Occupants of CA07, relayed information to control room, from raid team...

[mertol22]

Whose bed Mertol?

hello maggie , next to sheila.

[bloggs and son]

If I was a mod I would find Hartley's 'one dead female one dead male explanation and sticky it to the top of the forum'.

I have never seen his explanation? But what I will contend with is that they "made a mistake". That is a very easy thing to say. But any kind of explanation still leave that unanswered. They may be able to explain away the "mistake" of seeing two bodies through the window (although the position of Ralph's chair would have made him very easy to see through the window) and then to repeat the same "mistake" when they reported one dead male and one dead female when they actually entered the property. (I do not agree that this was just a reiteration of the former message of what they saw through the window. That is very hard to believe and seems to be a very forced interpretation of what happened?)
But they cannot explain away the fact that they also reported three more bodies upstairs. It cannot be a mistake and I cannot accept that as an explanation.

[mike tesko]

Surely, somebody should be able to make a molehill out of a mountain now that they have this to work on?

[mike tesko]

Bob Millers notebook states that the rifle was on her right side and not on her body.

Members of the raid team say thy found Sheila's body on the bedroom floor with the rifle atop it and the barrel pointing in the direction of her chin...

[mike tesko]

Members of the raid team say thy found Sheila's body on the bedroom floor with the rifle atop it and the barrel pointing in the direction of her chin...

At 9am, PS Adams visits the main bedroom and sees Sheila's body but has no recollection of the rifle being present upon the body at that stage?

[bloggs and son]

Members of the raid team say thy found Sheila's body on the bedroom floor with the rifle atop it and the barrel pointing in the direction of her chin...

Well Mike there sure is something amiss here. The raid team say (in all their statements) that the rifle was "on her body". But Bob Miller's notebook says the gun was "on her right side". I don't know about you Mike. But the notebook of Miller were notes from the actual time he went into the crime scene. The raid team statements were made up afterwards. I am only quoting what I have read. The statements were drawn up afterwards, after a conflab in the incident room. I know what I would believe and Iam not twisting evidence to suit my own theory here. The other notes I quoted were also "ironed out" in the official account. But there again I quoted actual SOC notes. We have no right to explain them away because they don't fit in with our own strained explanations just because we think JB is guilty.

[maggie]

I have never seen his explanation? But what I will contend with is that they "made a mistake". That is a very easy thing to say. But any kind of explanation still leave that unanswered. They may be able to explain away the "mistake" of seeing two bodies through the window (although the position of Ralph's chair would have made him very easy to see through the window) and then to repeat the same "mistake" when they reported one dead male and one dead female when they actually entered the property. (I do not agree that this was just a reiteration of the former message of what they saw through the window. That is very hard to believe and seems to be a very forced interpretation of what happened?)
But they cannot explain away the fact that they also reported three more bodies upstairs. It cannot be a mistake and I cannot accept that as an explanation.

True grahame. It is clear what they said. Unfortunately interested parties can argue differently. The curse of this casr.

[bloggs and son]

True grahame. It is clear what they said. Unfortunately interested parties can argue differently. The curse of this casr.

Well whatever they argue Maggie, they cannot deny that there are contradictions here and we all know what happens when people discuss contradictions. They "explain them away". I haven't don't that. What I have done is to highlight them plain and simple. I for one am not out to "hoodwink" people. These are factual off the cuff notes made by officers present, as they were present. They were not "harmonised" in some after meeting, which is what I personally suspect happened.

[Nuala]

Fair play to him for coming up with an explanation.  It did not ring true for me and I certainly would not sticky it. I suppose it could be stickied as 'Hartley's explanation'   

It didn't ring true for me either.

[Nuala]

Unfortunately not Maggie, Mike wants to persuade people that something other than the 'official' chain of events occured, he has failed, because as you rightly state, it's all suposition based on not a lot.

If that's not the case and he has some sort of concrete proof, such as a phone bill or a photograph of Sheila on the bed, then, and I'm sure I speak for the whole forum here (both sides), let's see it please. I'm sure Jeremy wouldn't mind a copy also.

Until that happens (which I don't believe ever could) we'll just have the same old arguments. The above argument for example, has played itself out, between Mike and I, about five or six times over the last year or so, each time identical to the last.

You don't speak for me, Hartley

[maggie]

You don't speak for me, Hartley

Yes it is mainley suposition.Your arguments are certanly that. I think Mike has the truth on his side. That does not make me stupid but it does show I can think.

[NewChilledOutHartley]

You don't speak for me, Hartley

I'd suggest that you are in the minority then, I get the feeling everybody else on here would like to see concrete evidence of Jeremys guilt or innocence, either way.

Oh I see, you're just trying another little antagonistic dig at me, have you not learnt anything.  GROW UP! 

[Bridget]

I have never seen his explanation? But what I will contend with is that they "made a mistake". That is a very easy thing to say. But any kind of explanation still leave that unanswered. They may be able to explain away the "mistake" of seeing two bodies through the window (although the position of Ralph's chair would have made him very easy to see through the window) and then to repeat the same "mistake" when they reported one dead male and one dead female when they actually entered the property. (I do not agree that this was just a reiteration of the former message of what they saw through the window. That is very hard to believe and seems to be a very forced interpretation of what happened?)
But they cannot explain away the fact that they also reported three more bodies upstairs. It cannot be a mistake and I cannot accept that as an explanation.

I'm not going to try to repeat Hartley's explanation, but you seem to have the gist of it anyway. One point, yes Neville's body would have been easy to see through the window, but they would have been seeing him from behind and slightly to his right. He was slumped forward (away from them) with his hair obscuring his face.

[bob]

Mike - dumb question, I'm sure, but what was the motive for the police moving her body from the bed to the floor?

[bloggs and son]

I'm not going to try to repeat Hartley's explanation, but you seem to have the gist of it anyway. One point, yes Neville's body would have been easy to see through the window, but they would have been seeing him from behind and slightly to his right. He was slumped forward (away from them) with his hair obscuring his face.

Yes I get that Bridget. But to mistake him for two people?