Unidentified Male, seen at Whf, PC Myall, at 3.45am...

[mb1]

In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.

Is anyone willing/feel able to offer a step by step walkthrough of the current defence position - or, at least, that known before the CCRC advised that it did not plan to make a referral?

I'd like to have a step by step walkthrough of the defence, but I've not brought my wellies, and the smell's a bit strong.


I actually asked for this a few threads ago... because I knew the defence seemed reluctant to ever spell ALL the defence out in one go... because it would look ludicrous. In small portions it just about sounds credible, albeit with slightly eccentric interpretations, but when added up - it's crazy than a box of frogs.

In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.

I agree with curiousessex.
The case should be laid out, referenced by evidence.

It would then become clear what is agreed fact, what is evidence subject to interpretation and reasoned argument on either/both sides, with all that remains being speculation.

Someone...

[Kaldin]

In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.

Is anyone willing/feel able to offer a step by step walkthrough of the current defence position - or, at least, that known before the CCRC advised that it did not plan to make a referral?

I'd like to have a step by step walkthrough of the defence, but I've not brought my wellies, and the smell's a bit strong.


I actually asked for this a few threads ago... because I knew the defence seemed reluctant to ever spell ALL the defence out in one go... because it would look ludicrous. In small portions it just about sounds credible, albeit with slightly eccentric interpretations, but when added up - it's crazy than a box of frogs.

In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.

I agree with curiousessex.
The case should be laid out, referenced by evidence.

It would then become clear what is agreed fact, what is evidence subject to interpretation and reasoned argument on either/both sides, with all that remains being speculation.

Someone...

I'll go first then. 

Five people died at Whitehouse farm - fact.

[TheBrilliantMistake]

It's a real shame, cos there are some arguable points that the defence could really go with.

I honestly believe that many of those on here falling loosely into the JB did it camp DO try and give the defence some leeway and a decent crack of the whip to present a case.
It doesn't appear to be reciprocated though.

The seeming onslaught of technobabble for defence is easily eroded when people scrutinise it. The defence (in my opinion) has won over a few numpties who read the headlines and think "OMG, they have a call log from Nevill, so he must be innocent". If they'd spend 20 more minutes reading more they might not think JB did it, but they sure as hell wouldn't think the defence evidence was rock solid.

There's footage of Bamber walking into court where he's grinning like a Cheshire cat. I know this doesn't make him guilty, but it really does support the view he thought he was untouchable and lost touch with reality.
I don't recall the Guildford four smiling about matters.

[ngb1066]

In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.

I said exactly the same thing myself recently (and posted on here).
It undermines a few of the more credible points that the defence should go 'all in' on.

Namely the 'discovery' of the silencer - and the Boutflours high familiarity with guns (more so than the police themselves) (excluding firearms team)
Mugford's testimony, and more to the point the 1 month delay.
Lack on ballastic evidence to prove silencer was used (it all stems from the assumption the 'find' was genuine)

I entirely agree .  I believe that the silencer is the key aspect of the case which Jeremy's team have to deal with effectively in order to suceed in a further appeal.  If Jeremy is not guilty of the murders I believe the silencer was not attached to the rifle at any stage during the shootings at WHF.  His evidence at trial was that the silencer was not attached to the rifle when he left it on the kitchen table the evening before the murders. The suggestion that Sheila went to the cupboard to obtain the silencer and then attached it to the rifle is, although possible, unlikely.  The suggestion that having murdered the other four in the house she removed the silencer from the rifle in order to be able to reach the trigger so that she could shoot herself is reasonable, but to have taken the trouble to replace the silencer in the box in the cupboard before going either to the kitchen or upstairs to shoot herself is stretching credulity to the limits.  On the material I have seen (which I accept is only the material on this site and otherwise in the public domain) Jeremy's best line of defence is to discredit the evidence relating to the silencer.  In essence his case would be that the silencer was not attached to the rifle during the murders/suicide at any stage, and that the circumstances of the subsequent "finding" of the silencer coupled with the interference with it by those who were convinced of Jeremy's guilt and had a clear financial interest in establishing that guilt casts serious doubt upon the value of the evidence of what was found in and on the silencer. The remaining points of appeal as raised by Mike Tesko can of course be raised as additional factors which might have swayed the jury had the evidence been properly presented at trial, but from what I have seen I doubt if any individual point would be sufficient to persuade the Court of Appeal to overturn the conviction.  The silencer is the key and in my view that should be the focus of Jeremy's attack on the prosecution case. To put it another way, without the evidence relating to the silencer Jeremy would not have been convicted. 

[TheBrilliantMistake]

In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.

Is anyone willing/feel able to offer a step by step walkthrough of the current defence position - or, at least, that known before the CCRC advised that it did not plan to make a referral?

I'd like to have a step by step walkthrough of the defence, but I've not brought my wellies, and the smell's a bit strong.


I actually asked for this a few threads ago... because I knew the defence seemed reluctant to ever spell ALL the defence out in one go... because it would look ludicrous. In small portions it just about sounds credible, albeit with slightly eccentric interpretations, but when added up - it's crazy than a box of frogs.

In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.

I agree with curiousessex.
The case should be laid out, referenced by evidence.

It would then become clear what is agreed fact, what is evidence subject to interpretation and reasoned argument on either/both sides, with all that remains being speculation.

Someone...

I'll go first then. 

Five people died at Whitehouse farm - fact.

OK, I will do it... a brand new thread, but one where the opening few posts are ALWAYS the 'master' description. Might take me a while though and I'll need input!

[mb1]

In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.

Is anyone willing/feel able to offer a step by step walkthrough of the current defence position - or, at least, that known before the CCRC advised that it did not plan to make a referral?

I'd like to have a step by step walkthrough of the defence, but I've not brought my wellies, and the smell's a bit strong.


I actually asked for this a few threads ago... because I knew the defence seemed reluctant to ever spell ALL the defence out in one go... because it would look ludicrous. In small portions it just about sounds credible, albeit with slightly eccentric interpretations, but when added up - it's crazy than a box of frogs.

In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.

I agree with curiousessex.
The case should be laid out, referenced by evidence.

It would then become clear what is agreed fact, what is evidence subject to interpretation and reasoned argument on either/both sides, with all that remains being speculation.

Someone...

I'll go first then. 

Five people died at Whitehouse farm - fact.

OK, I will do it... a brand new thread, but one where the opening few posts are ALWAYS the 'master' description. Might take me a while though and I'll need input!

You're a star! 

Agree re 'Master' post.

[Kaldin]

It's a real shame, cos there are some arguable points that the defence could really go with.

I honestly believe that many of those on here falling loosely into the JB did it camp DO try and give the defence some leeway and a decent crack of the whip to present a case.
It doesn't appear to be reciprocated though.

The seeming onslaught of technobabble for defence is easily eroded when people scrutinise it. The defence (in my opinion) has won over a few numpties who read the headlines and think "OMG, they have a call log from Nevill, so he must be innocent". If they'd spend 20 more minutes reading more they might not think JB did it, but they sure as hell wouldn't think the defence evidence was rock solid.

There's footage of Bamber walking into court where he's grinning like a Cheshire cat. I know this doesn't make him guilty, but it really does support the view he thought he was untouchable and lost touch with reality.
I don't recall the Guildford four smiling about matters.

I agree. The red herrings and clutched straws are mounting up, and the goal posts have been moved so often that they're almost off the pitch.

I read that headline about the alleged phone call from Nevill, and I was really very interested - until I looked at the log and saw that it didn't prove anything of the sort. I was interested in the photo of the gun at the window until I considered that maybe the photo had been taken after it was taken off Sheila's body - which had to happen at some point otherwise it would still be there.

[Kaldin]

In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.

I said exactly the same thing myself recently (and posted on here).
It undermines a few of the more credible points that the defence should go 'all in' on.

Namely the 'discovery' of the silencer - and the Boutflours high familiarity with guns (more so than the police themselves) (excluding firearms team)
Mugford's testimony, and more to the point the 1 month delay.
Lack on ballastic evidence to prove silencer was used (it all stems from the assumption the 'find' was genuine)

I entirely agree .  I believe that the silencer is the key aspect of the case which Jeremy's team have to deal with effectively in order to suceed in a further appeal.  If Jeremy is not guilty of the murders I believe the silencer was not attached to the rifle at any stage during the shootings at WHF.  His evidence at trial was that the silencer was not attached to the rifle when he left it on the kitchen table the evening before the murders. The suggestion that Sheila went to the cupboard to obtain the silencer and then attached it to the rifle is, although possible, unlikely.  The suggestion that having murdered the other four in the house she removed the silencer from the rifle in order to be able to reach the trigger so that she could shoot herself is reasonable, but to have taken the trouble to replace the silencer in the box in the cupboard before going either to the kitchen or upstairs to shoot herself is stretching credulity to the limits.  On the material I have seen (which I accept is only the material on this site and otherwise in the public domain) Jeremy's best line of defence is to discredit the evidence relating to the silencer.  In essence his case would be that the silencer was not attached to the rifle during the murders/suicide at any stage, and that the circumstances of the subsequent "finding" of the silencer coupled with the interference with it by those who were convinced of Jeremy's guilt and had a clear financial interest in establishing that guilt casts serious doubt upon the value of the evidence of what was found in and on the silencer. The remaining points of appeal as raised by Mike Tesko can of course be raised as additional factors which might have swayed the jury had the evidence been properly presented at trial, but from what I have seen I doubt if any individual point would be sufficient to persuade the Court of Appeal to overturn the conviction.  The silencer is the key and in my view that should be the focus of Jeremy's attack on the prosecution case. To put it another way, without the evidence relating to the silencer Jeremy would not have been convicted.

I agree - the silencer has been the sticking point for the defence all the way. It was the sticking point 26 years ago, and it still is now, despite the subsequent DNA evidence.

The problem is that I can't see how the silencer evidence can be discounted without pointing the finger at the relatives. There was human blood on and in that silencer - I don't think there is much doubt about that.

[mike tesko]

It's a real shame, cos there are some arguable points that the defence could really go with.

I honestly believe that many of those on here falling loosely into the JB did it camp DO try and give the defence some leeway and a decent crack of the whip to present a case.
It doesn't appear to be reciprocated though.

The seeming onslaught of technobabble for defence is easily eroded when people scrutinise it. The defence (in my opinion) has won over a few numpties who read the headlines and think "OMG, they have a call log from Nevill, so he must be innocent". If they'd spend 20 more minutes reading more they might not think JB did it, but they sure as hell wouldn't think the defence evidence was rock solid.

There's footage of Bamber walking into court where he's grinning like a Cheshire cat. I know this doesn't make him guilty, but it really does support the view he thought he was untouchable and lost touch with reality.
I don't recall the Guildford four smiling about matters.

I agree. The red herrings and clutched straws are mounting up, and the goal posts have been moved so often that they're almost off the pitch.

I read that headline about the alleged phone call from Nevill, and I was really very interested - until I looked at the log and saw that it didn't prove anything of the sort. I was interested in the photo of the gun at the window until I considered that maybe the photo had been taken after it was taken off Sheila's body - which had to happen at some point otherwise it would still be there.

----------------------

Only, the photograph of the gun at the bedroom window, was taken at about 10 O'clock, and according to PS Woodcock (firearms officer) he did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body, until 11:15am, to make it safe?

So, you can speculate all you want to, if PS Woodcock did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body until 11:15am, it could not also be photographed leaning up against the bedroom window beforehand...

The only people who are responsible for moving the goalposts are EP, and the DPP / CPS, and the relatives...

[mike tesko]

PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.

-------------------------

Oh, yes he was...

[Kaldin]

It's a real shame, cos there are some arguable points that the defence could really go with.

I honestly believe that many of those on here falling loosely into the JB did it camp DO try and give the defence some leeway and a decent crack of the whip to present a case.
It doesn't appear to be reciprocated though.

The seeming onslaught of technobabble for defence is easily eroded when people scrutinise it. The defence (in my opinion) has won over a few numpties who read the headlines and think "OMG, they have a call log from Nevill, so he must be innocent". If they'd spend 20 more minutes reading more they might not think JB did it, but they sure as hell wouldn't think the defence evidence was rock solid.

There's footage of Bamber walking into court where he's grinning like a Cheshire cat. I know this doesn't make him guilty, but it really does support the view he thought he was untouchable and lost touch with reality.
I don't recall the Guildford four smiling about matters.

I agree. The red herrings and clutched straws are mounting up, and the goal posts have been moved so often that they're almost off the pitch.

I read that headline about the alleged phone call from Nevill, and I was really very interested - until I looked at the log and saw that it didn't prove anything of the sort. I was interested in the photo of the gun at the window until I considered that maybe the photo had been taken after it was taken off Sheila's body - which had to happen at some point otherwise it would still be there.

----------------------

Only, the photograph of the gun at the bedroom window, was taken at about 10 O'clock, and according to PS Woodcock (firearms officer) he did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body, until 11:15am, to make it safe?

So, you can speculate all you want to, if PS Woodcock did not remove the rifle from Sheila's body until 11:15am, it could not also be photographed leaning up against the bedroom window beforehand...

The only people who are responsible for moving the goalposts are EP, and the DPP / CPS, and the relatives...

Well obviously someone got their times mixed up. That's not exactly unusual is it?

[Kaldin]

PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.

-------------------------

Oh, yes he was...

Oh no he wasn't ...

[curiousessex]

In my opinion, the shotgun approach in denying everything that has been presented and only using cherry picked snippets which could be useful will not do Jeremy any favours in the long run. Any credibility that exists will be / is being eroded / diminished.

I said exactly the same thing myself recently (and posted on here).
It undermines a few of the more credible points that the defence should go 'all in' on.

Namely the 'discovery' of the silencer - and the Boutflours high familiarity with guns (more so than the police themselves) (excluding firearms team)
Mugford's testimony, and more to the point the 1 month delay.
Lack on ballastic evidence to prove silencer was used (it all stems from the assumption the 'find' was genuine)

I entirely agree .  I believe that the silencer is the key aspect of the case which Jeremy's team have to deal with effectively in order to suceed in a further appeal.  If Jeremy is not guilty of the murders I believe the silencer was not attached to the rifle at any stage during the shootings at WHF.  His evidence at trial was that the silencer was not attached to the rifle when he left it on the kitchen table the evening before the murders. The suggestion that Sheila went to the cupboard to obtain the silencer and then attached it to the rifle is, although possible, unlikely.  The suggestion that having murdered the other four in the house she removed the silencer from the rifle in order to be able to reach the trigger so that she could shoot herself is reasonable, but to have taken the trouble to replace the silencer in the box in the cupboard before going either to the kitchen or upstairs to shoot herself is stretching credulity to the limits.  On the material I have seen (which I accept is only the material on this site and otherwise in the public domain) Jeremy's best line of defence is to discredit the evidence relating to the silencer.  In essence his case would be that the silencer was not attached to the rifle during the murders/suicide at any stage, and that the circumstances of the subsequent "finding" of the silencer coupled with the interference with it by those who were convinced of Jeremy's guilt and had a clear financial interest in establishing that guilt casts serious doubt upon the value of the evidence of what was found in and on the silencer. The remaining points of appeal as raised by Mike Tesko can of course be raised as additional factors which might have swayed the jury had the evidence been properly presented at trial, but from what I have seen I doubt if any individual point would be sufficient to persuade the Court of Appeal to overturn the conviction.  The silencer is the key and in my view that should be the focus of Jeremy's attack on the prosecution case. To put it another way, without the evidence relating to the silencer Jeremy would not have been convicted.

I agree - the silencer has been the sticking point for the defence all the way. It was the sticking point 26 years ago, and it still is now, despite the subsequent DNA evidence.

The problem is that I can't see how the silencer evidence can be discounted without pointing the finger at the relatives. There was human blood on and in that silencer - I don't think there is much doubt about that.

On the point of the silencer

The Police missed the silencer when searching the gun cupboard.

The keys to White House Farm were given to Ann Eaton (I beleive I read in 'Blood Relations' Jeremy did not want the keys and had appointed / was going to appoint Ann Eaton's husband as farm manager)

Jeremy had admitted to gaining access to White House Farm via a window after the murders.

The relatives when in White House Farm find the silencer (which they knew existed) some days after the tragedy.

A counter argument / explantion to the issues surrounding silencer from the prosecution perspective could easily be............... maybe Jeremy put the silencer back in the gun cupboard between the time of the murders and the time Ann Eaton returned to White House Farm in possession of the keys. The silencer would be missed by the relatives if it was not there.

As such a time it was the case that to all intense and purposes the tragedy was accepted by the Police as being four murders and a suicide.

I think I have read somewhere that Jeremy's explanation for gaining access to White House Farm via the window was to get his passport for a holiday abroad in September....... but Jeremy went to Amsterdam with Julie and Brett just after the murders. Please correct if incorrect.

[mike tesko]

PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.

-------------------------

Oh, yes he was...

Oh no he wasn't ...

----

Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...

Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...

How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?

Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...

The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...

These are the FACTS...

It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...

This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...

[Kaldin]

PC Myall wasn't even at the house at 3.45.

-------------------------

Oh, yes he was...

Oh no he wasn't ...

----

Oh yes he was, and he shouldn't be making notes about being there at that time, and claiming to have seen an unidentified male at the scene at 3:45am, if he was not there...

Funny how only PS Bews says they saw a silhouetted figure at the bedroom window that he claims was a trick of light (depending upon which version he is telling) or the moon reflecting upon the glass of the bedroom window...

How come, both PC Myall and PS Bews, do not say the same thing?

Myall, Bews, and Bamber were in the grounds at whf by 3:45am - its a nailed on certainty...

The unidentified male who PC Myall did see at whf at 3:45am, gives JB the perfect alibi - because at the time of the sighting of that male person at the bedroom window, JB was outside in the company of Bews and Myall...

These are the FACTS...

It's all there in the MAJOR INCIDENT PROJECT which EP created and produced to help them identify who the male person that had been seen inside whf, at 3:45am, could have been? They know it was not JB because he was outside in the grounds of the house with the police, so it had to be either Ralph Bamber, or another male person...

This sighting was part of the reason why EP seized JB's answer phone, and why they arrested Mathew McDonald, on suspicion of him being the hitman, who may have been seen inside the bedroom window by PC Myall at about 3:45am...

Please post a document written by PC Myall which says that he saw a male person at a window at 3.45 am, otherwise I have no choice but to conclude that you made all that up.