Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[Roch]

It's all a bit 'Public Schoolboyish' isn't it?

 

I hope nobody ends up being soundly thrashed, egap style 

[-Harters-]

 

I hope nobody ends up being soundly thrashed, egap style 

Me too. 

[susan]

Hi lookout  Jeremy would get the shock of is life when found guilty.  He was so sure he would walk free as in his own mind he knew he was innocent and maybe he should have taken the case a little bit more seriously I bet many times over the past 27 years he has thought that himself.  I am trying to figure out why the Police would shoot Sheila as suggested by Mike I am of course not disputing this but I can,t see what the advantage would be at that stage.  Do you know lookout..

[ngb1066]

It's all a bit 'Public Schoolboyish' isn't it? What would be the purpose?  I could understand it if I was calling you out on something, as you would have the incentive of fighting your own corner, but otherwise it just sounds a bit childish. 

I'm happy to wait and see.

Very patronising.

I did not go to public school.

[-Harters-]

Very patronising.

I did not go to public school.

Not half as patronising as your wager goad. 

[Bridget]

You've argued that there was a lack of evidence that Sheila suffered a serious episode, while simultaneously holding the stance that you wouldn't expect to see any evidence of a serious episode even if she'd had suffered one.  That's what I was hoping to clarify, so thanks 

The review of the case would have been inclusive of anything Sheila related, so I'm not buying your other argument as a get out clause.  Unless of course you are arguing that he reviewed all case evidence except that which was linked to Sheila?

I don't know how to put it any more clearly, all I have said is that there is no evidence that Sheila suffered a psychotic episode. This was said in response to the numerous posts here which suggest that she did, and that this was what was behind her killing her family. The review didn't find any such evidence either.

[ngb1066]

Not half as patronising as your wager goad. 

I will not bother to respond.

   

[-Harters-]

I will not bother to respond.

   

I can't be sure, but I think you just did. 

Anyway, I've made two predictions, the first being that leave to apply for Judicial Review will be refused, the second being that soon after the refusal, Jeremy will seeking a new legal representative.

The very definition of the word 'prediction', indicates that I am making a guess, a prophesy, nothing more and nothing less.

How that was interpreted as a gambling opportunity I will never know. 

[Nickos]

I can't be sure, but I think you just did. 

Anyway, I've made two predictions, the first being that leave to apply for Judicial Review will be refused, the second being that soon after the refusal, Jeremy will seeking a new legal representative.

The very definition of the word 'prediction', indicates that I am making a guess, a prophesy, nothing more and nothing less.

How that was interpreted as a gambling opportunity I will never know. 

Most, if not all, gambling opportunities are based on predictions !! 

[-Harters-]

Most, if not all, gambling opportunities are based on predictions !! 

Touche 

[Jane]

I don't know how to put it any more clearly, all I have said is that there is no evidence that Sheila suffered a psychotic episode. This was said in response to the numerous posts here which suggest that she did, and that this was what was behind her killing her family. The review didn't find any such evidence either.

Bridget, despite my very lengthy posts about it, I don't believe I ever implied that Sheila DID suffer a psychotic episode. I offered that it was not beyond the realms of possibilty that she did, and by accepting it, the belief that Jeremy was guilty beyond a shadow of doubt may have been changed.

[Bridget]

Bridget, despite my very lengthy posts about it, I don't believe I ever implied that Sheila DID suffer a psychotic episode. I offered that it was not beyond the realms of possibilty that she did, and by accepting it, the belief that Jeremy was guilty beyond a shadow of doubt may have been changed.

Hi April, yes, you were very careful to state that you weren't saying that that is what happened, others weren't so careful. I apologise if my comment appeared to be aimed at you, that wasn't my intention.

[-Harters-]

Hi -The Jam-

I'm not sure I follow:

"In law the assets were never his to start with". 

Sheila and Jeremy were the main beneficiaires of Nevill and June's estate.  As Sheila and the twins died Jeremy became the main beneficiary.  Jeremy was not convicted until Oct 86 so I assume you mean that probate had not taken its natural course or if it had the estate was being held by the executors whilst Jeremy was on remand awaiting trial?  My view is that this is a hugely complex area and if JB's conviction is quashed I doubt if there is a lawyer/barrister in the land that could give a definitive answer as to whether or not JB would be entitled to claim any part of Nevill and June's estate.  Back to the courts 

Anyone know who the executors were?

Hi Egap,

Basil Cock was the executor. Probate had not been served at the time Jeremy was under suspicion or indeed when he was charged, so the ownership of the assets were never transferred to Jeremy.

[-Harters-]

Hi -The Jam-

Thanks for the info.  Was probate granted prior to Jeremy's conviction?

I don't know for sure, but I'd find it highly unlikely.

Edit: Well actually, no, it couldn't possibly have been.

[Roch]

I don't know how to put it any more clearly, all I have said is that there is no evidence that Sheila suffered a psychotic episode. This was said in response to the numerous posts here which suggest that she did, and that this was what was behind her killing her family. The review didn't find any such evidence either.

How do you know there was no evidence or the the review found no evidence    You are not being very clear at all.