Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[lookout]

How dare that woman,,,JM have been given immunity from her crimes in exchange to implicate Jeremy in the murders.  Police favours have been going on for years. Talk about bribery and corruption,,,it's been more than evident in this particular case.
Who was the greedy scheming one? Certainly not Jeremy,,that's for sure.

Take the Susan May case back in 1993,,,where Mr Justice Hutchinson stated,in his summing up,,quote " It could be said of almost any of us that we have interests in this or that relative dying if we are a beneficiary under the will,,,,but it does not support a case of murder against us,does it----------at any rate not with any conviction."unquote.
Susan was accused of murdering her rich aunt. The outcome of which we know. Another MOJ.!

BTW,Patti,,I don't know anyone who'd have shown such willingness to visit a mortuary where two little children lay. That is one cold,hard person who could volunteer something like that without emotion.Who's the psychopath here.? Whereas,Jeremy threw-up with shock at what he was told about inside WHF. That is an immediate reflex action with anyone faced with such news. In other words,a show of emotion. He was given valium as a calminative to quell his feelings of nausea.
Another poor soul stagnating in prison for something he clearly did not commit. It's beyond cruelty.

[maggie]

How dare that woman,,,JM have been given immunity from her crimes in exchange to implicate Jeremy in the murders.  Police favours have been going on for years. Talk about bribery and corruption,,,it's been more than evident in this particular case.
Who was the greedy scheming one? Certainly not Jeremy,,that's for sure.

Take the Susan May case back in 1993,,,where Mr Justice Hutchinson stated,in his summing up,,quote " It could be said of almost any of us that we have interests in this or that relative dying if we are a beneficiary under the will,,,,but it does not support a case of murder against us,does it----------at any rate not with any conviction."unquote.
Susan was accused of murdering her rich aunt. The outcome of which we know. Another MOJ.!

BTW,Patti,,I don't know anyone who'd have shown such willingness to visit a mortuary where two little children lay. That is one cold,hard person who could volunteer something like that without emotion.Who's the psychopath here.? Whereas,Jeremy threw-up with shock at what he was told about inside WHF. That is an immediate reflex action with anyone faced with such news. In other words,a show of emotion. He was given valium as a calminative to quell his feelings of nausea.
Another poor soul stagnating in prison for something he clearly did not commit. It's beyond cruelty.

I agree lookout and have personally, questioned the possibility of JM being very low on the emoting graph.  Mind you she was well able to cry for herself at the trial.  What was upsetting her in the witness box, was it the fact that she had lost Jeremy?  It was a bit late for tears  for anyone else by then,

[lookout]

Hi Maggie,,, In my estimation and observations,,,Jeremy was far too good for that woman. I just think that,,at the time Jeremy was looking for a " dominant " figure in a woman. He'd led a pretty sheltered sort of a life and so wasn't too familiar with the " outside world " until he met JM.. He more than likely found it exciting to know someone who knew a bit more about life than he did,,,so went along with it.
I bet she bossed him around and was used to getting her own way with him,,taking advantage of him at every possible chance. She was a very bad influence,,and the difference in breeding and upbringing was there to see.
 

[maggie]

Hi Maggie,,, In my estimation and observations,,,Jeremy was far too good for that woman. I just think that,,at the time Jeremy was looking for a " dominant " figure in a woman. He'd led a pretty sheltered sort of a life and so wasn't too familiar with the " outside world " until he met JM.. He more than likely found it exciting to know someone who knew a bit more about life than he did,,,so went along with it.
I bet she bossed him around and was used to getting her own way with him,,taking advantage of him at every possible chance. She was a very bad influence,,and the difference in breeding and upbringing was there to see.

The fact is lookout, that JM and her flat mate were responsible for the cheque fraud and as far as we know Jeremy had nothing to do with that. I have heard it argued that she did it to impress Jeremy but I can't see any basis for that argument.  So, who's idea was the robbery at the caravan park?  Who was the follower?  Noone knows if they were both as bad as each other, or one was led by the other but one things for sure.  JM was no innocent.

[Patti]

How dare that woman,,,JM have been given immunity from her crimes in exchange to implicate Jeremy in the murders.  Police favours have been going on for years. Talk about bribery and corruption,,,it's been more than evident in this particular case.
Who was the greedy scheming one? Certainly not Jeremy,,that's for sure.

Take the Susan May case back in 1993,,,where Mr Justice Hutchinson stated,in his summing up,,quote " It could be said of almost any of us that we have interests in this or that relative dying if we are a beneficiary under the will,,,,but it does not support a case of murder against us,does it----------at any rate not with any conviction."unquote.
Susan was accused of murdering her rich aunt. The outcome of which we know. Another MOJ.!

BTW,Patti,,I don't know anyone who'd have shown such willingness to visit a mortuary where two little children lay. That is one cold,hard person who could volunteer something like that without emotion.Who's the psychopath here.? Whereas,Jeremy threw-up with shock at what he was told about inside WHF. That is an immediate reflex action with anyone faced with such news. In other words,a show of emotion. He was given valium as a calminative to quell his feelings of nausea.
Another poor soul stagnating in prison for something he clearly did not commit. It's beyond cruelty.

Brilliant post Lookout. If we can see all of this, then why can't anyone else? It bothers me that because the lad was found guilty, that he is indeed guilty and end of...But, there is a wider picture here and that is one of false imprisonment and a bit of corruption on the way, not to mention the framing and devious ways and means of inciting someone who had just lost his family in an horrific way....Also, the past 27 years of constant battling to get some attention to seek justice...pft! 

Oh and those windows.......lol 

[Patti]

I agree lookout and have personally, questioned the possibility of JM being very low on the emoting graph.  Mind you she was well able to cry for herself at the trial.  What was upsetting her in the witness box, was it the fact that she had lost Jeremy?  It was a bit late for tears  for anyone else by then,

Hi Maggie...I feel she had gone way to far and she could not be seen lying, so she followed through with it....She had not one jot of feeling until the trial a year later..I agree with you....I have moved my duster in such a blinking fashion, I nearly wore the thing out...hahahah 

[lookout]

Brilliant post Lookout. If we can see all of this, then why can't anyone else? It bothers me that because the lad was found guilty, that he is indeed guilty and end of...But, there is a wider picture here and that is one of false imprisonment and a bit of corruption on the way, not to mention the framing and devious ways and means of inciting someone who had just lost his family in an horrific way....Also, the past 27 years of constant battling to get some attention to seek justice...pft! 

Oh and those windows.......lol 

Patti,,,I'll have to deliver you a thick ear about those pesky windows,,hahahaha.
Yes,,a big song and dance from AE about blood that she'd found on a window-sill ( always finding something,that lot,,but unfounded ) then she promptly wipes it. Oh,,I don't think so.
Some rotten so-and-so was busy " planting " various articles about the place,,,but unfortunately such articles as the silencer,,the hacksaw,,,blood on the sill,were all " found " well after the event.
 I know police are stupid,but not blind when it comes to visual  evidence that could nail someone that nobody particularly liked.! The relatives made sure of that.
I've known some cops to avoid getting involved in a crime which takes them past their 6am shift.( off duty )
A true story from years ago was an example; An officer known by the family was on duty near the Manchester Ship Canal,spotted a body coming " downstream ". Because it was nearing the end of his shift,,and to avoid paperwork,etc etc,,,he found a good length of wood and started to push the body back as much as he could,,as it was nearing 6am,,so leaving it to his next colleague. I know for sure,that this was never reported by the said officer.

[Patti]

Patti,,,I'll have to deliver you a thick ear about those pesky windows,,hahahaha.
Yes,,a big song and dance from AE about blood that she'd found on a window-sill ( always finding something,that lot,,but unfounded ) then she promptly wipes it. Oh,,I don't think so.
Some rotten so-and-so was busy " planting " various articles about the place,,,but unfortunately such articles as the silencer,,the hacksaw,,,blood on the sill,were all " found " well after the event.
 I know police are stupid,but not blind when it comes to visual  evidence that could nail someone that nobody particularly liked.! The relatives made sure of that.
I've known some cops to avoid getting involved in a crime which takes them past their 6am shift.( off duty )
A true story from years ago was an example; An officer known by the family was on duty near the Manchester Ship Canal,spotted a body coming " downstream ". Because it was nearing the end of his shift,,and to avoid paperwork,etc etc,,,he found a good length of wood and started to push the body back as much as he could,,as it was nearing 6am,,so leaving it to his next colleague. I know for sure,that this was never reported by the said officer.

Lookout windows are very important....you should now me by now,  hahahahahah

I think the police were asleep most of the time and did nothing but fail to find any evidence at all.  There were clearly never trained to be coppers.....But, the extended family were fully trained, because what the police missed, they found....says it all really.

I can believe that story Lookout.

When we look back though, policing wasn't the same as it is today, it was far better....lol 

[maggie]

Lookout windows are very important....you should now me by now,  hahahahahah

I think the police were asleep most of the time and did nothing but fail to find any evidence at all.  There were clearly never trained to be coppers.....But, the extended family were fully trained, because what the police missed, they found....says it all really.

I can believe that story Lookout.

When we look back though, policing wasn't the same as it is today, it was far better....lol 

Hi Patti

Back in 1985, policing was still reasonably simple.  Before the age of computers everything was much more colloquial.  I should imagine that particular branch of Essex Police had a reasonably quiet time, dealing with burgularies and such like most of the time.  They would be in no way be experienced enough to initially deal with a crime of such proportions on the night in question.  They may very well have been playing catch up for a while after and covering their tracks for mistakes made.  They were human and as such may not to have been too sure of the correct procedures if suddenly catapulted into such a situation.

[Patti]

Hi Patti

Back in 1985, policing was still reasonably simple.  Before the age of computers everything was much more colloquial.  I should imagine that particular branch of Essex Police had a reasonably quiet time, dealing with burgularies and such like most of the time.  They would be in no way be experienced enough to initially deal with a crime of such proportions on the night in question.  They may very well have been playing catch up for a while after and covering their tracks for mistakes made.  They were human and as such may not to have been too sure of the correct procedures if suddenly catapulted into such a situation.

Good post maggie and one that I agree with....Where is Mertol? I will email him...

[ajross]

I have said on numerous occasions that I don't necessarily think that JB is innocent or guilty. I am still undecided, however, once again, I find Wilkes' book making me err more towards the guilty arguement. JM seems to have been a relatively reliable and stoic witness, from what the book says she stuck to her guns even though she was struggling emotionally. And JB argued that witnesses who had quoted him as wanting to do away with his parents had been influenced by the media. The most telling thing has been mentioned on the forum before I believe. I have said that certain of his actions (when being quizzed by Stan Jones) were in some ways admirable. However, to respond to the question but you are lying aren't you? with well that's what you have to find out is not only foolhardy and reckless but also very suspicious. Surely he was briefed about his comportment and the influence it could have!

[mertol22]

The question put to jeremy about lying was way way out of line thats for a court to decide .

[Nuala]

Hi Patti

Back in 1985, policing was still reasonably simple.  Before the age of computers everything was much more colloquial.  I should imagine that particular branch of Essex Police had a reasonably quiet time, dealing with burgularies and such like most of the time.  They would be in no way be experienced enough to initially deal with a crime of such proportions on the night in question.  They may very well have been playing catch up for a while after and covering their tracks for mistakes made.  They were human and as such may not to have been too sure of the correct procedures if suddenly catapulted into such a situation.

Good points, Mags. Though I the EP investigation even deviated from standard police procedures on evidence gathering which every police officer, from village bobby to the highest ranking officer in the Met should know and be capable of following blindfold and to the letter.

[ajross]

I've been told that the summing up of the judge was onesided in favour of the prosecution, you could argue from reading this book that in fact it was a little onesided and wasn't either very impartial or independent, there are some phrases in there which seem to lead the jury a little and suggest guilt. But what is important is that it is suggested that the jury could dismiss one element of evidence and still find JB guilty on the rest. I think the judge worded this poorly but the idea was correct. But I can only go on what Wilkes has written and again, I find it infuriating that there are note footnotes or endnotes and no explanation or evidence of where these quotes come from, the words could have been manipulated by Wilkes to construct his book.

[ajross]

Hi Tyler

I appreciate you're busy but still interested in your views on the books as you seem to be about the only person to have read all four books.

I will get there eventually, I would imagine I will have Wilkes down and lomax ready to go tomorrow, I down the Caffell book but still need to buy the fourth