72 page witness statement of Ann Eaton, made to COLP on 14 / 08/ 1991

[nugnug]

So does it mean that we're going to leave the final decision to Adam, who generally makes it up as he goes to fit with what he believes it is

and then blames it on poor old roger wilkes.

[Caroline]

So does it mean that we're going to leave the final decision to Adam, who generally makes it up as he goes to fit with what he believes it is

Nah, he doesn't even seem to realise that there are 5 hours between 10pm and 3am - enough time to fall asleep I would think!!

[Jane]

Nah, he doesn't even seem to realise that there are 5 hours between 10pm and 3am - enough time to fall asleep I would think!!

Perhaps we should send him back to school, assuming he hasn't yet left. :D

[grahameb]

Grahame it is true what you are saying had Taff Jones been very much Jeremy guilty much would have been made about the tragic accident  and it would have been turned into something very sinister.

No. What I am saying is that coincidences must be treated as coincidences and nothing more sinister than that.

[Jan]

No. What I am saying is that coincidences must be treated as coincidences and nothing more sinister than that.

Agree - and that would wipe out 95% of Adams arguments- at least, minimum

[susan]

Morning Grahame yes a coincidence must be treated as a coincidence and not turned into something sinister like some on this forum do to make their theories fit.

[Adam]

Agree - and that would wipe out 95% of Adams arguments- at least, minimum

The judge mentioned there were a number of curious coincidences.

A curious coincidence is similar to circumstantial evidence. Of which the judge said there was a mountain of.

Both of these will have been discussed by the jury, CCRC & COA. Together with the forensic evidence.

[Jan]

The judge mentioned there were a number of curious coincidences.

A curious coincidence is similar to circumstantial evidence. Of which the judge said there was a mountain of.

Both of these will have been discussed by the jury, CCRC & COA. Together with the forensic evidence.

Adam remind me again - what exactly is the forensic evidence that JB did it ( not that SC did not - bit bored of those posts now) what is the FORENSIC FACTUAL EVIDENCE that JB committed the crime on that night.

[Adam]

Adam remind me again - what exactly is the forensic evidence that JB did it ( not that SC did not - bit bored of those posts now) what is the FORENSIC FACTUAL EVIDENCE that JB committed the crime on that night.

None. Why should there be ?

His foot & finger prints will already be all over the house. Evidence was destroyed early on. He was not examined for several weeks.

But if Sheila could not do it...

[Jan]

Thank you.

Your comment that SC could not do it is opinion only - there was evidence that she had handled guns before from a witness - and if you took the time to read the facts about "residue" on the interesting new thread on here then that will have educated you. One of the reports about blood on her hands etc is ambiguous to say the least.

So in fact the forensics that you say are discussed  are nothing to do with JB having  committing the crime. End of.

[grahameb]

The judge mentioned there were a number of curious coincidences.

A curious coincidence is similar to circumstantial evidence. Of which the judge said there was a mountain of.

Both of these will have been discussed by the jury, CCRC & COA. Together with the forensic evidence.

No they wouldn't. The CCRC would not discuss anything from the trial other than the NEW evidence presented for an appeal. It is not their job to. But I wish they did, then they may have been able to see the other "curious" coincidences that I have pointed out.

[grahameb]

None. Why should there be ?

His foot & finger prints will already be all over the house. Evidence was destroyed early on. He was not examined for several weeks.

But if Sheila could not do it...

If his footprints were all over the house then they would have been mentioned at trial. As for not being examined for weeks Ann Eaton said in her statement that she looked for any marks on him. But obviously she saw none otherwise she would have said and she suspected him from the very beginning.

[Adam]

No they wouldn't. The CCRC would not discuss anything from the trial other than the NEW evidence presented for an appeal. It is not their job to. But I wish they did, then they may have been able to see the other "curious" coincidences that I have pointed out.

So the evidence alone is strong enough ? Thought they would read WS's. That is evidence isn't it ?

The jury would have discussed the mountain of curious coincidences & circumstantial evidence. And the 'mysterious phone call'.

[Adam]

If his footprints were all over the house then they would have been mentioned at trial. As for not being examined for weeks Ann Eaton said in her statement that she looked for any marks on him. But obviously she saw none otherwise she would have said and she suspected him from the very beginning.

Oh yes. That will really convict him at trial. His footprints being in his family house.

Jeremy struggled with Neville. Hitting him so hard with the gun, the butt broke. Further blows damaged his jaw, neck, laryx & teeth. Jeremy would have worn gloves.

[Jane]

Oh yes. That will really convict him at trial. His footprints being in his family house.

Jeremy struggled with Neville. Hitting him so hard with the gun, the butt broke. Further blows damaged his jaw, neck, laryx & teeth. Jeremy would have worn gloves.

Odd, isn't it, that there were no reports of hair, blood and human tissue being on it.