Judges summing up : His main points.

[Adam]

Now then. The supper.

Jeremy claims they spoke about fostering.

Whether true or not, the judge said Sheila's passive response means it cannot be a reason why she would go such a murderous rampage.

[Adam]

How can he say that - was he there that night?
He cannot know that in any way - it might have gotten on the silencer at any other time, before or after the murders. Were there any chips of paint on the body of Nevill? Were there any chips of paint on the floor when the crime scene was forensically tested? Were there any chips of paint on the AGA when it was forensically tested?
I don´t call this proof.

The judge was not there.

However both prosecution & defence said it was paint from the aga on the silencer. Common sense suggests that it got there during the fight.

[Adam]

We have come up with some unlikely ways in which Sheila gave Neville his brutal beating.

The most likely being that Sheila shot him 3 times in kitchen. Then beat him for several minutes while he was dead ( I have heard about kicking a man when he's down, but...)

The judge did not consider this a possibility. However he did say it was 'very very' unlikely that Sheila could overpower Neville.

[susan]

Adam where did you read Basil Cock was present when the rellies found the silencer whilst snooping around a house that did not belong to them and actually removing it and taking it home.  Did you read that on the forum or in one of your books Not true anyway where ever you read it or dreamt it.

[Adam]

Adam where did you read Basil Cock was present when the rellies found the silencer whilst snooping around a house that did not belong to them and actually removing it and taking it home.  Did you read that on the forum or in one of your books Not true anyway where ever you read it or dreamt it.

Where did you read he was not there ?

[Adam]

Jeremy broke into the caravan site & stole nearly £1,000. Then spent most of it.

He staged it to look like a break in. However Barbara Wilson says Neville knew about what Jeremy had done & decided not to prosecute. Did Neville suspect Jeremy & got a confession from Jeremy. Probably.

Anyway, Jeremy trusted Julie enough to have her help him. He also trusted that she would keep quiet.

Did he trust her enough after the murders, especially if he said he had hired a hit man.

[Adam]

Seems like Jeremy got a taste for committing family orientated crimes & staging the crime scene.

He has since said he did it to highlight security problems there. Pity he spent most of the money.

Why didn't he just tell Neville about the alledged security problems ?

[Jane]

We have come up with some unlikely ways in which Sheila gave Neville his brutal beating.

The most likely being that Sheila shot him 3 times in kitchen. Then beat him for several minutes while he was dead ( I have heard about kicking a man when he's down, but...)

The judge did not consider this a possibility. However he did say it was 'very very' unlikely that Sheila could overpower Neville.

She wouldn't have needed to if he'd been incapacitated first.....................and please DON'T say "we. To my certain knowledge, the only unlikelihoods have come from you.

[Adam]

Both the prosecution & defence said it was Sheila's blood on the silencer.

Could Sheila really shoot herself with it on ? If so the pathologist said it was impossible for her to walk downstairs & then upstairs after the first shot ?

[Adam]

She wouldn't have needed to if he'd been incapacitated first.....................and please DON'T say "we. To my certain knowledge, the only unlikelihoods have come from you.

An injured Neville could still overpower Sheila. Or at least leave some marks on her.

An injured Neville could not overpower Jeremy.
 

[Adam]

What exactly was Jeremy basing his first appeal on ?

Accusing a judge of summing up incorrectly is heavy.

[Adam]

Some very interesting points made by the judge.

Does anyone know what about the summing up from the judge Jeremy was appealing about ? Or whether Jeremy felt the judge did not mention anything ?

It all seems to be in order to me.

[Adam]

Sorry have already asked this.

Anyone. Or was Jeremy just wasting everyone's time ?

[susan]

Adam I have got to the stage that I don't know what you have asked as you do ask the same thing time and time again.  What I would suggest you and steve get a forum of you own and have a blast. Go on Bednod with steve or whatever it is called.

[Jan]

Did the jury believe Julie or Jeremy ?  After the case was finished it was shown JM had a financial ( large) incentive and possible immunity from prosecution for other crimes

Did Jeremy mention Matthew Mcdonald as a cover up ? Why would he when he had an alibi

Both Jeremy & Julie had committed recent crimes. That does not mean either lied in court in this trial. Julie had paid back the money she stole. - she lied about this as the police were proved later to go to the bank with her.

Jeremy trusted Julie to help him commit a crime at the caravan site. Did he trust her enough to confide in the murders ? ?? totally different kettle of fish - murder and burglary

The jury should ignore the media. - obvious

Every witness in the trial is equal. - Not if they are being bribed or offered immunity

Did the mysterious phone call from Neville happen ?  wait and see

Could Mugford have lied under oath for nearly two days ? read what was said at the time about how she fell to bits and that her testimony in isolation should not be enough evidence ( and see points above)

Did Mugford's testimony have a ring of truth ? If it did she was as guilty as him.

The prosecution claim to have an overwhelming case even without the silencer evidence. The judge told the jury to disregard this comment & review all evidence. in light of recent evidence that was at least accurate

Red paint on silencer shows it was on during kitchen fight. Jeremy said the gun was left that night without a silencer on. Why would Sheila put a silencer on the gun & did she know how to do this ? Think the silencer may be a red herring (IMO!) lets see what comes out in the future.

Why would Sheila take the silencer off the gun & put it away, rather than throw it on the floor ? See above

There was overwhelming evidence it was Sheila's blood on the silencer. Not true read up on this - at that point it was only protein AK1 ( present in animal protein) and anyway it could have ben contaminated!

Police mistakes not relevant. Part of the reason for the mistakes early on was because they had been lead in that direction. THIS IS BEFORE cps I THINK SO of course they are relevant ( could be deliberate)

Jeremy had a financial motive to commit the crime. so do half the population - but they don't all murder their families.

Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation.  Was this correct or had he gained entry on the murder night ? he could have been telling the truth

The bicycle had dried mud on the wheels according to Robert Boutflour. Jeremy said his relationship with Julie was coming to a close in August. Why was the bike brought to the cottage just before the murders ? read up 0n this bit - again

Both the defence & prosecution agree the silencer was fitted for most of the time the crime was taking place. really - read the ballistic reports again

Mugford was questioned at lenght & in detail. She stuck to her story under cross examination. The defence complained about her crying. But that could be a sign of weakness the defence could have exploited. Were the defence really complaining because she did not change her story ? she did not cry when doing id of bodies - so not that weak

If Mugford was called at 3:12 by Jeremy & the police st 3:26 it badly undermines Jeremys version of events.  - the timings are disputed.

If Neville called at 3.26, he had no face wounds. The police arrived at WHF at 3.48 & never heard any shots. Sheila must have fought Neville, perhaps shot other people, washed, unscrewed & put the silencer away & then shot herself. In 22 minutes. Not if jeremys call was earlier  - and she could have been alive when the police were outside

Colin Caffell testified that Jeremy said Neville sounded wounded on the phone. However in court Jeremy said he thought it might have just sounded terrified. The judge said Jeremy should remember.

Dr Ferguson had testified that Sheila had never shown physical violence to other people. Others testified she was attached to her father & loving towards her sons. Rubbish - see statements kept from court

Dr Bradley testified that people with no history of violence can become violent. that's the most stupid statement I have ever heard- that would mean Jeremy could not have done it either

The judge mentioned the supper when fostering was mentioned. Jeremy said Sheila was non responsive. Therefore this cannot be used as a reason why Sheila could have committed the crimes. - vacant is not the same as unresponsive,

The judge said it was 'very very' unlikely Sheila could overcome Neville in a fight & not have any marks. Jeremy was not examined for a long time & would have had time to clean up on the night. - not if he was injured after he was shot.

The judge asked could Sheila load a gun ? witnesses said he could

The judge said there is no doubt the silencer was on the rifle in the kitchen fight. It is not credible that Sheila would then put it back in the gun cupboard. - see later evidence about the mantle and gun

The judge said the blood found in the silencer was specific to Sheila. There was a remote possibility of it being a mixture of Neville & Junes. still not proved - no DNA

The crime was committed by Sheila or Jeremy. There was no possible third party. - about the only thing that is right,IMO