Author Topic: Accomplice, who was he?  (Read 38617 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

guest154

  • Guest
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #30 on: April 30, 2014, 08:20:PM »


Mat, I don't think I've ever read your version of events.

Well you joined the forum in 2012. So you were here when I have given my best guess.

But as for a definitive version of events, pointless for anyone to try because there are too many possibilites.
I believe the phone call was staged. Jeremy knew how to get in and out of the farmhouse without a key. Don't know what orders the killings took place. Jeremy carefully worded comments to the police outside WHF to begin a case against Sheila. He did tell JM, called her before the police too. JM needed to be coerced into giving evidence.

Not sure what else to say, I've posted it many times, don't want to just repeat myself.





That's just it,,I don't expect people to believe anything that I post.. I'm actually just playing for time until I hear of anything with an element of truth in it. I have my own thoughts on the case.

But still, posting factual information should be important.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #31 on: April 30, 2014, 08:24:PM »
How can anyone post factual information when they weren't even there to witness what went on ?

guest154

  • Guest
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #32 on: April 30, 2014, 08:26:PM »
You can question things. But posting "A male voice that may not have been his Dad"......is trying to manipluate known facts.

If Jeremy can say that it was his Dad calling, I'm sure it was. He would know.  ::)

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #33 on: April 30, 2014, 08:27:PM »
Accomplice- going back to the subject of the thread.

The only thing I could say is I could never understand why after many many interviews with the police JM came up with the hit man theory - that also did not seem to make sense

However IF EP did think someone else was involved  and IF they did "persuade" JM to say certain things in her statement then it POSSIBLY could have been a way of them hedging their bets whilst trying to continue with all their "investigations"

However I am still not convinced . IMO.

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #34 on: April 30, 2014, 08:28:PM »
april I bet you are and when I am bad I am DRUNK ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I think I am DRUNK from reading this thread - and I only have water in my glass.... I am speechless.  :o

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #35 on: April 30, 2014, 08:29:PM »
Well you joined the forum in 2012. So you were here when I have given my best guess.

But as for a definitive version of events, pointless for anyone to try because there are too many possibilites.
I believe the phone call was staged. Jeremy knew how to get in and out of the farmhouse without a key. Don't know what orders the killings took place. Jeremy carefully worded comments to the police outside WHF to begin a case against Sheila. He did tell JM, called her before the police too. JM needed to be coerced into giving evidence.

Not sure what else to say, I've posted it many times, don't want to just repeat myself.

But still, posting factual information should be important.


Thank-you Mat. I guess your view is more or less in line with what other "guilties" think.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2014, 08:32:PM »
I think I am DRUNK from reading this thread - and I only have water in my glass.... I am speechless.  :o



I'm with you in that, Alias. It all seems to fly in the face of facts we DO know..................and even those we don't know, but make sense ::) ::) ::)

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2014, 08:35:PM »
You can question things. But posting "A male voice that may not have been his Dad"......is trying to manipluate known facts.

If Jeremy can say that it was his Dad calling, I'm sure it was. He would know.  ::)




 I know what I know,,and that's that it was his dad who phoned. I can't help it if you fall for my manipulative posts.It sure keeps you on your toes,,does it not ?

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #38 on: April 30, 2014, 08:37:PM »
Hello Mat

you may have said before and I missed it how do you think Jeremy dealt with Sheila whilst he was shooting June, Ralph and the twins he would have had one heck of a battle on his hands.  My theory is if Jeremy was involved he must have had some help from somebody or if Sheila committed the crimes it would not have been as necessary for her to have help because she would shoot June then deal with Ralph :(

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #39 on: April 30, 2014, 08:46:PM »
Hello Mat

you may have said before and I missed it how do you think Jeremy dealt with Sheila whilst he was shooting June, Ralph and the twins he would have had one heck of a battle on his hands.  My theory is if Jeremy was involved he must have had some help from somebody or if Sheila committed the crimes it would not have been as necessary for her to have help because she would shoot June then deal with Ralph :(

Susie, I agree 100%

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2014, 09:02:PM »
About how long would you say was the time difference in the two shots that Sheila had ?

guest154

  • Guest
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #41 on: April 30, 2014, 09:03:PM »



 I know what I know,,and that's that it was his dad who phoned. I can't help it if you fall for my manipulative posts.It sure keeps you on your toes,,does it not ?

No? It just makes everything else you post seem questionable when you post things like that.

Hello Mat

you may have said before and I missed it how do you think Jeremy dealt with Sheila whilst he was shooting June, Ralph and the twins he would have had one heck of a battle on his hands.  My theory is if Jeremy was involved he must have had some help from somebody or if Sheila committed the crimes it would not have been as necessary for her to have help because she would shoot June then deal with Ralph :(


Hi Susan, I'm not sure 100% but he may have used the threat of harming the boys. It's likely Sheila would have done anything he said, to protect the twins. But I doubt we will ever know.

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2014, 09:07:PM »
No? It just makes everything else you post seem questionable when you post things like that.


Hi Susan, I'm not sure 100% but he may have used the threat of harming the boys. It's likely Sheila would have done anything he said, to protect the twins. But I doubt we will ever know.

That still doesn´t explain what Sheila was doing while Jeremy was dealing with June and Nevill. Why didn´t she try to grab the boys and flee? Why didn´t she at least CRY?? Why did she look so neat, so peaceful in death?

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #43 on: April 30, 2014, 09:08:PM »
 It was Sheila who'd said she could kill the children,,which proved to be no idle threat...Jeremy hadn't threatened anyone.

guest154

  • Guest
Re: Accomplice, who was he?
« Reply #44 on: April 30, 2014, 09:09:PM »
That still doesn´t explain what Sheila was doing while Jeremy was dealing with June and Nevill. Why didn´t she try to grab the boys and flee? Why didn´t she at least CRY?? Why did she look so neat, so peaceful in death?

She was at gun point, Alias. Not sure if she cried or not.
And as for looking peaceful in death, I don't think it's fair to think that if you die peacefully you look peaceful and you die by other means it somehow shows on your face - just doesn't work like that.