The very best of luck to Jeremy

[G]

I have always been of the opinion that Jeremy, if guilty, was very foolish in not accepting the keys to WHF when they were offered to him by Essex Police. I guess only Jeremy knows why he did not accept them given he was allegedly already very suspicious / wary of his relatives. Maybe because of all the press articles regarding 4 murders and a suicide he was of the opinion it was all done and dusted and he had got away with it all.......... in other words being too complacent......... maybe even a little too confident and arrogant (as has been reported re his personalitiy).

I guess only Jeremy really knows as would appear to be quite common in this case.

You see. That is the argument the antis always come up with. The police say he was a very cunning murderer and a liar. But when the pro bambers point out something like the key the opposition suddenly move the goal posts and say that he was a very foolish man. In fact anything to keep Jeremy in the frame. If I can I'll pick these contradictory answers out as we go.

[susan]

G  I was given to understand that Jeremy did have is own set of keys but let the relatives have the keys (so they could go in and look for evidence) sorry I meant to clean up.  He was so grateful for all Ann did he sent her flowers.  He knew he was innocent and I suppose in his arrogance he would assume everybody else thought the same big mistake after the murders he owned half of the relatives land that would not go down well a cuckoo owning half their land and the rest lets get digging and belief what suits us to believe they had no love for Jeremy whatsoever.

[ngb1066]

I wasn't guessing, Neil.
There wasn't a CCRC leak.

Most members of the finally didn't know until after 10am, G. You're right but how do you know that? I'm sure you'll know that some members of the family didn't even know about the 10am deadline today.

But here we go...

There are some members of parliament, up to 7 in fact, that not only have a priviledge to know CRCC thinking plans/ but to have a prior warning. Those elected officials have assistants/office staff. News travels.

CRCC have wires to the press. News travels.

And then there is Jeremy's own team. Who last night knew that they'd screwed up big time. Amatures. and all wolves in sheeps clothing.

Mat  -  I assume by Jeremy's team you mean Simon Mckay.  Simon did not know what the CCRC had decided until yesterday morning, shortly before he tweeted the result at 10.00 am.  He was not the source of the information you leaked.

Upon what basis do you say that Jeremy's legal team "screwed up big time"?    Do you really believe they are "amatures"?  By the way given your comment about spelling mistakes in the submissions (which I will answer in a separate post) you might havve taken the trouble to check how to spell "amateurs". 

What do you mean  by the suggestion that  Jeremy's legal team are "wolves in sheeps clothing"?

[susan]

Mat  your surprise me that members of parliament are up at 7 a.m. most of them just going to bed at that time.

[ngb1066]

I think he's guilty. The coincidences in the foundations of the case have never sat too well with me. For example, the first day that I heard the phone in the bedroom has been removed - Jeremy claims that this was ebcause it had been damaged - but this wasn't true, the phone actually worked. The reason IMO that the phoen was removed from the bedroom of Ralph and June was so no one could make an emergency phone call from upstairs. I beleive this entirely and have lobbied for this to be considered since day one.

Even though I think he is guilty, I still accept there were major mistakes by the police and they tried to cover this up. Jeremy is using that to his advantage to try and murk the waters and give hismelf reasonable doubt. But he's guilty.

I;ll forever ensure I'm countering any evidcence sumbbitted, no matter who it is too.

But I have to be honest, it isn't hard at the moment. The CRCC submission was incomplete - how stupid is that? You submit something so important, so crucial.....but you get it wrong. Majorly wrong.

Jeremy has been let down by his own team. If the CRCC submission ever makes it way onto this forum, read it (ignore ALL the spelling mistakes).You'll see Jeremy have been let down.
But I still beleive he killed his family.

Mat  - The CCRC submission was complete, but the defence pointed out that further tests were required in order to strengthen the grounds of appeal.  There was neither time nor money for Simon McKay to arrange for these tests to be concluded before the 31st January deadline.  Nevertheless even without these further tests the submissions presented grounds for the case to be referred to the Court of Appeal.

The fact that you refer to "the CCRC submission" strongly suggests to me that you have not seen the documents which comprised the submissions made to the CCRC.  There were several documents submitted at different times.  All of these were collectively regarded by the CCRC as the submissions in support of the application.  Simon McKay was only responsible for the final document which contained a fresh set of submissions.  This was a very well drafted document and just for the record it did not contain spelling mistakes.

Whatever view you have on this case you have no basis for asserting that Jeremy has been let down by his legal team.

 

[ngb1066]

Let down simply because the submissions were incomplete. More tests needed to be carried out, when you're dealing with paper work like this the dates you state have to be correct, they have to be precise. You can't make mistakes.

When you send pages and pages of information off about a silencer and calim that it can not have been fitted on as 100% fact you need to be able to back it up.

If the CRCC were to get in touch with your expert and your expert claims (both openly and privately) that more tests NEED to be carried out. EVERYTHING that expert has said until more tests have been carried out will be dismissed.

It should not be dismissed.  The experts reached clear conclusions but they pointed out that they should be able to go further if additional tests were carried out.  There was no time for this to be done because of the final deadline imposed by the CCRC.

[ngb1066]

Thanks for your reply Mat,  Regarding the phones, do you not think that he would have replaced  the phone in the bedroom once he'd finished?  What you say about the submission is very interesting, you sound like you have good sources, can you confirm this?  I have been trying to muster up the courage to ask those on this forum, who would have a more informed opinion than me, what they think of Simon McKay.  As I understand it, he is working for free, which is obviously highly commendable, but does this mean that Jeremy is getting the very best legal help?   I would like to stress that I know nothing about Simon McKay and have therefore formed no opinion of him.

Simon McKay is a very able and experienced lawyer.  He has handled this case with skill and is certainly up to the task of seeing it through to a successful conclusion.

[susan]

Mat  If what I have read is correct the phone line enters the house downstairs the upstairs is an extension to demobilise it all you have to do is take the phone off in the kitchen.

[ngb1066]

answering as fully as I can, from what I know as fact rather than just guessing or using reasonable doubt, there are two things that experts have said that they need more testing done on. One is something to do with Sheila and the main one is the burn marks.


But when you submit something so vital you need it to be 100%.  Saying "The burns were done with the silence on/off" But "more tests are needed" is a huge contradiction.




Jeremy did say that the phone did not work. I remember reading this many years ago. And recently a reporter I know wrote a great piece in the DailyMail about this and the quote was the main thing that he went off.


It's very easy for you to say that I don't know much about the case. How do you know thaT? i'm sure I have been following it longer than you.



I'll try and speak to as many people as I can here and be as open as I can do - but don't be so hostile or I'll just close up.



I guess in a way they were put on the back burner. But bascially they were re-written/edited and had more added to them but McKay's actual submissions and the ones in existence ones after him coming aboard aren't all that different other than the fact more tests had been done, yet not complete ones, and they used a lot more hear-say than you'd believe.

The submissions made before Simon McKay started acting for Jeremy were not "rewritten/edited" and did not have "more added to them" by Simon.  Simon McKay's submissions covered completely different ground from the earlier ones.  They did not use "a lot more hearsay than you'd believe", in fact they did not include hearsay evidence.

I am not trying to be hostile Mat but your comments indicate to me that you have not seen the submissions. I am correct about that, am I not?  We welcome all points of view on the case here and you are welcome to express your views, but I do not understand why you are trying to denigrate Jeremy's legal team.

[ngb1066]

Oh if you only knew...





The bedroom phone was found hidden in a cupboard, I beleive. Without the case notes I can't rmember but it was hidden under some magazines. It worked although Jeremy did claim it didn't.



Neil - I have a couple of sources that I trust. But I'm officially involved on neither side of the appeall process.


I'm not rubbishing Simon. But I am rubbishing the CRCC submission completely.

Two questions for you Mat:

1) Have you read the submissions?

2) are you legally qualified?

[ngb1066]

Jackie, what are you talknig about? I think you're unhigned. It NGB has anything to say to me, he will say it to me himself, he can even pick up the phone.
It won't be said through you.



Think we both know that those assurances are bullshit.

I thought you meant the member NEIL and not NGB. No, NGB isn't sutpid but any involvement he had in the CRCC submission won't be his finest hour of work.

Thank you for the compliment Mat!

[susan]

mat not sure that your statement about the phone is correct according to the housekeeper it was like musical chairs phones being moved around the house.

[guest7363]

Neil is it fair to say that the ccrc have been fair with Jeremy with the time frame allowed disregarding the verdict?5 Response to provisional view
When we reach a provisional view that there are no grounds to refer a case, the person who has made the application to us will normally be given 20 working days to respond to the provisional view. It may be that the applicant can point out something which would make us change our mind. 

If no response is received within that time then a final decision will be made and a Statement of Reasons setting out the formal basis for our decision will be issued. The case will then be closed. 
If a response is received then we will consider that response before a final decision is made.
Bearing in mind they reached the provisional view on Feb 11 2011.

[ngb1066]

Neil is it fair to say that the ccrc have been fair with Jeremy with the time frame allowed disregarding the verdict?5 Response to provisional view
When we reach a provisional view that there are no grounds to refer a case, the person who has made the application to us will normally be given 20 working days to respond to the provisional view. It may be that the applicant can point out something which would make us change our mind. 

If no response is received within that time then a final decision will be made and a Statement of Reasons setting out the formal basis for our decision will be issued. The case will then be closed. 
If a response is received then we will consider that response before a final decision is made.
Bearing in mind they reached the provisional view on Feb 11 2011.

I am not sure if your question was directed at me Ralph or the other member Neil.

The CCRC did give several extensions of time to Jeremy for submitting his response to the CCRC's PSOR of February 2011.  That time would have been sufficient had Simon McKay been acting earlier than his appointment late in 2011.  To that extent the CCRC were fair.

[guest7363]

I am not sure if your question was directed at me Ralph or the other member Neil.

The CCRC did give several extensions of time to Jeremy for submitting his response to the CCRC's PSOR of February 2011.  That time would have been sufficient had Jeremy had Simon McKay been acting earlier than his appointment late in 2011.  To that extent the CCRC were fair.

Sorry neil yes is was for you, many thanks for that.