The bedroom phone, phone calls & Neville.

[Jane]

Whose pills were they ? Why didn't Jeremy just get his own pills if Julie did not have any ?

Jeremy said in the interview transcript the sleeping pills were Julie's medication. So they were Julies.

Julie said some were given to Jeremy. He tried them on himself but thought they were useless.

So why the need to ask the question in the first place?

[Adam]

So why the need to ask the question in the first place?

I asked the question.

Then remembered I had read Julies WS & Jeremys interview transcripts.

[Adam]

Julie on TV after the conviction said Jeremy planned to drug the family & burn the house down.

[Roch]

Do my eyes deceive me or is Adam not going to answer post 2788?  That's fine if he is not.

[Jane]

Julie on TV after the conviction said Jeremy planned to drug the family & burn the house down.

Did she also say she provided him with the means to do it? By the way Post 2788 is waiting for an answer from you. Thus far, your reticence to do so speaks volumes.

[Adam]

Sorry Roch was too busy answering everyone else.

What point are you making ?

[Adam]

Julie lied to the police, courts & on TV. Naughty girl.

[Roch]

Sorry Roch was too busy answering everyone else.

What point are you making ?

It's alright.  It doesn't matter.  You post from a stance where everyone tells the truth except Jeremy, police are completely open about all evidence available to them and relatives are knowledgeble regarding Sheila / her illness.   The piece I copy and pasted highlights that Police withheld from the defence, statements from social services that undermined the relatives arguments / supported JB's claims.  But just forget it.  I know you're not really that interested.

[Adam]

It's alright.  It doesn't matter.  You post from a stance where everyone tells the truth except Jeremy, police are completely open about all evidence available to them and relatives are knowledgeble regarding Sheila / her illness.   The piece I copy and pasted highlights that Police withheld from the defence, statements from social services that undermined the relatives arguments / supported JB's claims.  But just forget it.  I know you're not really that interested.

Why didn't Jeremys highly paid defence team get this information from Sheila's social workers.

The defence did consult several psychiatrists. None said Sheila was capable of going on such a murderous rampage. One also said Jeremy was a psychopath. Able to block out his crime from his mind.

[Jan]

It's alright.  It doesn't matter.  You post from a stance where everyone tells the truth except Jeremy, police are completely open about all evidence available to them and relatives are knowledgeble regarding Sheila / her illness.   The piece I copy and pasted highlights that Police withheld from the defence, statements from social services that undermined the relatives arguments / supported JB's claims.  But just forget it.  I know you're not really that interested.

So true. We showed him proof before about JM visit to the bank as well and he was not interested in that either. Or answer my question about how many police interviews she had. He stated in a post earlier that I had to convince him of JB innocence- but as far as I am concerned that is not my objective . Mine is to ask questions on the forum and hopefully learn from other peoples extensive research on the case. I am not here to make any judgement - what would be the point?

I am yet to understand what Adams objective is? It is certainly not to read peoples replies - or even comment on them. Expecially my "scenario" ( and I thought he loved those") where he is accused of a crime based on a murder weapon that was contaminated - and what his reaction would be?

[Adam]

So true. We showed him proof before about JM visit to the bank as well and he was not interested in that either. Or answer my question about how many police interviews she had. He stated in a post earlier that I had to convince him of JB innocence- but as far as I am concerned that is not my objective . Mine is to ask questions on the forum and hopefully learn from other peoples extensive research on the case. I am not here to make any judgement - what would be the point?

I am yet to understand what Adams objective is? It is certainly not to read peoples replies - or even comment on them. Expecially my "scenario" ( and I thought he loved those") where he is accused of a crime based on a murder weapon that was contaminated - and what his reaction would be?

I responded to you're scenario. It had lots of holes in.

I also responded to Rochs post.

Contaminated evidence. Proof please.

[Adam]

It's alright.  It doesn't matter.  You post from a stance where everyone tells the truth except Jeremy, police are completely open about all evidence available to them and relatives are knowledgeble regarding Sheila / her illness.   The piece I copy and pasted highlights that Police withheld from the defence, statements from social services that undermined the relatives arguments / supported JB's claims.  But just forget it.  I know you're not really that interested.

Everyone telling the truth except Jeremy is more realistic than everyone lying except Jeremy.

[Roch]

Why didn't Jeremys highly paid defence team get this information from Sheila's social workers.

That is a very good question.  However, it does not have any bearing on the fact that Police were able to obtain such information, presumably when the case was being investigated as four murders and one suicide, then withheld the information.

The defence did consult several psychiatrists. None said Sheila was capable of going on such a murderous rampage. One also said Jeremy was a psychopath. Able to block out his crime from his mind.

This isn't my area but I expect it will be challenged.

[Roch]

Everyone telling the truth except Jeremy is more realistic than everyone lying except Jeremy.

But that's a bit like saying that it's more realsitic for the Cardiff Three to have been lying, while all the police officers and prosecution witnesses were telling the truth.  Come on Adam, surely you must see the holes in your reasoning?

[Jan]

I responded to you're scenario. It had lots of holes in.

I also responded to Rochs post.

Contaminated evidence. Proof please.

handling the moderator with a hanky for a start. Admitted in the police statement. The way the moderator was put in the boot of the families car and taken out of WHF before being handled to the police.