Gases/residue from gun found on nightdress worn by Sheila Caffell...

[maggie]

Yes,he then pretended to be sick on nothing,then hours later gets his appetite back and gets the frying pan going,as appetite increase is a classic symptom of cannabis misuse.

You have no proof that is the case.  Anyone can wretch when they are in a traumatic state and anyway tht was earlier on which may have meant he got rid of anything left in his stomach.  Later he would have been hypoglycemic.  The true story, not the embroidered novelette type story was that the police told him he must eat and all he had in the fridge was a few peices of bacon.  The fact that later he may have smoked some cannabis is not surprising as it would have taken the edge off the trauma and may even have made him laugh but what of it if he was a bit stoned later in the morning..bet the poor guy needed it.  He would have been hungry because he hadn't eaten...nothing to do with the cannabis, poor argument Steve. imo

[Steve_uk]

STEVE, I have seen you post this before and ignore my answering post.  Anne Eaton would not know it but I assure you this is true...nothing sinister..Jeremy just needed his breakfast..you know the breakfast the police told him he needed to eat.

But it was his manner that morning in front of the Police as if all had been done and dusted. This was picked up again at various points after the murders by the relatives and Colin.

[Steve_uk]

You have no proof that is the case.  Anyone can wretch when they are in a traumatic state and anyway tht was earlier on which may have meant he got rid of anything left in his stomach.  Later he would have been hypoglycemic.  The true story, not the embroidered novelette type story was that the police told him he must eat and all he had in the fridge was a few peices of bacon.  The fact that later he may have smoked some cannabis is not surprising as it would have taken the edge off the trauma and may even have made him laugh but what of it if he was a bit stoned later in the morning..bet the poor guy needed it.  He would have been hungry because he hadn't eaten...nothing to do with the cannabis, poor argument Steve. imo

I'm not saying Jeremy is guilty because he cooked himself breakfast,but his manner in front of the Police always was synonymous with the recent Andrew Mitchell MP case;that they were plebs whom Jeremy could outwit at every turn.

[mike tesko]

A round has a brass case, and lead bullet, if you only touch brass you cannot get a result for lead, unless you handle lead - prove that nobody could handle/load rounds into gun without there being any traces of lead on the hands/fingers?

[Patti]

I'm not saying Jeremy is guilty because he cooked himself breakfast,but his manner in front of the Police always was synonymous with the recent Andrew Mitchell MP case;that they were plebs whom Jeremy could outwit at every turn.

Hi Steve...What are you trying to say then? People do unusual thing when they have been beavered..Not everyone sits and cries...

[maggie]

I'm not saying Jeremy is guilty because he cooked himself breakfast,but his manner in front of the Police always was synonymous with the recent Andrew Mitchell MP case;that they were plebs whom Jeremy could outwit at every turn.

How do you know that Steve, it's the same old story, you don't know how he acted or what he was like.  Some may have liked him, some not, surely it depends who you speak to.  Different people have diffrent takes on people imo.
I would say Andrew Mitchell was a pratt rather than a murderer

[maggie]

But it was his manner that morning in front of the Police as if all had been done and dusted. This was picked up again at various points after the murders by the relatives and Colin.

Well the relatives picked up what suited them I should imagine. Once they decided Jeremy had done it, it's easy to pick stuff up and convince yourself of the meaning and Colin probably really didn't want Sheila to have killed his boys and he would find it much easier to blame Jeremy and be angry with him.  It may have helped him to deal. imo

[Steve_uk]

Hi Steve...What are you trying to say then? People do unusual thing when they have been beavered..Not everyone sits and cries...

Leaving aside the witness statements which have been quoted ad nauseum on this site it's the general demeanour of Jeremy that first morning as if he didn't know how to grieve(Colin Caffell picked up on this point in his book)because he felt no loss whatsoever. Before anyone says we all grieve in a different way well that's fine,as long as Jeremy says "I didn't like my family but I didn't kill them" instead of 27 years later going through the charade that he talks to each one of the five family members on a daily basis inside his prison cell at Full Sutton prison.

We all know there was part of Jeremy who liked to be the centre of attention and again there's nothing intrinsically wrong with this,but as soon as Jeremy is picked up on errors in his statement that first Wednesday morning he starts to clam up,avoids the relatives as much as possible at the funerals and elsewhere and answers the Police's questions in subsequent interviews in September 1985 in monotones,pulling threads from his jumper and chewing them between his teeth,answering "no comment" to the most dangerous lines of questioning as to the telephone calls to Julie and whether he had worn gloves whilst shooting the rabbits on the Tuesday evening,when any innocent person would have stayed all day with Police to clear up such relatively simple matters.

[Steve_uk]

Well the relatives picked up what suited them I should imagine. Once they decided Jeremy had done it, it's easy to pick stuff up and convince yourself of the meaning and Colin probably really didn't want Sheila to have killed his boys and he would find it much easier to blame Jeremy and be angry with him.  It may have helped him to deal. imo

Well Sheila may well have been difficult to live with which is why Colin left her-nobody is claiming that Sheila was a well woman,just that she was a naive and simple creature,gullible and easily-led,which is what put the evil murder plot into Jeremy's head in the first place.

[Patti]

Leaving aside the witness statements which have been quoted ad nauseum on this site it's the general demeanour of Jeremy that first morning as if he didn't know how to grieve(Colin Caffell picked up on this point in his book)because he felt no loss whatsoever. Before anyone says we all grieve in a different way well that's fine,as long as Jeremy says "I didn't like my family but I didn't kill them" instead of 27 years later going through the charade that he talks to each one of the five family members on a daily basis inside his prison cell at Full Sutton prison.

We all know there was part of Jeremy who liked to be the centre of attention and again there's nothing intrinsically wrong with this,but as soon as Jeremy is picked up on errors in his statement that first Wednesday morning he starts to clam up,avoids the relatives as much as possible at the funerals and elsewhere and answers the Police's questions in subsequent interviews in September 1985 in monotones,pulling threads from his jumper and chewing them between his teeth,answering "no comment" to the most dangerous lines of questioning as to the telephone calls to Julie and whether he had worn gloves whilst shooting the rabbits on the Tuesday evening,when any innocent person would have stayed all day with Police to clear up such relatively simple matters.

I don't know how you can say he avoided the relatives Steve.  He had no option but, to endure them, at a time when they were watching his every single movement. 

Was it not Jeremy who bought AE flowers? Was it not Jeremy who wanted to pay for all the funerals, Was is not Jeremy who paid for Colin and his friends to dine out after the tragedies, was is not Jeremy who went round to console AE, was is not Jeremy who gave Julie £400 pounds for her birthday after they had parted, because he wanted to keep his promise to her, was it not Jeremy who was invited into his own house by those who plotted against him, was it not Jeremy who had to do all the running about, was it not Jeremy who was on the mind of AE when notified of the tragedy..Why not HIM??...Was it not Jeremy AE checked for bruising or marks on his arms...Jeremy Jeremy Jeremy....Sounds like a song doesn't it lol 

[Steve_uk]

There was no physical contact with any of the victims apart from when Jeremy placed a feeble Sheila's  finger around the rifle. Jeremy had a few scratches on the palm of his hand but covered himself by showing these to David Boutflour on the morning of the murders.

The victims were just a means to an end,and the relatives just one more inconvenience as Jeremy saw it blocking his way to his inheritance,to be endured as long enough as it took before he could put distance between them.

[Patti]

There was no physical contact with any of the victims apart from when Jeremy placed a feeble Sheila's  finger around the rifle. Jeremy had a few scratches on the palm of his hand but covered himself by showing these to David Boutflour on the morning of the murders.

The victims were just a means to an end,and the relatives just one more inconvenience as Jeremy saw it blocking his way to his inheritance,to be endured as long enough as it took before he could put distance between them.

No no no no no no no....Do you write for Jackonary? lol 

[Steve_uk]

No no no no no no no....Do you write for Jackonary? lol 

Well if the Jackanory clip is posted again I will reciprocate with the Magic Roundabout..

[Patti]

Well if the Jackanory clip is posted again I will reciprocate with the Magic Roundabout..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNxw1l5SZ6s

hahahahahahaha

[curiousessex]

For me the most interesting item in the attachment Mike has included in the first post in the thread is as follows;

Heat of muzzle end of barrel - cause burns?

Was this not the subject of the latest TV documentary which was broadcast just prior to the decision of the CCRC.

Is there anything more available in terms of the resulting conclusions from the apparent inquiries that, one presumes, were made at the time?

Is the date as recorded on the contemporaneous notes for the meeting 18/9/85?

Any other suggestions / interpretations for the date as detailed on the top of the notes?