Sheila attempted to commit suicide (but failed), and was shot by the police...

[Roch]

Hi Roch  I hear where you are coming from but why was it necessary not to proceed with charges against her "skeletons" in the cupboard surely she had sat on the fact she knew Jeremy to be a mass murderer she should not have been rewarded for withholding that serious information

I suspect that the police would not have let her get away with being an accessory or an accomplice or having prior knowledge etc.  I suspect that if she had been genuinely any of the above, she would not have been 'rewarded' in the material and circumstantial way that came to be.  Maxine Carr was not 'rewarded'.   She was demonised and punished.  Although I accept this is a different case in a different era.

This in turn leads me to believe that there was never anything for her to be an accomplice to or an accessory of.  Instead, she was used, coerced and micro managed, then rewarded.

[susan]

Hi Roch  my sentiments exactly she therefore, if this was the case committed perjury.

[Roch]

Hi Roch  my sentiments exactly she therefore, if this was the case committed perjury.

I have always wondered whether JB made frustrated and innapropriate comments about his family to her.  If so, these could have sowed a seed of possibilities in her mind.  Such remarks could also have been embelleshed under the tutorship of DS Jones.  It has been alleged that he informed her that there had definitely not been a call from WHF to Goldhanger.  This was in fact unprovable and therefore inconclusive for either defence or prosecution.  If what is being alleged is true, then that is a shocking lie which would have had a devastating impact upon her.  From that point on, it really is about saving her own skin.

[Jane]

Morning Roch. Do you not think it a possibility that the police did a deal with her along the lines of having enough on her to do serious damage to her chances of a future career, to put a stain on her reputation and possibly earn her a prison sentence, all of which could be overlooked if she told them what she knew. It may have been left to her to decide what she did know, which may explain why, although she said he planned it, she bought in a "hitman" because it was marginally better than saying the gun was in Jeremy's hand.

[susan]

Hi Roch  I think Jeremy would have made silly comments to her about his family acting the "Big Man" and when it suited her she thought maybe it was possible that Jeremy was involved.  But I don,t think he ever confessed to her that he had carried out the murders that is the main difference.  She believed what she wanted to believe and dressed it up somewhat especially after he dumped her and she would know then she was not going to share his inheritance Jeremy was naive but not so naive that he would dump her after what he had told her.

[Jane]

Spot on Susan. Right down to the last punctuation mark!!!!!

[Bridget]

I think once she came forward was pulled in & interviewed under caution, she was probably told that if she had any skeletons in her cupboard she'd better reveal them now.

As yet unproven.

[Roch]

Hi Roch  I think Jeremy would have made silly comments to her about his family acting the "Big Man" and when it suited her she thought maybe it was possible that Jeremy was involved.  But I don,t think he ever confessed to her that he had carried out the murders that is the main difference.  She believed what she wanted to believe and dressed it up somewhat especially after he dumped her and she would know then she was not going to share his inheritance Jeremy was naive but not so naive that he would dump her after what he had told her.

You might be right Susie.

Did Uncle Bobby inadvertantly give police the idea of Jeremy having discussed with Julie about doing away with his family?  It was RWB who claimed Jeremy had once said "I could easily shoot my parents".   We'll never know if JB actually said such a thing, but his propensity for innapropriate remarks causing irksome social situations, seems to be a regular theme.  Whether the remarks are flippant or sinister can never be proved.

[Roch]

As yet unproven.

In a court of law, I agree.

[Jane]

Hi Roch  I think Jeremy would have made silly comments to her about his family acting the "Big Man" and when it suited her she thought maybe it was possible that Jeremy was involved.  But I don,t think he ever confessed to her that he had carried out the murders that is the main difference.  She believed what she wanted to believe and dressed it up somewhat especially after he dumped her and she would know then she was not going to share his inheritance Jeremy was naive but not so naive that he would dump her after what he had told her.

[Roch]

Morning Roch. Do you not think it a possibility that the police did a deal with her along the lines of having enough on her to do serious damage to her chances of a future career, to put a stain on her reputation and possibly earn her a prison sentence, all of which could be overlooked if she told them what she knew. It may have been left to her to decide what she did know, which may explain why, although she said he planned it, she bought in a "hitman" because it was marginally better than saying the gun was in Jeremy's hand.

April, I suspect she was 'got at'.  She was either the way in to frame a guilty man... or the way in to frame an innocent man.  Yes I think that you are right but I suspect the threat may have been more serious, i.e. linked to the murders.

I cant claim the credit for the following theory:  The police introduced the hitman story... because of the sighting at the window. 

[jon]

Do not forget when JM went back to the bank she was accompanied by a policeman , this
was verified by a the then manager at the bank , i will let Bridget show us what the COA said
about the impartial manager's recollection of event's !! If she would be so kind !!

[Bridget]

You mean this?:

We are far from persuaded that anything done by the police or by the witnesses was improper on any version of the facts. Insofar as there is now a conflict between the witnesses, we are not persuaded that such conflict would have manifested itself, if these matters had been explored whilst memories remained fresh and notes still survived. Accordingly we are not in any way persuaded that this aspect of the case, which was to an extent removed from the critical features of the case, gives us any cause to doubt the safety of the convictions. We do not accept that any impropriety by the police has been established on the evidence available, either as to their conduct at the time of the visit to the bank or by way of some attempt to cover up their role in the matter.

[jon]

You mean this?:

We are far from persuaded that anything done by the police or by the witnesses was improper on any version of the facts. Insofar as there is now a conflict between the witnesses, we are not persuaded that such conflict would have manifested itself, if these matters had been explored whilst memories remained fresh and notes still survived. Accordingly we are not in any way persuaded that this aspect of the case, which was to an extent removed from the critical features of the case, gives us any cause to doubt the safety of the convictions. We do not accept that any impropriety by the police has been established on the evidence available, either as to their conduct at the time of the visit to the bank or by way of some attempt to cover up their role in the matter.

Thanks for that , but i believe there is a bit more , something to do with the manager not keeping
a record of the meeting if memory serves me correctly !!

[lookout]

You mean this?:

We are far from persuaded that anything done by the police or by the witnesses was improper on any version of the facts. Insofar as there is now a conflict between the witnesses, we are not persuaded that such conflict would have manifested itself, if these matters had been explored whilst memories remained fresh and notes still survived. Accordingly we are not in any way persuaded that this aspect of the case, which was to an extent removed from the critical features of the case, gives us any cause to doubt the safety of the convictions. We do not accept that any impropriety by the police has been established on the evidence available, either as to their conduct at the time of the visit to the bank or by way of some attempt to cover up their role in the matter.

Why should we believe bank managers.?