Motive for murders - Jeremy versus the relatives...

[Jan]

every time I suggested someone else may be involved I was told it was impossible because the house was locked from the inside and because of the phone call. So in your scenario they got out of a locked house and convinced Jeremy it was his father calling ? It would also negate two sets of cars being sent? As only one call.

[Adam]

In the interview transcripts, after the police suggested Sheila was murdered, Jeremy said perhaps Neville said 'She' rather than 'Sheila'. That was after the dog second shot suggestion.

[Jane]

every time I suggested someone else may be involved I was told it was impossible because the house was locked from the inside and because of the phone call. So in your scenario they got out of a locked house and convinced Jeremy it was his father calling ? It would also negate two sets of cars being sent? As only one call.

Jansus, I'm beginning to need a sat nav to find my way round all these scenarios. but it's not I who've lost my way

[Jan]

In the interview transcripts, after the police suggested Sheila was murdered, Jeremy said perhaps Neville said 'She' rather than 'Sheila'. That was after the dog second shot suggestion.

Back to the dog AGAIN - I thought you understood sarcasm - you use it enough.

[Jan]

Its getting late and beside multiple scenarios, Adam is going round in circles, and getting fixated on the dog, as a result  its hard to keep to one thread let alone new theories 

[mike tesko]

so to start with they tried to prove guilt by  orking around the phone call.

i think that more or less prove beyound doubt that the phonecall happend.

Yes,

Police at first attempted to build a case against Jeremy, with a reliance upon the phone call received from the scene to Jeremys cottage, the call Jeremy made to July Mugford, and the call that Jeremy made to the police, himself, by trying to confuse him about the sequence and timing of each...

[mike tesko]

every time I suggested someone else may be involved I was told it was impossible because the house was locked from the inside and because of the phone call. So in your scenario they got out of a locked house and convinced Jeremy it was his father calling ? It would also negate two sets of cars being sent? As only one call.

So, it was alright for the police, and the relatives to suggest that Jeremy had made good his escape from the scene after he had shot everyone, by he climbing out through an insecure window, but the same cousin who years earlier had been caught along with Sheila in a compromising act in the barn, who also played a pivotal role in the silencer evidence coming to light, also played a key role in discovering the All important insecure window through which he himself could have fled the scene prior to the police and Jeremy arriving at the scene on plot...

[mike tesko]

So, it was alright for the police, and the relatives to suggest that Jeremy had made good his escape from the scene after he had shot everyone, by he climbing out through an insecure window, but the same cousin who years earlier had been caught along with Sheila in a compromising act in the barn, who also played a pivotal role in the silencer evidence coming to light, also played a key role in discovering the All important insecure window through which he himself could have fled the scene prior to the police and Jeremy arriving at the scene on plot...

Same cousin who used a razor blade to scrape blood off the end of the silencer he found, which he did not report finding it to police until 11th September 1985....

[bigdaveglasgow75]

does anybody hear think jeremys conviction will ever be over turned???

[susan]

Hello BigDave I for one think his conviction will be quashed as "unsafe" just my humble opinion.

[bigdaveglasgow75]

the only thing is susan.its the evidence wich is being witheld thats the problem.Jeremy has to provide new evidence that could possibly lead to an aquital.Notice how i said possible.Its not just new evidence it has to be compeling.From what i have seen there is enough evidence .to prove he never received a fair trial.that should at least be enough for a retrial.But i wish i knew more about the legal proccess.but i dont.

[susan]

Bigdave I like you know nothing of the legal system but none of us know if Jeremy has found new evidence that could help his release we shall have to wait and see and hope not all of the evidence would have been destroyed.

[Adam]

the only thing is susan.its the evidence wich is being witheld thats the problem.Jeremy has to provide new evidence that could possibly lead to an aquital.Notice how i said possible.Its not just new evidence it has to be compeling.From what i have seen there is enough evidence .to prove he never received a fair trial.that should at least be enough for a retrial.But i wish i knew more about the legal proccess.but i dont.

What evidence is there that he did not receive a fair trial ?

[Adam]

The trial was 19 days.

Jeremy testified for 8 hours. Julie for less. Other testimonies against Jeremy from Mary  Mugford, James Richards & Barbara Wilson would have taken less than half a day.

Meaning there was over 16 days to discuss the circimstantial & forensic evidence. Result, guilty.

[Caroline]

The trial was 19 days.

Jeremy testified for 8 hours. Julie for less. Other testimonies against Jeremy from Mary  Mugford, James Richards & Barbara Wilson would have taken less than half a day.

Meaning there was over 16 days to discuss the circimstantial & forensic evidence. Result, guilty.

The JURY didn't hear evidence that could have affected their verdict. For instance, the FACT that Vanezis CHANGED his initial written report from stating hands were bloodied - to not bloodied when Jeremy became a suspect. The FACT that RWB had the SAME blood group as Sheila. The FACT that the relatives DID have something to gain from Jeremy's conviction and the silencer should NEVER have been allowed as an exhibit. The list goes on and on!! At the very least, there should be a retrial!!