Nevill's Premonition?

[Lugg]

Erm still learning and reading,  one problem for me is I recall that the Secretary of Neville stated after the trial that he told her 'one day i will be killed by Jeremy'. I recall that very well even after 20+ years. This lady was just an ordinary woman with no axe to grind. What I can't get past is the lie detector because nobody can fool that can they?. Or can they?

So Jeremy is a murderer because Nevill had prophesied that Jeremy was going to kill him?

[Nickos]

Nickos  if you read my post again I agreed with lookout that the burns on Ralph's back could have been caused by a cigar or heated rifle but not a poker.  I never said that I was of the opinion that Sheila inflicted the burns with a cigar

Susan, x

Lookouts post: And I see those burns as being those of a lit cigar because of the definition of them. Sheila smoked the larger ones,,which,with each drag,burning bright red,  would have perhaps resembled the end of a rifle placed on bare flesh, but would have left the indentations such as are photographed.

Your post: Lookout  I agree with you cigar burns would have made marks similar to those on Ralphs back or the heated rifle but not for the poker idea too pointed the end.

I posted: I was just picking on a post from Lookout #220 (and supported by Susan) referring to Sheila making those burn marks on Nevills back with a cigar!!

I never said that you said that you were of the opinion that Sheila inflicted the burns with a cigar. I just posted that you supported Lookouts opinion, which you did!

Our posts are getting more complicated than this case   

[lookout]

Probably Hamlets too.

[susan]

Nickos  my love

sorry if I picked you up wrong I just get a little touchy when talking about the victims who were sadly murdered.

I do still love you

[susan]

Hi Guys  have you seen my new Avatar I am now showing my allegiance to Bonnie Scotland

[Nickos]

Caroline, I agree. I have never bought into the wet suit / marigold thing.

How he did dress for that night we may never know.

It's certainly one of those areas that raised the question in my mind as to how the 10 “guilty” Jury members interpreted this part of the night,  and how did Rivlin tackle it in court!!

Just following on from that thought, what is the full official prosecution version of how JB committed the murders that night – was the wet suit theory ever presented at court?

We've got the key elements that convicted JB, but what of the rest of the story.

We have the story made up by "David Shaw" of how he belives SC did it, and JB was framed , but what of the full story version of how JB did it.

I will probably always remain baffled as to how the Jury (the 10) managed to overcome the grey areas with JB's conviction, and why Rivlin didn't make more of the prosecutions weak points.

I suppose if the key elements of the prosecution’s case were compelling enough and created a “beyond reasonable doubt” in the Jurors minds that they simply overlooked how JB managed to get to and from whf that night, and where he disposed of his bloodied clothing, and how he managed to get SC to “nearly” comply with a staged suicide etc.

For me the significant points that stack against JB are;

The shooting accuracy - more JB!

The final kill shot grouping - more JB!

The double reloading - if it happened - more JB, if mutiple magazines used - more JB!

The all too convenient story of the rabbits, and the gun left out.

The alleged phone call. Nevill imo just would not have done it with Sheila in the house with a gun.

Sheila's first attempted suicide shot  to her throat - can'y buy!

Sheila tackling Nevill in such a physical manner - not for me!


But what of the full story!!

[Nickos]

Nickos  my love

sorry if I picked you up wrong I just get a little touchy when talking about the victims who were sadly murdered.

I do still love you

Susan, my flower of Scotland, all is forgiven xx

I've got two trips to Scotland planned this year -  I just love the place 

[Lugg]

Just following on from that thought, what is the full official prosecution version of how JB committed the murders that night – was the wet suit theory ever presented at court?

We've got the key elements that convicted JB, but what of the rest of the story.

We have the story made up by "David Shaw" of how he belives SC did it, and JB was framed , but what of the full story version of how JB did it.

I will probably always remain baffled as to how the Jury (the 10) managed to overcome the grey areas with JB's conviction, and why Rivlin didn't make more of the prosecutions weak points.

I suppose if the key elements of the prosecution’s case were compelling enough and created a “beyond reasonable doubt” in the Jurors minds that they simply overlooked how JB managed to get to and from whf that night, and where he disposed of his bloodied clothing, and how he managed to get SC to “nearly” comply with a staged suicide etc.

For me the significant points that stack against JB are;

The shooting accuracy - more JB!

The final kill shot grouping - more JB!

The double reloading - if it happened - more JB, if mutiple magazies used - more JB!

The all too convenient story of the rabbits, and the gun left out.

The alleged phone call. Nevill imo just would not have done it with Sheila in the house with a gun.

Sheila's first attempted suicide shot  to her throat - can'y buy!

Sheila tackling Nevill in such a physical manner - not for me!


But what of the full story!!

What, you mean the no forensic evidence that connects JB with the crime? All we have is the sayso of the relatives and the uncorroborated statetement of JM.

[susan]

Wow Nickos  I am so excited you may bump into me I will wear a big thistle in my hair so you can identify me

[lookout]

Just following on from that thought, what is the full official prosecution version of how JB committed the murders that night – was the wet suit theory ever presented at court?

We've got the key elements that convicted JB, but what of the rest of the story.

We have the story made up by "David Shaw" of how he belives SC did it, and JB was framed , but what of the full story version of how JB did it.

I will probably always remain baffled as to how the Jury (the 10) managed to overcome the grey areas with JB's conviction, and why Rivlin didn't make more of the prosecutions weak points.

I suppose if the key elements of the prosecution’s case were compelling enough and created a “beyond reasonable doubt” in the Jurors minds that they simply overlooked how JB managed to get to and from whf that night, and where he disposed of his bloodied clothing, and how he managed to get SC to “nearly” comply with a staged suicide etc.

For me the significant points that stack against JB are;

The shooting accuracy - more JB!

The final kill shot grouping - more JB!

The double reloading - if it happened - more JB, if mutiple magazines used - more JB!

The all too convenient story of the rabbits, and the gun left out.

The alleged phone call. Nevill imo just would not have done it with Sheila in the house with a gun.

Sheila's first attempted suicide shot  to her throat - can'y buy!

Sheila tackling Nevill in such a physical manner - not for me!


But what of the full story!!

What about.? :
The inaccurate photos which were taken by forensic which indicated that they were stage-managed.?

The overall contamination by the police,of a crime scene.?

The lies about how many officers entered WHF.43 on paper,17 more than were declared at the trial.?

The deceased weren't moved from the farmhouse until hours after they'd been found. Meaning that crucial evidence could have been removed when the photos were being taken.

Jeremy was outside WHF with the police when they saw someone moving inside the house.  Logs show that a loud-hailer was used for 2 hours while police attempted to contact the person sighted.

Police logs also stated on record that " one dead male and one dead female were found on entry ",,but according to court documents,only the body of Neville was downstairs.

An analyst claimed that a small red spot which was found beneath scratch marks on the kitchen wall,,,allegedly made by the silencer of the rifle,,was not red paint as originally thought,,but nail-varnish from an injury on Sheilas' toe. Further analysis showed that it was indeed a " missing area " of varnish to her big toe.  How do you think Sheila received this injury while in the kitchen that night.? Has there ever been a hint as to how this came about.?

A telephone log that proves Neville did phone the police,,but was never used at the trial.Why.?

Even a former officer with the Essex police admitted that the case had been mishandled.

There still remains to be unseen documents/photographs pertaining to the case that have yet to be disclosed. Why's that do you think.? Why are such things being withheld.?

 

[Nickos]

What, you mean the no forensic evidence that connects JB with the crime? All we have is the sayso of the relatives and the uncorroborated statetement of JM.

Hi Lugger,  well your post is sort of pointng to the story as presented by the Prosecuation, however the real thrust of my post was to highlight the "full" story that the prosecution used to convict JB - is there one? 

Something detailed like the David Shaw novel, but one supporting (in detail) how JB did it.

 

[lookout]

Hi Lugger,  well your post is sort of pointng to the story as presented by the Prosecuation, however the real thrust of my post was to highlight the "full" story that the prosecution used to convict JB - is there one? 

Something detailed like the David Shaw novel, but one supporting (in detail) how JB did it.

So I take it that you thought it was a fair trial then,Nickos.? Given that this argument is rumbling on 27 years after the " event ".

[Nickos]

So I take it that you thought it was a fair trial then,Nickos.? Given that this argument is rumbling on 27 years after the " event ".

Hi Lookout, there are elements of the trial that may seem unfair, but Rivlin was/is, I’m sure, a clever man, and would /should have known what he was up against.

There were aspects at trial available for Rivlin to manipulate to JB’s advantage, but he failed. 

I agree that the silencer evidence is not sound (found and possibly tampered with by a relative - unbelievable!).

If this had been known at trial then this could have had a significant effect at trial.

What strikes me is that when DB mentioned handling the moderator (flake of blood on moderator etc.) which I believe was during the COLP investigation (1991), why was the silencer issue not challenged more strongly by JB’s defence at this time. I assume the COLP investigation was made public?

Did Rivlin call DB at trial and why did the handling bit not come up then – did Rivlin not question RB properly?

However, beyond the silencer and JM witness statements, it is still my opinion that these murders were carried out by a man, and the only man in the frame was/is JB.

[Bridget]

Hi Lookout, there are elements of the trial that may seem unfair, but Rivlin was/is, I’m sure, a clever man, and would /should have known what he was up against.

There were aspects at trial available for Rivlin to manipulate to JB’s advantage, but he failed. 

I agree that the silencer evidence is not sound (found and tampered with by a relative - unbelievable!).

If this had been known at trial (and I believe the found by element was available, but not the tampering bit – confessed to later by was it Robert Boutflour?) then this could have had a significant effect at trial.

What strikes me is that when RB “confessed” to the tampering (scraping of a flake etc.) which I believe was during the COLP investigation (1991), why was the silencer issue not challenged more strongly by JB’s defence at this time. I assume the COLP investigation was made public?

Didi Rivlin call RB at trial and why did the scraping bit not come up then – did Rivlin not question RB properly?

However, beyond the silencer and JM witness statements, it is still my opinion that these murders were carried out by a man, and the only man in the frame was/is JB.

I think you mean David Boutflour? I don't believe he has ever 'confessed' to scraping anything. He says that there was a blob large enough to be scraped with a razor blade, he does not say that he scraped it.

[Nickos]

I think you mean David Boutflour? I don't believe he has ever 'confessed' to scraping anything. He says that there was a blob large enough to be scraped with a razor blade, he does not say that he scraped it.

Thanks for correcting Bridget.