Has your position changed?

[Roch]

Where are the letters? Are they posted on here?

We were led to believe that the alleged phone call from Nevill to the police was from witheld documents, yet on some versions we see a chelmsford court stamp, on others it's photoshopped out.

The police witheld photographs which the defence now claim to show police offers acting the fool at WHF on the day of the murders.....so far, none of the released pictures does anything to help the defence.

Mike says there is a photo of sheila on the bed with one wound. This is not one of the released pictures.

How many of the witheld photos were from the autopsy and mortuary?

There is a pattern of big headlines, then minimal effect......

I cant answer your query re the photographs, except to state there has been argument on the forum that more than one camera has been used to take SOC photos and that 8 negatives were cut from a strip.  I recall Neil challenging the credibilty of EP's explanation for this.  The defence seem to have been interested in finding photographs of the downstairs toilet.  I do not know how helpful the recently released batch of photographs was to the defence.

I've never thought it was a good idea for Jeremy to persue the 'horseplay' photos any further than lodging an initial complaint, which in itself I feel is reasonable. 

The phone log in court is written about in the archive section I think. 

It was the campaign team who provided reference to the letters from the FSS.  Reference to the second letter is also included in one of the recent campaign documents, 'Freedom Fortnight' I think.  Therefore I do not believe that either of the letters are in Mike's possession.

[tonyb]

Unless the original silencer, which was not then seen as a piece of damning evidence was substituted with the one the relatives allegedly found at the scene.
As for myself I think the finding of and the importance of the silencer is a myth deliberately concocted by the relatives.
Why do I suggest that? Quite simply that they had absolutely no independent witnesses to verify that they had found it in the first place. Therefore this item should never have been registered or labelled as any kind of evidence. And if what I say is true, then this logically means that the whole trial was a gross miscarriage of justice?

I disagree that the item should not have been labelled and admitted to evidence.If all the silencers had been labelled and admitted to evidence it is easier to trace the lineage of the piece of evidence you would assume.  the label swapping theory I can go with that also
I also find it an amazingly poor defence team that didn't get the silencer evidence thrown out

[grahameb]

I disagree that the item should not have been labelled and admitted to evidence.If all the silencers had been labelled and admitted to evidence it is easier to trace the lineage of the piece of evidence you would assume.  the label swapping theory I can go with that also
I also find it an amazingly poor defence team that didn't get the silencer evidence thrown out

I agree with you. But why blame Jeremy for his poor defence team?

[tonyb]

I agree with you. But why blame Jeremy for his poor defence team?

In a way I agree Grahame
From personal experience with lawyers they are mostly useless.they have cost me a small fortune over the years.i tend not to use them now.read all the small print and read it again is my Mantra

[tonyb]

Sorry ,didn't answer the question... Why? Who appointed the defence team, and I suppose being green and wet behind the ears he an be forgiven for being overawed by the proceedings ?

[ngb1066]

Sorry ,didn't answer the question... Why? Who appointed the defence team, and I suppose being green and wet behind the ears he an be forgiven for being overawed by the proceedings ?

Jeremy was completely out of his depth, never having been involved in criminal proceedings before.  He relied upon the advice he was given.  He appointed Kingsley Napley and Co as his solicitors, and then relied upon their advice in relation to the choice of counsel.  Two things worked against him here.  First, originally Sir David Napley was going to handle the defence (you may remember he succesfully represented Jeremy Thorpe), but he became ill and could not continue.  Second, Kingsley Napley did not normally accept cases on legal aid.  They were therefore hampered in the preparation of the defence case.

 

[Alias]

I have changed from initially believing 75% not guilty, 25% guilty, to 95% not guilty, 5% guilty. So I still have some doubts.
What mainly changed my stance was reading about Sheila´s illness. She was sicker than most people realize. She was violent, she thought her six year old boys were the Devil´s children and that they were capable of raping her and killing her! Her medication at the time was begging for a disaster - many, many people have killed and acted out extremely violently after having their Haloperidol dose cut down drastically or taken away alltogether, Andrea Yates being one of them.

I also think about how peaceful Sheila looked in death. Why this peaceful look on her face?

I imagine that it would have been a daunting task for someone coming from the outside to kill five people single handedly. I can only see it happening if there were two intruders at least.
It would have been easier for Sheila. She was in the house. First the twins (and why were they shot so many times? It seems "personal"), then there were only two left to kill.

If you believe Jeremy is innocent, you have to believe that Julie Mugford is a vile liar. It is hard to stomach, BUT she is in fact a proven liar - it is on paper. She also had a lot to gain by lying. There is no doubt there was a deal with the police not to prosecute her for the caravan park robbery and the check-fraud. She also had a lot to gain financially - 25.000£ for the newspaper interview upon Jeremy being found guilty. That´s a lot of money for a young girl.
Her third motive for lying is that Jeremy had dumped her (and she hadn´t said a thing about those AWFUL murders until then???!!!)
She did say, if I can´t have you, no one will.

[ngb1066]

I have changed from initially believing 75% not guilty, 25% guilty, to 95% not guilty, 5% guilty. So I still have some doubts.
What mainly changed my stance was reading about Sheila´s illness. She was sicker than most people realize. She was violent, she thought her six year old boys were the Devil´s children and that they were capable of raping her and killing her! Her medication at the time was begging for a disaster - many, many people have killed and acted out extremely violently after having their Haloperidol dose cut down drastically or taken away alltogether, Andrea Yates being one of them.

I also think about how peaceful Sheila looked in death. Why this peaceful look on her face?

I imagine that it would have been a daunting task for someone coming from the outside to kill five people single handedly. I can only see it happening if there were two intruders at least.
It would have been easier for Sheila. She was in the house. First the twins (and why were they shot so many times? It seems "personal"), then there were only two left to kill.

If you believe Jeremy is innocent, you have to believe that Julie Mugford is a vile liar. It is hard to stomach, BUT she is in fact a proven liar - it is on paper. She also had a lot to gain by lying. There is no doubt there was a deal with the police not to prosecute her for the caravan park robbery and the check-fraud. She also had a lot to gain financially - 25.000£ for the newspaper interview upon Jeremy being found guilty. That´s a lot of money for a young girl.
Her third motive for lying is that Jeremy had dumped her (and she hadn´t said a thing about those AWFUL murders until then???!!!)
She did say, if I can´t have you, no one will.

A good post Abs.

[Alias]

Thank you, ngb

[mertol22]

why is there no tear stains on Sheilas face ? or eyeliner /lash run, to believe Jeremy is guilty is saying the money mugford recieved is out of this , what would mugford do for money, anything.

[jon]

Are they not allowed to look in boxes ? Why do you believe AE never mentioned ' silencer ' in her first statement ? Did DB call EP to tell them to come and pick a 'silencer ' up in September , like the police log show's ? Why do you believe there is at least two signed exhibit labels' with different signature's on them ? Is there a simple explanation for this Vidvic ?

Any chance you can answer here Vid ?

[vidvic]

Jon,

If a policeman were to have taken a quick look into the cupboard I do not believe he would have seen the silencer, no. I myself have been into the cupboard, it is quite deep, with many supporting struts of wood, similar to a mini loft and I was shown where the box was and I had to put my shoulders right into the cupboard to reach it.

Whatever the conclusion of the appeal I will never accept or believe that Ann Eaton has ever, nor would she, tell lies or fabricate evidence. The continued attack on members of the family that simply thought they were doing the right thing, by challenging Jeremy's story, is the reason why I became interested in the forum and the ones before this one.

I believe that the exhibit label issue was addressed in 2002, but is not an area of the case where I am sufficiently knowledgable to comment.

[jon]

Jon,

If a policeman were to have taken a quick look into the cupboard I do not believe he would have seen the silencer, no. I myself have been into the cupboard, it is quite deep, with many supporting struts of wood, similar to a mini loft and I was shown where the box was and I had to put my shoulders right into the cupboard to reach it.

Whatever the conclusion of the appeal I will never accept or believe that Ann Eaton has ever, nor would she, tell lies or fabricate evidence. The continued attack on members of the family that simply thought they were doing the right thing, by challenging Jeremy's story, is the reason why I became interested in the forum and the ones before this one.

I believe that the exhibit label issue was addressed in 2002, but is not an area of the case where I am sufficiently knowledgable to comment.

Thank's for the reply , what do you make of DB calling EP and asking them to pick a 'silencer ' up in September ? We are then led to believe that when EP arrived , he gave them a ' sight ' do you think this is credible , when you put it next to the fact three policemen searched the cupboard and never found the ' silencer ' , does there come a point where you start to doubt anything ?

[tonyb]

Jon,

If a policeman were to have taken a quick look into the cupboard I do not believe he would have seen the silencer, no. I myself have been into the cupboard, it is quite deep, with many supporting struts of wood, similar to a mini loft and I was shown where the box was and I had to put my shoulders right into the cupboard to reach it.

Whatever the conclusion of the appeal I will never accept or believe that Ann Eaton has ever, nor would she, tell lies or fabricate evidence. The continued attack on members of the family that simply thought they were doing the right thing, by challenging Jeremy's story, is the reason why I became interested in the forum and the ones before this one.

I believe that the exhibit label issue was addressed in 2002, but is not an area of the case where I am sufficiently knowledgable to comment.

i quite like this post.the discription of the cupboard now allows me to visulise it.I still however,believe the silencer should not have been recovered by relatives.This is of course assuming (of which I dont like doing) that Vic is not distorting the facts. ie. "up to his shoulder" because his arms are amputated above the elbow,if you catch my drift.....

[Buddy]

Thank's for the reply , what do you make of DB calling EP and asking them to pick a 'silencer ' up in September ? We are then led to believe that when EP arrived , he gave them a ' sight ' do you think this is credible , when you put it next to the fact three policemen searched the cupboard and never found the ' silencer ' , does there come a point where you start to doubt anything ?

It appears the family found the silencer easily enough! In fact was it not found at the front of the cupboard? It was certyainly not stashed away as you would have us believe.