Did you find the wall / edge , which Bewes jumped behind ? As in the past you have said , what wall/edge , have you not ?
I didn't realise I was supposed to be looking, you seem to have an amazing memory for what I have said.
Good that you are paying attention.
I never did quite get to the bottom of whether they ducked behind a wall or hedge, I believe it was a hedge located approximately 40 yards to the South of WHF forming the boundary between the formal gardens and the fields. If we could see their statements then that may be a question that could be answered.
As for posting statements , if you were to see one from Mercer , would it change your opinion , if he was to say his dog was trained to sniff gun residue etc ? And JB was free of it on the night in question ,
I'd love to see Mercers statements if he made one, although I strongly suspect that he did not.
As far as commenting of it's possible contents, then I'm at a bit of a loss to understand what you want me to say. To be honest it sounds like one of your antagonistic questions where any answer I give you simply supplements and fuels further antagonistic leading questions, not immediately, but probably in twelve months time, just like your wall/hedge reference above.
Or would you just say as you did with Jeapes statement , that she did not see what she claimed ? Do you read nothing into Jeapes statement being withheld for 20 years ? Could you give us all a possible explanation , why Jeapes statement was withheld
Well I don't believe that is what I have previously said, but given your amazing recollection of my contributions then it certainly sounds possible.
Basically, Jeapes statement is a complete mess, the colour coding is wrong, we can't be sure what area of the house she is looking at and she says that she saw what 'might' be a rifle in the window. The exact same meaning could be inferred if she said she saw something which 'might not' be a rifle, basically she is unsure. There are no other accounts to back her up and so it's put down as an anomaly, if it was sufficient evidence for the defence to rely upon, then I'm sure that they would have done so.
As for why it was withheld, well I haven't seen any evidence that it was, but if it was, then I do not know, it's probably more the case that it wasn't used, rather than being deliberately withheld. But I am guessing.
along with the telephone logs , that JB had to go to court to obtain , now i appreciate you don't know for sure , as in your explanation for the logs , but can you give EP a get out again and tell us all a feasible reason ?
Again, and as you quite rightly indicate, no I do not know. But if they were withheld, then as much as you are surprised by that, then I am surprised that the original defence team didn't question their absence during the original trial.
