Who were the Defendants in this case?

[andrea]

Thats right, Takeshi. Hope you dont mind me calling you that! I agree.

[grahameb]

I apoligise for not reading all the pages before my reply but please take note of what i say. Many people critisise the trial judge for limiting the defendants to either JB or SB. But why? If you understand legal process this was actually a very accurate and brilliant descion by him. JB states that he recievded a call from his father saying Sheila has got the gun and is going berserk. That means the killer had to be either SB or JB or someone working on JB's behalf, in which case he was ultametly guilty. I personally do not believe in a third party. It was either JB or SB.

But if Jeremy was innocent then he telling the truth lead to the judge directing the jury down the wrong path. He also deliberated upon the silencer telling the jury that if it was Sheila's blood in the silencer then it must have been Jeremy who pulled the trigger. The silencer remember was a corrupted piece of evidence even if the relatives did find it. I think his "brilliant" decision swayed the Jury and that is not the job of a judge. The jury would be certain to follow his guide.

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

But if Jeremy was innocent then he telling the truth lead to the judge directing the jury down the wrong path. He also deliberated upon the silencer telling the jury that if it was Sheila's blood in the silencer then it must have been Jeremy who pulled the trigger. The silencer remember was a corrupted piece of evidence even if the relatives did find it. I think his "brilliant" decision swayed the Jury and that is not the job of a judge. The jury would be certain to follow his guide.

Grahame i didn't even go that far in my reasoning because it wasn't necessary to make the point i was trying to make. This thread is titled the defendants in the case. Jb said he received a phone call from his father saying SB had a gun and was going berserk. Now if that was true that puts SB in the frame for murder. The only alternative is that JB was lying about the phone call and he himself had killed his family and then returned to his cottage at Goldhanger, and phoned the police pretending that his father had phoned him etc.

[grahameb]

Grahame i didn't even go that far in my reasoning because it wasn't necessary to make the point i was trying to make. This thread is titled the defendants in the case. Jb said he received a phone call from his father saying SB had a gun and was going berserk. Now if that was true that puts SB in the frame for murder. The only alternative is that JB was lying about the phone call and he himself had killed his family and then returned to his cottage at Goldhanger, and phoned the police pretending that his father had phoned him etc.

And my answer was that the judge wasn't brilliant in what he said for it was he who planted the seed in the minds of the jury that Jeremy was guilty when in actual fact he may indeed have been telling the truth. It was not up to the judge to say that kind of thing. It is his job to sum up the evidence put before the jury in an unbiased way. This he did not do. He gave "his opinion" instead, which was a biased view.

[andrea]

Isnt it just common sense? Jb alleges he gets a call from dad. But there is no proof of one. So how did jb know his family were dead unless he was there when they died.

[Roch]

Isnt it just common sense? Jb alleges he gets a call from dad. But there is no proof of one. So how did jb know his family were dead unless he was there when they died.

Some alternative slants: 

(1) There is no proof a call didn't take place. In which case Stan has some explaining to do regarding why he told Mugford that a call definitely didn't take place.

(2) There is proof of metered a cheap rate call, most likely to be the call in question.

(3) What on earth was he doing executing an audacious plan to carry out five murders, the success of which would be dependent upon a call that could either be proved as never having taken place or at the very least be inconclusive?  It's hardly likely is it? 

[Patti]

It wouldn't have needed a phone call to put Sheila in the frame. Sheila fell into the frame when she was found with the rifle. Plus Jeremy had redial on his phone. All the police had to do was check his phone, but oh dear, that moment passed. 

[Bridget]

Some alternative slants: 

(1) There is no proof a call didn't take place. In which case Stan has some explaining to do regarding why he told Mugford that a call definitely didn't take place.

Did he?

(2) There is proof of metered a cheap rate call, most likely to be the call in question.

Is there? I haven't seen the things Mike's talking about, but I thought they were from the previous March.

(3) What on earth was he doing executing an audacious plan to carry out five murders, the success of which would be dependent upon a call that could either be proved as never having taken place or at the very least be inconclusive?  It's hardly likely is it?

I'm sure he thought he would be believed - which he was, at first.

[Bridget]

It wouldn't have needed a phone call to put Sheila in the frame. Sheila fell into the frame when she was found with the rifle. Plus Jeremy had redial on his phone. All the police had to do was check his phone, but oh dear, that moment passed. 

Sorry Ms P, I must be missing your point - why is the redial on JB's phone relevant?

[Patti]

Sorry Ms P, I must be missing your point - why is the redial on JB's phone relevant?

I missed it too Bridget. I am in a confused state about all these phones. If redial was pressed it would have proven who JB called last, but like I said that moment passed, because he wasn't in the frame for murder then.

But my other point was, that there was no need for JB to make a telephone call to make it look like Sheila was in the frame, this was apparent when she was found by police. The police believed it to be the case for  weeks. Then suddenly changed there mind when JM and the extended family made their stories up and to to be honest one could make the crime fit...and that is what they did...IMHO 

[Roch]

Did he? 

Is there? I haven't seen the things Mike's talking about, but I thought they were from the previous March.

I'm sure he thought he would be believed - which he was, at first.

I believe he did.  I have no proof.

Sorry, my use of italics in this instance is to signify that there might indeed be proof.  I'm not claiming there definitely is.

I'm not sure at all.  He'd have to be extremely stupid to make assumptions like that, with such cavernous consequences at stake.  Not least a complete undermining of his alleged goal to obtain inheritence, never mind the small matter of massive porridge with a 'child killer' label hanging from his neck.

[Patti]

Did he?

Is there? I haven't seen the things Mike's talking about, but I thought they were from the previous March.

I'm sure he thought he would be believed - which he was, at first.

Hi Bridget, I saw them and they could determine who called where and when. If they could do it for the March of that year, then surely they could do it for the August. It shows Nevill calling a number in Northampton and Meldon...email me and I will send them to you...My address is on the members list. To be honest I would value your opinion. 

[Bridget]

I missed it too Bridget. I am in a confused state about all these phones. If redial was pressed it would have proven who JB called last, but like I said that moment passed, because he wasn't in the frame for murder then.

But my other point was, that there was no need for JB to make a telephone call to make it look like Sheila was in the frame, this was apparent when she was found by police. The police believed it to be the case for  weeks. Then suddenly changed there mind when JM and the extended family made their stories up and to to be honest one could make the crime fit...and that is what they did...IMHO 

I've wondered about your other point too. Pure speculation on my part I know, but if he was worried about the fact that the police might not immediately see Sheila's death as a suicide because of the two shots, it might seem a good plan to phone the police in order to put that idea in their heads.... and that is what he did...IMHO

[Bridget]

Sorry, my use of italics in this instance is to signify that there might indeed be proof.  I'm not claiming there definitely is.

Try the word 'if', it works better

[Patti]

I've wondered about your other point too. Pure speculation on my part I know, but if he was worried about the fact that the police might not immediately see Sheila's death as a suicide because of the two shots, it might seem a good plan to phone the police in order to put that idea in their heads.... and that is what he did...IMHO

It's all speculation really. No one knows for sure, but if there is evidence of a call made to Goldhanger that night from WHF then it blows this case for what it was and that was a cover up. I honestly believe that BT could have traced this call, had it been done immediately, but like all the evidence it all appeared late in the day and none of it really proves the fact JB killed his family, nor does it prove he didn't.

Stick with the evidence and stay away form speculation is the only way to free this man if he innocent. Made up stories, will turn people away...for they will consider it bull shit....