Thanks Disingenuous Steve.
If you could just post up a link to where I have acted as an apologist for murder, I'll be sure to explain or correct the remark, as necessary.
Could you also answer my question, Dodgy Steve?
With reference to UK copyright law, on what legal basis do you use that photo as your avatar? It's fine for the Forum to post it up, provided the use falls within the terms of fair dealing. But using it as an avatar is not fair dealing.
Do you have Colin's permission?
These are just some of the posts I've picked out. By the way, whilst I was skim reading I counted five times you insulted members, you've also suggested that Colin was responsible for Sheila's schizophrenia as well as insinuating that Jeremy and Julie were in cahoots. Not to mention your own brand of humour, whilst falsely accusing me of satirizing paraplegia.
Dozy Jeremy shoots June five times and lets Nevill run away.
Jeremy may have heard nothing, assumed the line was dead and tried calling again
After a while, Jeremy answers. Nevill starts to speak to Jeremy.
If Jeremy was the killer, I can't make it work, mainly because I can't account for Sheila.
In Jeremy's case, his offending was narrowly-focused. He is not a predator or a serial killer.
I have something in common with Jeremy: a liking for inappropriate humour and a tendency towards teasing.
I'm not convinced by the inheritance motive anyway. If I understand correctly, Jeremy was not inheriting investment bonds or some other genuine form of passive income. ?
Remember she needed time for a shower too. She's a busy gal.
Jeremy kills his entire family because he's a greedy boy. Boo, hiss. "He's behind you...!"
Is there a case to be made that Colin was a factor in Sheila developing schizophrenia?
Even if Jeremy is guilty, hasn't he served his time? Is it fair or humane to keep somebody locked up for decades? Of course, as Colin Caffell rightly reminds us, mass murder is inhumane, but I think somebody ought to tactfully remind Colin that Jeremy has served virtually all his productive life in prison. That's punishment. What more can Jeremy give?
Jeremy is evil, greedy, he wanted a Porsche, blah, blah, blah.....You got it all from that Michael Winner drama, or was it that risible book by Carol Ann Lee?
Here's the problem I'm left with: the bullet casings are wrong in this scenario. The only way I think we can make it fit and be consistent with D.I. Cook's findings is if we say that the twins were shot in three sessions, but why would Jeremy do that, it makes little sense, and is it consistent ballistically with what we find and what the pathologist opinionated?
The account given of things in that post also deepens my suspicions about Colin Caffell. I've never taken to him. I've always thought there is something a bit disingenuous about him.
Julie was a bit plain and it's surprising Jeremy - who is supposed to be a psychopath, according to Dr. Steve and various other lettered "experts" - decided on a relationship with her.
I notice you are studiously avoiding the problem of a lack of a blood trail from the main landing to the kitchen. That's rather a serious hole in the prosecution case. It could be resolved by saying that Sheila was the killer, but you would prefer not to do that.
Unless I am missing some key fact, I'm sorry to say at the moment it doesn't make sense. Obviously there will always be problems and questions with any scenario, but this doesn't fundamentally hang together. Worryingly, a coherent Sheila scenario is much easier to construct.
I differ from you about what happened in the kitchen. I think Nevill struggles with her, the context of that being that Sheila has only actually fired the gun once up to that point, so we have him trying to wrestle the gun off her, but she is able to push him away and Nevill is killed in a fusillade.
I take the view that almost-all the evidence points to this, with the except of the recorded position of the bullet casings.
If that is too far-fetched, then consider what the Crown allege Jeremy did as it is: he entered a property and wiped out his own family, including two small boys, then left, and did all this without leaving any direct forensic evidence of the act. He did it for money, they say. In a way, that's far-fetched too. Really, whether something is far-fetched or not often depends on one's point-of-view and how one interprets the evidence available.
However, as I accept happened here, they exaggerated Jeremy's behaviour and proceeded to blacken him. This is typical of police officers, not because they are dishonest or corrupt, but because they're human and they are used to making snap judgements about people and will see things in a slanted way. It's a trap we all fall into to an extent, actually.
Also, maybe he's done his time now? Even if he is guilty, maybe we should accept that he's lost his life and allow him some freedom in his last years, as a gesture of magnanimity?
I'm 96% that Jeremy did it, but the criminal standard requires 99%. On a good day, I'm at 98%, on a bad day, I'm 96%. In other words, what I'm saying is that there is that small but important amount of doubt that means the whole thing doesn't quite hang together and make the mark.
