the speed he was witnessed to be travelling at by the occupants of police unit CA07.

In addition you are not taking into account the time required to find his keys, put two jumpers on and walk to the car, let's be generous and say that he was in a speedy mood and that only took three minutes, you are now trying to suggest that he then got to whf in four minutes whilst also being able to be overtaken by the police?

One must also consider whether the police unit CA07 would have been capable of travelling from Witham to whf in the same time, clearly they could not.

Hi Harters,

Have you ever slowed down when a police car drives up behind your car, to allow it to pass, then speeded up again when it's passed? That's surely a normal human reaction? Jeremy had been caught speeding too, during the previous week, I believe. Paulg says the police vehicle would have been going like a bat out of hell, so once that had passed Jeremy could revert to his normal speed.

Keira, it's irrelevant wether JB slowed to allow the police car to pass him. From the 3.36 call time the defence are claiming, and according to JB's own statements he called JM AFTER the call to Police, he simply could not have arrived at WHF when he did. Not possible.