What REALLY Convinces You That Jeremy Is Innocent/Guilty?

[grahameb]

You don't need to be a crack shot to land rounds at close range. You have to be a competent shot merely.  If there were 1-2 shots in each head or heart that instantly killed the victim and that was all that was needed then that would be indication of more competence than what occurred which was shots to various locations that didn't cause severe injuries so 3 plus rounds were needed for most victims.

Nor is there any informaiton that Jeremy was a crack shot.  The tesimony was that he didn't have much more interest in guns than Sheila and didn't go shooting vermin or anything else.  He admitted he learned how to load and fire the murder weapon but that hardly makes him a marskman with it.  He didn't even know that chambering a round is not cocking the weapon.  He seems to have learned the bare minimum needed to operate it for the murders.  He didn't even remember how many bullets the magazine held when questioned.

He picked a gun not because he liked them and was great with them, it was better than his fire plan.  So he thought anyway, it turned out the house did have valuable antiques.  Tying to start a fire without it looking like arson has its own challenges though anyway.

A knife probably would have been a better tool to suggest Sheila did it.  But knives require more effort to kill, are much more personal to use and much more bloody so more chance of someone stopping you or leaving evidence behind to get caught.
 
Aside from no evidence Sheila would know how to use the murder weapon, she had the added problem of being on medication that made it harder for her to load and operate it.  The dexterity issues make it harder to shoot straight.  Being shorter she also would have been more likely to shoot in an upward trajectory if anyone were standing when shot. 

These are all considerations not determinitive in saying something is impossible. They affect likelihood.

You still contradict the rest of the guilty camp. But I'll let you argue it out with them. You have just confirmed that one does not have to be able to be a good shot to kill at close range, which of course makes it possible that Sheila could have done it just as well as Jeremy. Thank you for confirming that.

[Jane]

Scipio, good morning. Sorry, but you can argue your point until you're blue in the face but it is hypothetical. What is accepted now as the norm was unheard of in 1985. Further, whilst you do an excellent job of posting FACTS, you seem to ignore that we're talking about SHEILA, and whilst you tell us -constantly- that 200mg is no more effective than 100mg, you're entirely missing the point that THIS WAS NOT KNOWN so it doesn't apply AND a locum with no more knowledge of Sheila than she read -or NOT- on her notes, countermanded the directions given by a consultant.

By the way, I think the way you dismissed us on red a pretty scummy thing to to. Most of us here don't have problems with you and most of us have been courteous and welcoming even if we don't agree with you. You're not. IMO, the last word in legal knowledge and what you say is just your opinion, to which you're entitled, but it doesn't make you right.

It seems that I'm not alone in my assessment of your callous and arrogant behaviour.

[scipio_usmc]

You still contradict the rest of the guilty camp. But I'll let you argue it out with them. You have just confirmed that one does not have to be able to be a good shot to kill at close range, which of course makes it possible that Sheila could have done it just as well as Jeremy. Thank you for confirming that.

I don't care what others who believe she is guilty asserts.  I evaluated the evidence on my own and came to my own conclusions.  I was open to the idea of his innocence, in fact I was referred to this case by someone who thinks Jeremy is innocent, but after reviewing the evidence it is clear that is not the case. 

Anyone can potentially kill someone with a gun.

Sure if I were biased I could say well according to Jeremy's testimony he was good with guns and used them frequently so he would be in a great position to land 25/25 shots.  That's clearly not the case though.  He exaggerated his use of guns, demonstrated he didn't know how suppressors work and didn't even know chambering a round is not cocking a gun.  I choose to follow the evidence not pretend he was a skilled gunman.  The killer was clearly not a skilled gunman anyway or so many shots would not have been needed for each victim and Nevill would not have been able to go downatairs and struggle with the killer over the weapon. 

Sheila had 3 handicaps that Jeremy didn't.  Jeremy knew how to use the weapon, though it is clear he was far from an expert and had less experience than he pretended, and Sheila's medication would give her hand/eye coordination problems making it less likely she could land 25 orf 25 shots than Jeremy could.  Last it would have been easier for Nevill to disarm Sheila than to disarm Jeremy.

But none of these are determinative.

The things to look at whether it happened are the telltale signs one has fired a gun and shot someone.

Sheila's body and clothes were tested.  She didn't have any back spatter from the victims or gunshot residue on her body or clothes.  Nor did she have higher than normal lead levels on her hands as would apt to be the case if she loaded the rounds.  She would not have been likely to wear gloves or other protective clothing and if she did it wshould have been found at WHF. 

There similarly was no evidence she was involved in the kitchen struggle with Nevill.  Her footprints were not in the kitchen, she didn't cut he rfeet on the broken crockery though such would have bene likely and no scratches or abrasionas on her hands though such is likely in a struggle esecially given the stock broke. 

What about Jeremy did he have any evidence?  We don't know because his clothing he wore that night wa snot tested nor was he instepected for wounds, abrasions or back spatter. He had the opprtunity to wear protective clothing like gloves and to dispost of them and dispose of all clothing he wore on the night of the murders and even an opportunity to wash before meeting police. He supposedly wore gloves which would explains the lack of evidence.  There is no direct evidence he shot anyone but there is also an explanation for the lack of evidence.

There is no explanation for the lack of evidence against Sheila if she had been the killer.

There is evidence that he was the killer though and fired the weapon:

1) the inabiliy of Sheila to have shot herself and then put the suppressor away proves someone else shot her

2) the fact he is the only person who knew about the murders proves he is the one who had to have shot her

When you add in that Nevill would not have been able to make the call Jeremy claimed he received and other evidence of him trying to frame her it just becomes even more clear.

 


       

[grahameb]

I don't care what others who believe she is guilty asserts.  I evaluated the evidence on my own and came to my own conclusions.  I was open to the idea of his innocence, in fact I was referred to this case by someone who thinks Jeremy is innocent, but after reviewing the evidence it is clear that is not the case. 

Anyone can potentially kill someone with a gun.

Sure if I were biased I could say well according to Jeremy's testimony he was good with guns and used them frequently so he would be in a great position to land 25/25 shots.  That's clearly not the case though. He exaggerated his use of guns, demonstrated he didn't know how suppressors work and didn't even know chambering a round is not cocking a gun.  I choose to follow the evidence not pretend he was a skilled gunman.  The killer was clearly not a skilled gunman anyway or so many shots would not have been needed for each victim and Nevill would not have been able to go downatairs and struggle with the killer over the weapon. 

Sheila had 3 handicaps that Jeremy didn't.  Jeremy knew how to use the weapon, though it is clear he was far from an expert and had less experience than he pretended, and Sheila's medication would give her hand/eye coordination problems making it less likely she could land 25 orf 25 shots than Jeremy could.  Last it would have been easier for Nevill to disarm Sheila than to disarm Jeremy.

But none of these are determinative.

The things to look at whether it happened are the telltale signs one has fired a gun and shot someone.

Sheila's body and clothes were tested.  She didn't have any back spatter from the victims or gunshot residue on her body or clothes.  Nor did she have higher than normal lead levels on her hands as would apt to be the case if she loaded the rounds.  She would not have been likely to wear gloves or other protective clothing and if she did it wshould have been found at WHF. 

There similarly was no evidence she was involved in the kitchen struggle with Nevill.  Her footprints were not in the kitchen, she didn't cut he rfeet on the broken crockery though such would have bene likely and no scratches or abrasionas on her hands though such is likely in a struggle esecially given the stock broke. 

What about Jeremy did he have any evidence?  We don't know because his clothing he wore that night wa snot tested nor was he instepected for wounds, abrasions or back spatter. He had the opprtunity to wear protective clothing like gloves and to dispost of them and dispose of all clothing he wore on the night of the murders and even an opportunity to wash before meeting police. He supposedly wore gloves which would explains the lack of evidence.  There is no direct evidence he shot anyone but there is also an explanation for the lack of evidence.

There is no explanation for the lack of evidence against Sheila if she had been the killer.

There is evidence that he was the killer though and fired the weapon:

1) the inabiliy of Sheila to have shot herself and then put the suppressor away proves someone else shot her

2) the fact he is the only person who knew about the murders proves he is the one who had to have shot her

When you add in that Nevill would not have been able to make the call Jeremy claimed he received and other evidence of him trying to frame her it just becomes even more clear.

 


       

In fact it was not Jeremy who as you say "exaggerated" his expertise of guns. It was the relatives and they all testified so. The question is though were they wrong and more importantly are the guilty party wrong? If they are wrong then this actually diminishes their case against him, as it is it is a sizable chunk of evidence they say goes against him.
Personally I don't think that you have studied those relatives testimonies that speak of his expertise with guns.
Concerning the silencer. Although the court of the day accepted it as evidence nevertheless it clearly should have been rejected for the reasons I gave. Just because the court accepted it, it doesn't mean they were right. That is why I believe that this case is a moj.
What you now have to work out is whether those bullet cases found could have been fired by Sheila and not Jeremy. As you yourself have pointed out the bullet wounds to Ralph had a downward trajectory, meaning that the shooter was on a higher level to him when he was shot.
Also the finding of part of the toenail of Sheila was found downstairs near the Aga, meaning that Sheila must have been downstairs at some time.

[scipio_usmc]

Scipio, good morning. Sorry, but you can argue your point until you're blue in the face but it is hypothetical. What is accepted now as the norm was unheard of in 1985. Further, whilst you do an excellent job of posting FACTS, you seem to ignore that we're talking about SHEILA, and whilst you tell us -constantly- that 200mg is no more effective than 100mg, you're entirely missing the point that THIS WAS NOT KNOWN so it doesn't apply AND a locum with no more knowledge of Sheila than she read -or NOT- on her notes, countermanded the directions given by a consultant.

It wasn't necessarily unheard of it simply wasn't the norm in 1985.

At any rate, we are not limited to using information known in 1985 nor are appeal courts and if there were ever an order of a retrial the court would not be limited to scientific knowledge from 1985.

The issue before the appeal court and if there were a new trial the trial court would be using today's medical standards. 

The defense needs to find someone to establish that 100MG would be unlikely to work and that a chance of relapse would be likely to some degree using today's medical knowledge not 1985s knowledge. 

The prosecution is going to use today's knowledge the same way the defense wanted to use today's knowledge of DNA.  If you can't use today's knowledge to defeat the prsecution claims then you will lose.  The defense needs an expert using modern standards to suggest relapse would be likely as a result of reduction from 200MG to 100MG but finding one to say it will be dififcult if not impossible and a jury hearing another expert cite various studies about how above 100MG doesn't increase efficacy is not likely to believe a defense expert even if one could be foud unless some newer data questions the findings the prosecution is using. 

By the way, I think the way you dismissed us on red a pretty scummy thing to to. Most of us here don't have problems with you and most of us have been courteous and welcoming even if we don't agree with you. You're not. IMO, the last word in legal knowledge and what you say is just your opinion, to which you're entitled, but it doesn't make you right.

For saying I am not here to conquer you? 

For saying I post what is legally significant that needs to be established and how one would have to go about proving such?

For saying if such evidence existed then I would have come out on the other side?

People can hold out hope of finding new crucial evidence to establish innocence but nothing presented here to date does so.

A statement from a non-witness that there were 2 bodies in the kitchen can't be used to counter the testimony of those who say there was only one.  It is a lost cause.

A document that asserts a dispatcher received a call on an internal police line from a cop that attributes a quote to man and says it was relayed by his son doesn't establish that Nevill spoke to said dispatcher. Especially where the cop and dispatcher both agree they spoke to one another only.   I don't care if others think it is rude or not to point out that unless the dispatcher himself changes his testimony that there is no hope of convicting anyone it occurred and that still would be contradicted by the form itself which states it was relayed by PC West and also still contradicted by the telephone company testimony so the recanting still might not even be enough.

I can lead a horse to drink but I can't make it drink.  If it seems horrible that I am trying to lead a horse to drink and admitting I am doing so then so be it. 

If one don't understand the arguments of the other side then it is hard to hit them head on, similarly if one doesn't understand the mindset of the appeal court or the legal standards they use then there is no
hope of swaying an appeal court.

It might sound bad to say I am trying to get people to comprehend this and thus to tailor their arguments better but it is a valid thing to do. 


A number of people have admitted that their feelings of his innocence are related to him personally and the belief he could not have done it.  That is not going to sway people who look at facts which doesn't merely include a sizable amount of the public but more importantly appeal judges.  Only certain arguments would suffice to get his conviction overturned and there must be facts that strongly support the claims.   

Instead of trying to help explain the legal considerations and what is factually needed to support same I could just spend the day trying to humiliate people and calling them names.  I see no value in that. That is what people do when they have esteem problems and decide they want to build themselves up by tearing others down.

Alternatively I could blow smoke up people's butts pretending they are making arguments that could potentially change the minds of people including judges knowing full well the arguments have no legs at all but be please that while wasting time on such they are thus not considering something that could be significant.   

This for me is about legal and factual considerations of the case not to make anything personal and attempt to conquer people or make fun as they are bogged down in inconsequention considerations.



 



   

[lookout]

Grow up,,man !

[gringo]

It wasn't necessarily unheard of it simply wasn't the norm in 1985.

At any rate, we are not limited to using information known in 1985 nor are appeal courts and if there were ever an order of a retrial the court would not be limited to scientific knowledge from 1985.

The issue before the appeal court and if there were a new trial the trial court would be using today's medical standards. 

The defense needs to find someone to establish that 100MG would be unlikely to work and that a chance of relapse would be likely to some degree using today's medical knowledge not 1985s knowledge. 

The prosecution is going to use today's knowledge the same way the defense wanted to use today's knowledge of DNA.  If you can't use today's knowledge to defeat the prsecution claims then you will lose.  The defense needs an expert using modern standards to suggest relapse would be likely as a result of reduction from 200MG to 100MG but finding one to say it will be dififcult if not impossible and a jury hearing another expert cite various studies about how above 100MG doesn't increase efficacy is not likely to believe a defense expert even if one could be foud unless some newer data questions the findings the prosecution is using. 


For saying I am not here to conquer you? 

For saying I post what is legally significant that needs to be established and how one would have to go about proving such?

For saying if such evidence existed then I would have come out on the other side?

People can hold out hope of finding new crucial evidence to establish innocence but nothing presented here to date does so.

A statement from a non-witness that there were 2 bodies in the kitchen can't be used to counter the testimony of those who say there was only one.  It is a lost cause.

A document that asserts a dispatcher received a call on an internal police line from a cop that attributes a quote to man and says it was relayed by his son doesn't establish that Nevill spoke to said dispatcher. Especially where the cop and dispatcher both agree they spoke to one another only.   I don't care if others think it is rude or not to point out that unless the dispatcher himself changes his testimony that there is no hope of convicting anyone it occurred and that still would be contradicted by the form itself which states it was relayed by PC West and also still contradicted by the telephone company testimony so the recanting still might not even be enough.

I can lead a horse to drink but I can't make it drink.  If it seems horrible that I am trying to lead a horse to drink and admitting I am doing so then so be it. 

If one don't understand the arguments of the other side then it is hard to hit them head on, similarly if one doesn't understand the mindset of the appeal court or the legal standards they use then there is no
hope of swaying an appeal court.

It might sound bad to say I am trying to get people to comprehend this and thus to tailor their arguments better but it is a valid thing to do. 


A number of people have admitted that their feelings of his innocence are related to him personally and the belief he could not have done it.  That is not going to sway people who look at facts which doesn't merely include a sizable amount of the public but more importantly appeal judges.  Only certain arguments would suffice to get his conviction overturned and there must be facts that strongly support the claims.   

Instead of trying to help explain the legal considerations and what is factually needed to support same I could just spend the day trying to humiliate people and calling them names.  I see no value in that. That is what people do when they have esteem problems and decide they want to build themselves up by tearing others down.

Alternatively I could blow smoke up people's butts pretending they are making arguments that could potentially change the minds of people including judges knowing full well the arguments have no legs at all but be please that while wasting time on such they are thus not considering something that could be significant.   

This for me is about legal and factual considerations of the case not to make anything personal and attempt to conquer people or make fun as they are bogged down in inconsequention considerations.



 



   

  Haven't seen you defeating anyone you just post long winded half informed diatribes that most on here can't be arsed reading never mind debating.

[scipio_usmc]

In fact it was not Jeremy who as you say "exaggerated" his expertise of guns. It was the relatives and they all testified so. The question is though were they wrong

How did they exaggerate his expertise?  The testimony from Julie, the family and workers at the farm was that he didn't like to shoot animals and didn't even have much interest in guns so rarely did anyone see him touch a gun.  Their claims are supported by his own statements where he referred to cocking the murder gun though there is nothing to cock and presumable he meant chambering a round and he erroneously claimed a sound suppressor is to stop the sonic boom caused by bullets.  Nor was he aware of the capacity of the magazine.  They described someone not experienced and his statements support that.   

and more importantly are the guilty party wrong? If they are wrong then this actually diminishes their case against him, as it is it is a sizable chunk of evidence they say goes against him.

If who is wrong about what?   

Personally I don't think that you have studied those relatives testimonies that speak of his expertise with guns.
Concerning the silencer. Although the court of the day accepted it as evidence nevertheless it clearly should have been rejected for the reasons I gave. Just because the court accepted it, it doesn't mean they were right. That is why I believe that this case is a moj.

You have presented no legal reasons why it should not have been accepted.

Nor hads anyone produced any evidence that suggests the blood was planted there.  The distribution of blood speaks to the opposite because someone planting it would likely have used a dropper or poured it in from a vial.  Neither would acocunt for the distribution found by the 2 experts such blood was sprayed inside. 

In addition to planting blood they would have beened to eliminate all record of any blood being found in the barrel of the weapon itself.  If the suppressor had not been attached then blood would have been in the rifle.

What you now have to work out is whether those bullet cases found could have been fired by Sheila and not Jeremy.
As you yourself have pointed out the bullet wounds to Ralph had a downward trajectory, meaning that the shooter was on a higher level to him when he was shot.

He was slumped over the the kitchen and the shots in his head could have been delivered by someone who wasn't standing on anything. 

2 of the remaining shots were too high up to have been delivered by Sheila with Nevill standing upright unless she were standing on something. (left shoulder and left jaw).  The prosecution witnesses think that Jeremy was tall enough to deliver the shot with Nevill standing.  I doubt that though, even for Jeremy it would not have been easy to accomplish unless he is taller than I have seen quoted.   

The last 2 (lip and graze wound part of which ended up in his side and the remainder probably on the bed) could have been delivered while he was standing by either of them.       

The shot that grazed his left arm (part of the fragment entered his side and landed in his abdomen) could have been delivered by either while he was standing.   

As a practical matter, if Nevill were standing it would be easier for Jeremy to fire at a downward angle than it would for Sheila since she was shorter. 

But she could have fired into his slumped head just as easily as Jeremy.  Likewise if he was sitting upstairs then she could fired just as easily as Jeremy at the downward angle. 

If anything it suggest Jeremy more than Sheila but is not conclusive.  The angles do not tell us who the killer was they just tell us the location of the shooter vis a vis the victims. 

The shell casings and wound tracts are more useful at figuring out which shots were delivered where than anything else.

Also the finding of part of the toenail of Sheila was found downstairs near the Aga, meaning that Sheila must have been downstairs at some time.

Part of her toenail wasn't broken off and missing let alone found anywhere. Some of the varnish had rubbed off merely.  A photo expert claims that  atiny speck in one of the crime schene photos is a piece of varnish but his claims he could match a speck to her toenail defies belief and is not considered trustworthy.  Even if a piece of varnish had chipped off in the kitchen there is no way to prove it didn't happen any of the 3 days preceeding the murders she was there 3 days.   It would not establish she was in the kitchen at the time Nevill was killed.

This is the same reason the alleged gray hair on the suppressor is meaningless.  Even if Nevill's hair were found on the suppressor that would not prove it got there from the murders.  It was his gun, in his gun closet in his house.  His hair was likely all around the place and could attach to any object innocently enough.     

[Jane]

It wasn't necessarily unheard of it simply wasn't the norm in 1985.

At any rate, we are not limited to using information known in 1985 nor are appeal courts and if there were ever an order of a retrial the court would not be limited to scientific knowledge from 1985.

The issue before the appeal court and if there were a new trial the trial court would be using today's medical standards. 

The defense needs to find someone to establish that 100MG would be unlikely to work and that a chance of relapse would be likely to some degree using today's medical knowledge not 1985s knowledge. 

The prosecution is going to use today's knowledge the same way the defense wanted to use today's knowledge of DNA.  If you can't use today's knowledge to defeat the prsecution claims then you will lose.  The defense needs an expert using modern standards to suggest relapse would be likely as a result of reduction from 200MG to 100MG but finding one to say it will be dififcult if not impossible and a jury hearing another expert cite various studies about how above 100MG doesn't increase efficacy is not likely to believe a defense expert even if one could be foud unless some newer data questions the findings the prosecution is using. 


For saying I am not here to conquer you? 

For saying I post what is legally significant that needs to be established and how one would have to go about proving such?

For saying if such evidence existed then I would have come out on the other side?

People can hold out hope of finding new crucial evidence to establish innocence but nothing presented here to date does so.

A statement from a non-witness that there were 2 bodies in the kitchen can't be used to counter the testimony of those who say there was only one.  It is a lost cause.

A document that asserts a dispatcher received a call on an internal police line from a cop that attributes a quote to man and says it was relayed by his son doesn't establish that Nevill spoke to said dispatcher. Especially where the cop and dispatcher both agree they spoke to one another only.   I don't care if others think it is rude or not to point out that unless the dispatcher himself changes his testimony that there is no hope of convicting anyone it occurred and that still would be contradicted by the form itself which states it was relayed by PC West and also still contradicted by the telephone company testimony so the recanting still might not even be enough.

I can lead a horse to drink but I can't make it drink.  If it seems horrible that I am trying to lead a horse to drink and admitting I am doing so then so be it. 

If one don't understand the arguments of the other side then it is hard to hit them head on, similarly if one doesn't understand the mindset of the appeal court or the legal standards they use then there is no
hope of swaying an appeal court.

It might sound bad to say I am trying to get people to comprehend this and thus to tailor their arguments better but it is a valid thing to do. 


A number of people have admitted that their feelings of his innocence are related to him personally and the belief he could not have done it.  That is not going to sway people who look at facts which doesn't merely include a sizable amount of the public but more importantly appeal judges.  Only certain arguments would suffice to get his conviction overturned and there must be facts that strongly support the claims.   

Instead of trying to help explain the legal considerations and what is factually needed to support same I could just spend the day trying to humiliate people and calling them names.  I see no value in that. That is what people do when they have esteem problems and decide they want to build themselves up by tearing others down.

Alternatively I could blow smoke up people's butts pretending they are making arguments that could potentially change the minds of people including judges knowing full well the arguments have no legs at all but be please that while wasting time on such they are thus not considering something that could be significant.   

This for me is about legal and factual considerations of the case not to make anything personal and attempt to conquer people or make fun as they are bogged down in inconsequention considerations.



 



   

Scipio, good morning. NONE of the above applies. You are more than welcome to share your opinions. Personally, for the most part, I've enjoyed the exchange. What I -and others, I imagine- found shocking  was that you imply we are no more than trivia with which to amuse yourself. Had you had the humility not to brag about it on another forum we'd be none the wiser and much happier.....................and just for the record, what gives you the impression that red members aren't "religiously" reading what we have to say?

[lookout]

 If only we knew whether " Taff " Jones saw Sheila alive that morning. It's all we need to know !

[lebaleb]

Some of the things that convince me he has not been proven guilty:

Total lack of forensic evidence against Jeremy
Lack of a verifiable alibi [If he were guilty wouldn't he have asked JM to provide an alibi. After all, according to JM he was confiding in her about the murder plans all along]
Why would he take the bloody silencer down to the gun cupboard and find a box to put it in? Then, totally ignore it having ample opportunity to dispose of it later?
Why stick around at the murder scene to burn Nevilles back?
JM's very strange behavior staying with Jeremy after the murders, having the strength to identify the bodies and asking them to tell her what happened and yet breaking down in court. Her unbelievable statements about a hitman with erroneous information about how the crime was committed [Jeremy would have no reason to lie about this, and no mention of the silencer nearly giving the game away].
Sheila had motive, opportunity and the means to commit the crime.
Blood in the silencer is not conclusive.
Struggle in the kitchen is speculative.
He was about to inherit from Gran Speakman and would have inherited from his parents eventually.
JM's strong motive to lie.

[susan]

Morning Lookout

I guess we will never know if Taff Jones did see movement at the window maybe he would have told his wife or another officer but that will never be revealed now.

[lookout]

Morning Lookout

I guess we will never know if Taff Jones did see movement at the window maybe he would have told his wife or another officer but that will never be revealed now.

Morning Susan,,if "Taff" had seen Sheila,,it would mean that that would have been his reason in being adamant about 4 murders and a suicide,,plus his admission of Jeremys' innocence.
This sighting would most definitely have been in his notes.

[lookout]

Some of the things that convince me he has not been proven guilty:

Total lack of forensic evidence against Jeremy
Lack of a verifiable alibi [If he were guilty wouldn't he have asked JM to provide an alibi. After all, according to JM he was confiding in her about the murder plans all along]
Why would he take the bloody silencer down to the gun cupboard and find a box to put it in? Then, totally ignore it having ample opportunity to dispose of it later?
Why stick around at the murder scene to burn Nevilles back?
JM's very strange behavior staying with Jeremy after the murders, having the strength to identify the bodies and asking them to tell her what happened and yet breaking down in court. Her unbelievable statements about a hitman with erroneous information about how the crime was committed [Jeremy would have no reason to lie about this, and no mention of the silencer nearly giving the game away].
Sheila had motive, opportunity and the means to commit the crime.
Blood in the silencer is not conclusive.
Struggle in the kitchen is speculative.
He was about to inherit from Gran Speakman and would have inherited from his parents eventually.
JM's strong motive to lie.

I agree,lebaleb,,there is NOTHING to pin him to the murders,,and I believe Jeremy in what he has to say. He'd have no reason to lie. I'd trust Jeremy before Julie--------any day !

[susan]

lookout Taff Jones was totally convinced it was 4 murders and one suicide now he was an experienced officer so something at the scene must have made him come to this conclusion so quickly think only a section of his notes were made available