If the current CCRC grounds were presented in the 1986 trial

[Cambridgecutie]

How could that be a current ground. It is saying someone else shot her from a distance.

From CoA 2002:

It was accepted at trial that there were only two possible explanations for the dreadful events of that night. Either Jeremy had killed all 5 members of his family, shooting them with a rifle with the probable motive of inheriting the whole of the family estate; or Sheila, who had a history of mental illness, had murdered her parents and her two sons with the rifle, and had then turned the gun upon herself in an act of suicide.

All supported by the ballistics and pathology.

Some of the grounds are just pure comedy.

[Adam]

The judge may not allow the defence to bring up the aledged 999 & Nevill calls. With today's evidence.

There was no documentary evidence & 5 WS's from people who would be willing to testify against the defence. .

Neither call is plausible and it is accusing EP of withholding evidence that proves innocence.

So not only would these not influence the jury, they wouldn't even be mentioned.

[Cambridgecutie]

Don't believe the defence would bring up the 999 call in 1986. If they had today's evidence.

The WS's & logs all say the engaged line was opened to listen in. Which sounds like standard practice. This matches the crime scene photo which has the phone off the cradle.

Burrell, Milbank & Jean Rowe would testify if they needed to.

Sheila ringing 999 & not saying anything is not plausible either.

Good publicity 40 years later but it has already had a PSOR. .

Good publicity for those whose understanding of the case is near zero. Or opportunist journalists that are happy to run with anything they are spoon fed by JB/those who claim to support him instead of undertaking the equivalent of a BBC verify.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65650822

[Jonathan]

How could that be a current ground. It is saying someone else shot her from a distance.

It is one of the current grounds yet to receive a SOR - expert reports have been submitted. Also evidence that Julie was coached by police and attacks on her credibility.

[Adam]

It is one of the current grounds yet to receive a SOR - expert reports have been submitted. Also evidence that Julie was coached by police and attacks on her credibility.

Must be saying her first shot was non contact. Then the police fired the second shot. Would have to explain the paint.

Julie would have been coached. She was the star witness in a 5x murder. The defence would attack her. Her credibility was discussed at trial.

[Rob_]

Must be saying her first shot was non contact. Then the police fired the second shot. Would have to explain the paint.

Julie would have been coached. She was the star witness in a 5x murder. The defence would attack her. Her credibility was discussed at trial.

Julie does not sound convinced of guilt though Adam:

"I sincerely believe she is guilty"

Not what I would expect someone to say if absolutely certain of guilt. No wonder she needed a lot of coaching before trail.   

[Adam]

Julie does not sound convinced of guilt though Adam:

"I sincerely believe she is guilty"

Not what I would expect someone to say if absolutely certain of guilt. No wonder she needed a lot of coaching before trail.

Approaching the police, producing a 27 WS within 24 hours, testifing & not retracting in 40 years.

Sounds convincing to me.

[BarefootDanC]

Julie does not sound convinced of guilt though Adam:

"I sincerely believe she is guilty"

Not what I would expect someone to say if absolutely certain of guilt. No wonder she needed a lot of coaching before trail.

Coaching before the trial ??

[Jane]

Julie does not sound convinced of guilt though Adam:

"I sincerely believe she is guilty"

Not what I would expect someone to say if absolutely certain of guilt. No wonder she needed a lot of coaching before trail.

 Given what he said, ie, he wished he could/he wanted to/ he made plans to, but never actually claimed he had, I'm not certain how much more she could have said. She wasn't there.

[BarefootDanC]

Julie being coached by EP before testifying:

Julie would deny this. Was probably challenged on this when testifying in 1986.

Is this part of the current CCRC application?

[BarefootDanC]

Sheila's medical condition:

Discussed at trial.

Is this part of the current (or any) CCRC submission?

[Adam]

Is this part of the current CCRC application?

Jonathan said it is in reply 33.

[Adam]

Is this part of the current (or any) CCRC submission?

When isn't her condition a ground?