The Noble Cause Framing Theory

[grahameb]

Sound moderator is a term used by European firearm manufacturers hence what the government uses.

Sound suppressor is what US industry and thus scientific experts use.

Silencer is a slang term popularized by books and movies that is universal but not a technical term.  But since the military uses sound suppressor, (there are flash suppressors among other types) that is the term I use because that is what was instilled in me just like I frequently resort to weapon instead of firearm because that is what was instilled though a weapon can be anything from a fork to a cannon so is imprecise.

That is right scipio. That is what ngb said. Good boy. I see that you are slowly catching on.

[grahameb]

How did it succeed?  It got exposed, that is the whole point.  In cases where wrongdoing is known to exist it is known to exist because it had been proven.

You have been swamped with the prosecution theories of the case that were proven at trial and that the appeal court judges even believe.

That was because they may have all accepted a lie. Not that the evidence was true. I submit to you that it was not true and a great deal of the prosecution case was false and even a lie.

[scipio_usmc]

That was because they may have all accepted a lie. Not that the evidence was true. I submit to you that it was not true and a great deal of the prosecution case was false and even a lie.

You claim it is not true but have no proof to prove any of it unture.

In the corruption cases cited there was evidence that proved police misconduct occurred.

You not only lack evidence but the alleged reasons for police misconduct make no snese and Jeremy's claims make no sense.

I presented very detaile darguments against Jeremy which no one here will address let alone has dented.

Peopel want to believe he is innocent regardless of rational thought and on that basis insist he had to have been set up.

That is not why the police misconduct was suspected nor how it was proven.

Forget about an explanation of hwo Sheila could commit the mrders without any evidence on her body of having done so or why Sheila would know how to load 11 round and why she would do so or why she would use 20 rounds form a box of ammo and despite 30 remaining go look in the gun closet for more, I am still waiting for a rational explanation of how and why Nevill would call Jeremy to ask him to come disarm Sheila instead of trying to do it himself or grabbing weapons to confront her with.

I listed something like a dozen different considerations why such makes no sense.  Not one person has attempted to deal with that problem.

You gloss over everything or attribute it to a frameup nothing more.  There is no serious attempt to look at what happened rather you start out from the position he has to be innocent and look for any way to try to pretend it is possible.  That's not a search for the truth.
 

[grahameb]

You claim it is not true but have no proof to prove any of it unture.

In the corruption cases cited there was evidence that proved police misconduct occurred.

You not only lack evidence but the alleged reasons for police misconduct make no snese and Jeremy's claims make no sense.

I presented very detaile darguments against Jeremy which no one here will address let alone has dented.

Peopel want to believe he is innocent regardless of rational thought and on that basis insist he had to have been set up.

That is not why the police misconduct was suspected nor how it was proven.

Forget about an explanation of hwo Sheila could commit the mrders without any evidence on her body of having done so or why Sheila would know how to load 11 round and why she would do so or why she would use 20 rounds form a box of ammo and despite 30 remaining go look in the gun closet for more, I am still waiting for a rational explanation of how and why Nevill would call Jeremy to ask him to come disarm Sheila instead of trying to do it himself or grabbing weapons to confront her with.

I listed something like a dozen different considerations why such makes no sense.  Not one person has attempted to deal with that problem.

You gloss over everything or attribute it to a frameup nothing more.  There is no serious attempt to look at what happened rather you start out from the position he has to be innocent and look for any way to try to pretend it is possible.  That's not a search for the truth.

No. It is easy to prove someone guilty from circumstantial evidence of which in this case was "he said this. He said that. We found this" etc which is what actually formed the backbone of the prosecutions case. So now you are in the privileged position of saying "You prove he is not guilty". But I am still looking at it as it should be, which is Prove to me that he did do it, using the same evidence that was available to the prosecution and perhaps more importantly to the defence at the time.
I contend that if the same so called evidence was presented in a court of law today that he would almost certainly be found not guilty through lack of evidence. You unfortunately are looking at it from what things are and not how they should be. I repeat anyone unless they have a good alibi can be found guilty of any crime if only circumstantial evidence is used and believed. The Birmingham six are a case I have in mind. You see many things that may look easy to interpret because so many other comments have been made about it whether true or untrue. Bit in effect they may not have happened as we may think they happened and so the arguments get deeper and deeper. But the true facts may not actually be as we reason them out to be. But as I have said many times before I believe that the original evidence, mostly circumstantial presented to the court plus the silencer evidence was not enough to bring in a guilty verdict and probably insufficient as the jury were not in possession of the full facts at that time.
And those things that are brought up on the forum today have been so elaborated upon that some of the facts have morphed into something else.

[Neil]

No. It is easy to prove someone guilty from circumstantial evidence of which in this case was "he said this. He said that. We found this" etc which is what actually formed the backbone of the prosecutions case. So now you are in the privileged position of saying "You prove he is not guilty". But I am still looking at it as it should be, which is Prove to me that he did do it, using the same evidence that was available to the prosecution and perhaps more importantly to the defence at the time.
I contend that if the same so called evidence was presented in a court of law today that he would almost certainly be found not guilty through lack of evidence. You unfortunately are looking at it from what things are and not how they should be. I repeat anyone unless they have a good alibi can be found guilty of any crime if only circumstantial evidence is used and believed. The Birmingham six are a case I have in mind. You see many things that may look easy to interpret because so many other comments have been made about it whether true or untrue. Bit in effect they may not have happened as we may think they happened and so the arguments get deeper and deeper. But the true facts may not actually be as we reason them out to be. But as I have said many times before I believe that the original evidence, mostly circumstantial presented to the court plus the silencer evidence was not enough to bring in a guilty verdict and probably insufficient as the jury were not in possession of the full facts at that time.
And those things that are brought up on the forum today have been so elaborated upon that some of the facts have morphed into something else.

You make a very good point there, Grahame.

[lookout]

No. It is easy to prove someone guilty from circumstantial evidence of which in this case was "he said this. He said that. We found this" etc which is what actually formed the backbone of the prosecutions case. So now you are in the privileged position of saying "You prove he is not guilty". But I am still looking at it as it should be, which is Prove to me that he did do it, using the same evidence that was available to the prosecution and perhaps more importantly to the defence at the time.
I contend that if the same so called evidence was presented in a court of law today that he would almost certainly be found not guilty through lack of evidence. You unfortunately are looking at it from what things are and not how they should be. I repeat anyone unless they have a good alibi can be found guilty of any crime if only circumstantial evidence is used and believed. The Birmingham six are a case I have in mind. You see many things that may look easy to interpret because so many other comments have been made about it whether true or untrue. Bit in effect they may not have happened as we may think they happened and so the arguments get deeper and deeper. But the true facts may not actually be as we reason them out to be. But as I have said many times before I believe that the original evidence, mostly circumstantial presented to the court plus the silencer evidence was not enough to bring in a guilty verdict and probably insufficient as the jury were not in possession of the full facts at that time.
And those things that are brought up on the forum today have been so elaborated upon that some of the facts have morphed into something else.

Good way of explaining what would pass for a Brian Rix farce. No disrespects to yourself,as it's a great explanatory post which does put things into perspective as regards Jeremys' conviction-------on what ?

[scipio_usmc]

No. It is easy to prove someone guilty from circumstantial evidence of which in this case was "he said this. He said that. We found this" etc which is what actually formed the backbone of the prosecutions case. So now you are in the privileged position of saying "You prove he is not guilty". But I am still looking at it as it should be, which is Prove to me that he did do it, using the same evidence that was available to the prosecution and perhaps more importantly to the defence at the time.
I contend that if the same so called evidence was presented in a court of law today that he would almost certainly be found not guilty through lack of evidence. You unfortunately are looking at it from what things are and not how they should be. I repeat anyone unless they have a good alibi can be found guilty of any crime if only circumstantial evidence is used and believed. The Birmingham six are a case I have in mind. You see many things that may look easy to interpret because so many other comments have been made about it whether true or untrue. Bit in effect they may not have happened as we may think they happened and so the arguments get deeper and deeper. But the true facts may not actually be as we reason them out to be. But as I have said many times before I believe that the original evidence, mostly circumstantial presented to the court plus the silencer evidence was not enough to bring in a guilty verdict and probably insufficient as the jury were not in possession of the full facts at that time.
And those things that are brought up on the forum today have been so elaborated upon that some of the facts have morphed into something else.

He was proven guilty by a great deal of evidence.  You simply irrationally chose to ignore it all or to discount it by claiming all testimony was false and all physical evidence doctored though you have not one shred of proof to establish it.
 
If Jeremy were innocent then he would not have been aware of the murders.  If he were innocent then someone would have found the bodies in the morning when they went to work and it was discovered the house was still locked up and Nevill was not working.

Most of what came out of Jeremy’s mouth were lies specifically designed to the further the frame job that he undertook.

1) Jeremy made up the phone call from Neville.  Evidence of this is:

A) the telephone company said that the call was terminated by being hung up at Goldhanger and that the phone would not have cleared for 1-2 minutes

B) There is no evidence that Nevill would have been in a position to call Jeremy. 

The killer intentionally removed the bedroom phone in advance of the murders so that the victims would not be able to call for help.  The claim that the phone was removed because of  a storm damaged the cordless phone makes no sense.  The cordless phone was damaged but the wired phone was not damaged it worked perfectly so the claim it stopped working and had to be replaced is not credible. If it had actually been broken it might be a credible possibility but it wasn’t.  So clearly this phone was removed in contemplation of the killings and Sheila could not plan a psychotic episode and decide to remove the phone in contemplation of it.   

It is obvious the killer planned to commit the murders in the middle of the night while most victims were in bed.  Everyone was in their own bedroom when shot except Sheila because shooting her in her bedroom too would make it look like she also was murdered.  The evidence establishes that the killer loaded 11 shots in the gun, the maximum load.  To do so the killer had to load a full magazine, chamber a round, release the magazine, load another round in the magazine then reinsert the magazine.  This would leave 1 in the chamber and 10 in the magazine which is the maximum complement.  Sheila would not have the know how to do this nor have a reason to do it if she were in a crazy rage. 

The killer entered the master bedroom and opened fire on June and Nevill firing 11 rounds, 7 of which hit June and 4 of which hit Nevill.  When the gun was empty either Nevill ran down to the kitchen with the killer in pursuit or the killer ran down to the kitchen with Nevill in pursuit.  They struggled over control of the weapon with the suppressor attached breaking the ceiling light shade in the process, scratching the underneath of the aga and knocking things over. Eventually the killer gained sole control of the weapon, bludgeoned Nevill with it knocking him unconscious then reloaded and fired 4 rounds into his head killing him.  There was no opportunity for Nevill to use the phone.

No one has put forth a credible explanation of why Nevill would have been in the kitchen
making this call to Jeremy and that Sheila would push down on the phone button to hang up the call and march Nevill up to the bedroom to shoot him there with June instead of shooting him in the kitchen while he was on the phone.
 C) No one has put forth any rational reason why Nevill would call Jeremy either.  This is a biggie, without any rational reason why he would do so the claim he phoned is not credible, particularly in light of everything else. 

i) Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so why would he call Jeremy to come disarm her instead of trying himself?  It would take Jeremy 15-20 minutes to arrive and then have to try to find a way in the locked house.  Why would Nevill wait that long hoping that she doesn’t shoot anyone before Jeremy could arrive?  Nevill had a better ability to disarm her than Jeremy did because he was stronger already there so had the opportunity and even necessity.

ii) Nevill had another advantage, he had a calming effect on Sheila and was the most likely person to be able to talk her down.  Jeremy had the opposite effect and would likely cause her to shoot.  So why would he call someone who would make the situation more explosive?  He didn’t even trust Jeremy, he would expect Jeremy to purposely try to get her to shoot Nevill.

iii) If Nevill had enough time to wait for Jeremy to answer the phone then he had plenty of time to arm himself.  If Nevill were too scared to try to disarm her with his bare hands then he would definitely use the time to arm himself.  The kitchen had guns, knifes and other less lethal potential weapons.  Why would Nevill not grab any  but instead use the phone knowing that he would be an easy target if she caught him and that it could very well anger her more and make her start shooting, which she had not yet done.  If she had opened fire already he would have announced that she had done so if he truly made a call and request an ambulance be sent. 

iv) Jeremy had an answering machine hooked up usually.  It only rang a few times before the answering machine would pick up.  The phone was kept on the bottom floor, Jeremy had no bedroom phone.  So Nevill had no way to know if Jeremy would hear the phone, would wake up before the answering machine picked up and wound go down to listen to the answering machine.  It would take him a couple of minutes to walk to the phone so at best he could hope to leave a message and hope Jeremy would listen to it immediately instead of when he got up in the morning which would be too late.  If he truly were scared he would call someone who he would be sure would answer not Jeremy. 

v) If Sheila were with him then he would not try to make a call in front of her and she would have no reason to let him.  Why would she do nothing as he dialed, do nothing the entire time he waited from Jeremy to answer (which would have been a couple of minutes), not do anything as he spoke but rather wait until he got his message through to then hang up?  Moreover, as she put her hand on the phone to hand up she would have had only one hand on the gun and been extremely close to Nevill so in perfect position for him to disarm her.  Why would she let him make the call instead of shooting him, arch him upstairs and shoot him in the bedroom?

There is simply no rational reason why Nevill would make the call that Jeremy alleges he received and there is no objective evidence that things occurred the way Jeremy claims.  The testimony was that he ended the call and could not have immediately redialed as claimed. Why would Sheila leave the phone off the hook anyway, what would she care if it rang no one could answer it anyway.

2) This is hardly the only thing Jeremy made up to support his frame job.  He committed a series of lies all of which were aimed at convincing police his sister did it.

“The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year.”

He knew they were all dead before police even entered the house and found the bodies, he intended to use the money to buy a Porsche.  Why did he lie and claim he took her shooting and that she had fired all guns in the house?  He did it so police would believe she killed them when they found her with the gun and everyone dead.  He also invented the rabbit fairytale to convince police that she did it.  She would never go for the gun herself so he made the story about the gun and bullets being within easy grasp and suggesting that she went crazy and grabbed the gun because it was right in front of her as she flipped out.  If she had taken the gun from the closet herself it would have had the scope and suppressor attached.  So he made up this tale the gun did not fit in the closet with the accessories attached and that they were not attached to pretend they would not have been attached when she picked it up.  This was to conceal that he had removed the scope specifically to carry out the murders and that he had removed the suppressor after the murders.  These lies were carefully calculated.  His story about the rabbits makes no sense for a wide variety of reasons not the least of which is that so many witnesses say he had no interest in guns, didn’t like to shoot vermin and they had not seen him do so ever with the murder weapon.  There was also testimony about how Nevill would not removed the scope because he didn’t like to take the time to re-zero it.  Jeremy originally stated he had not used the gun the week prior to the murders.  But when it turned out that he last known person to use it said that the suppressor and scope had been attached when he found it in the closet and that he returned it the same way Jeremy changed his story.  Jeremy changed his story and lied specifically to challenge these damning claims made by others.  He claimed that he used it multiple times and that sometimes it had been put away with the accessories attached but other times it was put away without them.  He claimed he used it however he found it he didn’t add or remove accessories.  He claimed Nevill had been the one removing and attaching the so indicated Nevill used it many times during the week.  He also claimed that it was his gun but that he stored it at WHF.  He had no interest in guns while Nevill shot competitively, his claim is not credible tha tit was his.  Nor is the claim it was used many times a week credible since it looked brand new right before the murders.  It obviously was not used much.  It is obvious not only that Jeremy lied but that he kept changing his claims and tailored his lies for a specific purpose. 

Further evidence that he was lying and staging things was the box of ammunition he staged in the kitchen.  He insisted this box had not been moved and that it had much more ammo in it so was the source of ammunition use din the murders.  He claimed it had been full or near full so 48-50 rounds.  25 rounds were fired so 23-25 should have remained.  Instead 30 remained.  Why would Sheila use 20 rounds from the box and then go to the closet to get 5 more rounds instead of taking them from the box as well?  It makes no sense and is not credible.  This establishes the ammo box was staged.             

Why would he need to lie and frame her unless he were the real killer and how would he have known about the murders before anyone else unless he were the real killer?

3) His actions don’t make sense for someone allegedly receiving the call he claims he received.  That is more evidence he made up the call.

Someone receiving such a call would either go over immediately to check out what is going on even if that entails just spying through the windows which could safely be done, or to call police and then go over for a look

He called Julie instead.  Why would a rational person in his place wake up Julie?  She didn’t care for his family so it is not as if she would want to know so she could go to WHF and sit with him out of concern.  He didn’t know if anything happened or not supposedly.  A rational person would wait to find out if anything happened and at that point if he needs a shoulder to cry on then to call his girlfriend for comfort.  Why did he call her?  He called her as a follow-up to his previous message that tonight was the night he would kill them.  He announced he had not slept and everything was going according to plan and there was trouble at WHF.  At 6AM he called again telling her not to go to work because she would need to speak to police and be a witness for him.  He wanted her to tell police he told her there was trouble at WHF so that there would be a third party witness so he could pretend that he had received a call from Nevill.  The whole thing was clearly contrived and makes no sense other than that it was contrived for the purpose Julie stated in her testimony. 

After speaking to her what did he do?  We don’t know for sure, we just know a good amount of time passed between his call to her and finally calling police.  Presumably he used the opportunity to finish washing up and change his clothes.  He finally calls police and then what/  He asks police to pick him up because he wants them to see he is at his home and was not near the scene.  The tell him to drive and meet them there.  Does he go over and spy around for a while?  No he parks on the side of the road, waits for them to go by and then pulls up later so that they can see him pull up because he wanted them to be able to say he got there after them.  Why would he act this way unless he did it?  Why wa she desperate for them to see he arrived after them and why was this his priority instead of trying to find out how his family was?     

Then instead of prompting police to go inside and find out how his family was, he suggested they be careful because there were so many guns and detailed them to police and claimed Sheila fired them all.  Instead of being upset he was calm and talked about cars and guy stuff.  None of his actions fit someone receiving the call he claimed all his actions were contrived.

The bottom line is that there is no credible evidence to suggest he received a phone call from Nevill as he claims.  This is a huge problem for anyone suggesting he is innocent because unless he did receive such call he is guilty.

4) A whole lot of other evidence suggests Sheila did not do it including evidence she can’t have shot herself. 

A) No credible motive was ever set forth as to why she would do it.  No credible evidence set forth that she would be at risk of delusions at 3A on the night in question because her medication was in fact taken and by all account was working and there is no medical reason why it would have suddenly stopped working- she was not on any narcotic at the time.  The claim that 100MG was too low a dose is not supported by today’s medical evidence.

B) There is no physical evidence to suggest she shot anyone.  No gunshot residue was found on her body or clothing, no abrasions or cuts to her feet or hands as would be expected had she been the one Nevill struggled against, no blood spatter from the victims as would be expected had she fired the shots or bludgeoned Nevill.

C) The suppressor proves that she could not have shot herself

D) The blood stains on her body indicates she died sitting up but then her body was pulled down to the floor by the killer and the gun then planted in her hand and on her.
 
5) Sheila insists that Jeremy had been planning the murders a long time and gave a very detailed account about it.  She also indicated he called her right before the murders to say tonight is the night and called after to let her know it was done.  He told her more details later.  Her account is credible because of the details, how it fits the evidence and also because if she were making it up she would not make up a hitman story and finger a hitman.  She would have said he told her he did it directly if she were going to make up a story. It did not take long for the named hitman to prove he had an alibi.  If she made up a hitman story she would say he did not name the supposed killer.     

Far from there being no evidence to convict Jeremy this is more than enough to convict Jeremy and many people have been convicted with less.

What is the response of people like yourself to this evidence?  You largely ignore it.  People say there is no evidence and when I write a long post detailing the evidence people say it is too long to read and they don’t want to be bothered.  That doesn’t make the evidence go away it just demonstrates you have no ability to rebut it.

We are told that the police, Julie and family all lied and joined together to frame Jeremy.  Why would they do this?  No rational explanation had even been set forth.  We are told the police shot Sheila and framed Jeremy for it as well as the other murders though it makes no sense and all and worse there is no evidence to support such.  We just are supposed to assume that the police concealed gunshot residue and other evidence found on Sheila though there is no proof this happened.  We are to assume that police fabricated the suppressor evidence though there is no evidence to prove it.  We are to assume Julie lied as did everyone else though there is no proof.

Why should we assume it?  Because police in the past have been caught doing bad things so we should assume they did it here, if that is what we assume though no one can be convicted because all evidence must be discounted.  No police lab work is ever trustworthy they can plant blood and evidence.  No need for defendants to prove it they can allege it and go scot free.

No matter what crap you come up with it won’t make the claim that he received a call from Nevill credible and that alone is enough to suggest he killed everyone but in combination with his other lies and the other evidence this is especially the case. 

The start of trying to prove he is innocent is proving the phone call occurred which means establishing a rational reason that Nevill would call Jeremy and establish Jeremy’s reaction made sense and fits what someone receiving such a call would do.  You have no ability to do that because the call makes no sense nor does his alleged reaction. 

After that one then needs to take on the physical evidence by producing proof it was doctored and that everyone lied the bare bones claim they could have done so doesn’t create reasonable doubt.  Reasonable doubt requires proof there is a reasonably likelihood it happened.
 
Saying you don’t want to believe the evidence doesn’t make it go away.
 

[grahameb]

He was proven guilty by a great deal of evidence.  You simply irrationally chose to ignore it all or to discount it by claiming all testimony was false and all physical evidence doctored though you have not one shred of proof to establish it.
 
If Jeremy were innocent then he would not have been aware of the murders.  If he were innocent then someone would have found the bodies in the morning when they went to work and it was discovered the house was still locked up and Nevill was not working.

Most of what came out of Jeremy’s mouth were lies specifically designed to the further the frame job that he undertook.

1) Jeremy made up the phone call from Neville.  Evidence of this is:

A) the telephone company said that the call was terminated by being hung up at Goldhanger and that the phone would not have cleared for 1-2 minutes

B) There is no evidence that Nevill would have been in a position to call Jeremy. 

The killer intentionally removed the bedroom phone in advance of the murders so that the victims would not be able to call for help.  The claim that the phone was removed because of  a storm damaged the cordless phone makes no sense.  The cordless phone was damaged but the wired phone was not damaged it worked perfectly so the claim it stopped working and had to be replaced is not credible. If it had actually been broken it might be a credible possibility but it wasn’t.  So clearly this phone was removed in contemplation of the killings and Sheila could not plan a psychotic episode and decide to remove the phone in contemplation of it.   

It is obvious the killer planned to commit the murders in the middle of the night while most victims were in bed.  Everyone was in their own bedroom when shot except Sheila because shooting her in her bedroom too would make it look like she also was murdered.  The evidence establishes that the killer loaded 11 shots in the gun, the maximum load.  To do so the killer had to load a full magazine, chamber a round, release the magazine, load another round in the magazine then reinsert the magazine.  This would leave 1 in the chamber and 10 in the magazine which is the maximum complement.  Sheila would not have the know how to do this nor have a reason to do it if she were in a crazy rage. 

The killer entered the master bedroom and opened fire on June and Nevill firing 11 rounds, 7 of which hit June and 4 of which hit Nevill.  When the gun was empty either Nevill ran down to the kitchen with the killer in pursuit or the killer ran down to the kitchen with Nevill in pursuit.  They struggled over control of the weapon with the suppressor attached breaking the ceiling light shade in the process, scratching the underneath of the aga and knocking things over. Eventually the killer gained sole control of the weapon, bludgeoned Nevill with it knocking him unconscious then reloaded and fired 4 rounds into his head killing him.  There was no opportunity for Nevill to use the phone.

No one has put forth a credible explanation of why Nevill would have been in the kitchen
making this call to Jeremy and that Sheila would push down on the phone button to hang up the call and march Nevill up to the bedroom to shoot him there with June instead of shooting him in the kitchen while he was on the phone.
 C) No one has put forth any rational reason why Nevill would call Jeremy either.  This is a biggie, without any rational reason why he would do so the claim he phoned is not credible, particularly in light of everything else. 

i) Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so why would he call Jeremy to come disarm her instead of trying himself?  It would take Jeremy 15-20 minutes to arrive and then have to try to find a way in the locked house.  Why would Nevill wait that long hoping that she doesn’t shoot anyone before Jeremy could arrive?  Nevill had a better ability to disarm her than Jeremy did because he was stronger already there so had the opportunity and even necessity.

ii) Nevill had another advantage, he had a calming effect on Sheila and was the most likely person to be able to talk her down.  Jeremy had the opposite effect and would likely cause her to shoot.  So why would he call someone who would make the situation more explosive?  He didn’t even trust Jeremy, he would expect Jeremy to purposely try to get her to shoot Nevill.

iii) If Nevill had enough time to wait for Jeremy to answer the phone then he had plenty of time to arm himself.  If Nevill were too scared to try to disarm her with his bare hands then he would definitely use the time to arm himself.  The kitchen had guns, knifes and other less lethal potential weapons.  Why would Nevill not grab any  but instead use the phone knowing that he would be an easy target if she caught him and that it could very well anger her more and make her start shooting, which she had not yet done.  If she had opened fire already he would have announced that she had done so if he truly made a call and request an ambulance be sent. 

iv) Jeremy had an answering machine hooked up usually.  It only rang a few times before the answering machine would pick up.  The phone was kept on the bottom floor, Jeremy had no bedroom phone.  So Nevill had no way to know if Jeremy would hear the phone, would wake up before the answering machine picked up and wound go down to listen to the answering machine.  It would take him a couple of minutes to walk to the phone so at best he could hope to leave a message and hope Jeremy would listen to it immediately instead of when he got up in the morning which would be too late.  If he truly were scared he would call someone who he would be sure would answer not Jeremy. 

v) If Sheila were with him then he would not try to make a call in front of her and she would have no reason to let him.  Why would she do nothing as he dialed, do nothing the entire time he waited from Jeremy to answer (which would have been a couple of minutes), not do anything as he spoke but rather wait until he got his message through to then hang up?  Moreover, as she put her hand on the phone to hand up she would have had only one hand on the gun and been extremely close to Nevill so in perfect position for him to disarm her.  Why would she let him make the call instead of shooting him, arch him upstairs and shoot him in the bedroom?

There is simply no rational reason why Nevill would make the call that Jeremy alleges he received and there is no objective evidence that things occurred the way Jeremy claims.  The testimony was that he ended the call and could not have immediately redialed as claimed. Why would Sheila leave the phone off the hook anyway, what would she care if it rang no one could answer it anyway.

2) This is hardly the only thing Jeremy made up to support his frame job.  He committed a series of lies all of which were aimed at convincing police his sister did it.

“The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year.”

He knew they were all dead before police even entered the house and found the bodies, he intended to use the money to buy a Porsche.  Why did he lie and claim he took her shooting and that she had fired all guns in the house?  He did it so police would believe she killed them when they found her with the gun and everyone dead.  He also invented the rabbit fairytale to convince police that she did it.  She would never go for the gun herself so he made the story about the gun and bullets being within easy grasp and suggesting that she went crazy and grabbed the gun because it was right in front of her as she flipped out.  If she had taken the gun from the closet herself it would have had the scope and suppressor attached.  So he made up this tale the gun did not fit in the closet with the accessories attached and that they were not attached to pretend they would not have been attached when she picked it up.  This was to conceal that he had removed the scope specifically to carry out the murders and that he had removed the suppressor after the murders.  These lies were carefully calculated.  His story about the rabbits makes no sense for a wide variety of reasons not the least of which is that so many witnesses say he had no interest in guns, didn’t like to shoot vermin and they had not seen him do so ever with the murder weapon.  There was also testimony about how Nevill would not removed the scope because he didn’t like to take the time to re-zero it.  Jeremy originally stated he had not used the gun the week prior to the murders.  But when it turned out that he last known person to use it said that the suppressor and scope had been attached when he found it in the closet and that he returned it the same way Jeremy changed his story.  Jeremy changed his story and lied specifically to challenge these damning claims made by others.  He claimed that he used it multiple times and that sometimes it had been put away with the accessories attached but other times it was put away without them.  He claimed he used it however he found it he didn’t add or remove accessories.  He claimed Nevill had been the one removing and attaching the so indicated Nevill used it many times during the week.  He also claimed that it was his gun but that he stored it at WHF.  He had no interest in guns while Nevill shot competitively, his claim is not credible tha tit was his.  Nor is the claim it was used many times a week credible since it looked brand new right before the murders.  It obviously was not used much.  It is obvious not only that Jeremy lied but that he kept changing his claims and tailored his lies for a specific purpose. 

Further evidence that he was lying and staging things was the box of ammunition he staged in the kitchen.  He insisted this box had not been moved and that it had much more ammo in it so was the source of ammunition use din the murders.  He claimed it had been full or near full so 48-50 rounds.  25 rounds were fired so 23-25 should have remained.  Instead 30 remained.  Why would Sheila use 20 rounds from the box and then go to the closet to get 5 more rounds instead of taking them from the box as well?  It makes no sense and is not credible.  This establishes the ammo box was staged.             

Why would he need to lie and frame her unless he were the real killer and how would he have known about the murders before anyone else unless he were the real killer?

3) His actions don’t make sense for someone allegedly receiving the call he claims he received.  That is more evidence he made up the call.

Someone receiving such a call would either go over immediately to check out what is going on even if that entails just spying through the windows which could safely be done, or to call police and then go over for a look

He called Julie instead.  Why would a rational person in his place wake up Julie?  She didn’t care for his family so it is not as if she would want to know so she could go to WHF and sit with him out of concern.  He didn’t know if anything happened or not supposedly.  A rational person would wait to find out if anything happened and at that point if he needs a shoulder to cry on then to call his girlfriend for comfort.  Why did he call her?  He called her as a follow-up to his previous message that tonight was the night he would kill them.  He announced he had not slept and everything was going according to plan and there was trouble at WHF.  At 6AM he called again telling her not to go to work because she would need to speak to police and be a witness for him.  He wanted her to tell police he told her there was trouble at WHF so that there would be a third party witness so he could pretend that he had received a call from Nevill.  The whole thing was clearly contrived and makes no sense other than that it was contrived for the purpose Julie stated in her testimony. 

After speaking to her what did he do?  We don’t know for sure, we just know a good amount of time passed between his call to her and finally calling police.  Presumably he used the opportunity to finish washing up and change his clothes.  He finally calls police and then what/  He asks police to pick him up because he wants them to see he is at his home and was not near the scene.  The tell him to drive and meet them there.  Does he go over and spy around for a while?  No he parks on the side of the road, waits for them to go by and then pulls up later so that they can see him pull up because he wanted them to be able to say he got there after them.  Why would he act this way unless he did it?  Why wa she desperate for them to see he arrived after them and why was this his priority instead of trying to find out how his family was?     

Then instead of prompting police to go inside and find out how his family was, he suggested they be careful because there were so many guns and detailed them to police and claimed Sheila fired them all.  Instead of being upset he was calm and talked about cars and guy stuff.  None of his actions fit someone receiving the call he claimed all his actions were contrived.

The bottom line is that there is no credible evidence to suggest he received a phone call from Nevill as he claims.  This is a huge problem for anyone suggesting he is innocent because unless he did receive such call he is guilty.

4) A whole lot of other evidence suggests Sheila did not do it including evidence she can’t have shot herself. 

A) No credible motive was ever set forth as to why she would do it.  No credible evidence set forth that she would be at risk of delusions at 3A on the night in question because her medication was in fact taken and by all account was working and there is no medical reason why it would have suddenly stopped working- she was not on any narcotic at the time.  The claim that 100MG was too low a dose is not supported by today’s medical evidence.

B) There is no physical evidence to suggest she shot anyone.  No gunshot residue was found on her body or clothing, no abrasions or cuts to her feet or hands as would be expected had she been the one Nevill struggled against, no blood spatter from the victims as would be expected had she fired the shots or bludgeoned Nevill.

C) The suppressor proves that she could not have shot herself

D) The blood stains on her body indicates she died sitting up but then her body was pulled down to the floor by the killer and the gun then planted in her hand and on her.
 
5) Sheila insists that Jeremy had been planning the murders a long time and gave a very detailed account about it.  She also indicated he called her right before the murders to say tonight is the night and called after to let her know it was done.  He told her more details later.  Her account is credible because of the details, how it fits the evidence and also because if she were making it up she would not make up a hitman story and finger a hitman.  She would have said he told her he did it directly if she were going to make up a story. It did not take long for the named hitman to prove he had an alibi.  If she made up a hitman story she would say he did not name the supposed killer.     

Far from there being no evidence to convict Jeremy this is more than enough to convict Jeremy and many people have been convicted with less.

What is the response of people like yourself to this evidence?  You largely ignore it.  People say there is no evidence and when I write a long post detailing the evidence people say it is too long to read and they don’t want to be bothered.  That doesn’t make the evidence go away it just demonstrates you have no ability to rebut it.

We are told that the police, Julie and family all lied and joined together to frame Jeremy.  Why would they do this?  No rational explanation had even been set forth.  We are told the police shot Sheila and framed Jeremy for it as well as the other murders though it makes no sense and all and worse there is no evidence to support such.  We just are supposed to assume that the police concealed gunshot residue and other evidence found on Sheila though there is no proof this happened.  We are to assume that police fabricated the suppressor evidence though there is no evidence to prove it.  We are to assume Julie lied as did everyone else though there is no proof.

Why should we assume it?  Because police in the past have been caught doing bad things so we should assume they did it here, if that is what we assume though no one can be convicted because all evidence must be discounted.  No police lab work is ever trustworthy they can plant blood and evidence.  No need for defendants to prove it they can allege it and go scot free.

No matter what crap you come up with it won’t make the claim that he received a call from Nevill credible and that alone is enough to suggest he killed everyone but in combination with his other lies and the other evidence this is especially the case. 

The start of trying to prove he is innocent is proving the phone call occurred which means establishing a rational reason that Nevill would call Jeremy and establish Jeremy’s reaction made sense and fits what someone receiving such a call would do.  You have no ability to do that because the call makes no sense nor does his alleged reaction. 

After that one then needs to take on the physical evidence by producing proof it was doctored and that everyone lied the bare bones claim they could have done so doesn’t create reasonable doubt.  Reasonable doubt requires proof there is a reasonably likelihood it happened.
 
Saying you don’t want to believe the evidence doesn’t make it go away.
 

scipio even the trial judge called it "circumstantial". The so called "evidence" was as I have clearly described it. He was not "proved" to be guilty. He was found guilty by 10 jurers. 2 of them were of the opposite opinion. I myself would like to speak to those 2 jurers who voted not guilty. In my opinion for a murder trial there should be complete agreement with ALL jurers. What a said concerning the evidence stands. It doesn't have to go away it wasn't there in the first place. You have just chosen to believe the 10 jurers and not the 2. It is an easy thing to go with the crown and swim with the stream. It doesn't take much intelligence to do that because you are just repeating what everyone else says by using hardly any brain power at all.

[grahameb]

He was proven guilty by a great deal of evidence.  You simply irrationally chose to ignore it all or to discount it by claiming all testimony was false and all physical evidence doctored though you have not one shred of proof to establish it.
 
If Jeremy were innocent then he would not have been aware of the murders.  If he were innocent then someone would have found the bodies in the morning when they went to work and it was discovered the house was still locked up and Nevill was not working.

Most of what came out of Jeremy’s mouth were lies specifically designed to the further the frame job that he undertook.

1) Jeremy made up the phone call from Neville.  Evidence of this is:

A) the telephone company said that the call was terminated by being hung up at Goldhanger and that the phone would not have cleared for 1-2 minutes

B) There is no evidence that Nevill would have been in a position to call Jeremy. 

The killer intentionally removed the bedroom phone in advance of the murders so that the victims would not be able to call for help.  The claim that the phone was removed because of  a storm damaged the cordless phone makes no sense.  The cordless phone was damaged but the wired phone was not damaged it worked perfectly so the claim it stopped working and had to be replaced is not credible. If it had actually been broken it might be a credible possibility but it wasn’t.  So clearly this phone was removed in contemplation of the killings and Sheila could not plan a psychotic episode and decide to remove the phone in contemplation of it.   

It is obvious the killer planned to commit the murders in the middle of the night while most victims were in bed.  Everyone was in their own bedroom when shot except Sheila because shooting her in her bedroom too would make it look like she also was murdered.  The evidence establishes that the killer loaded 11 shots in the gun, the maximum load.  To do so the killer had to load a full magazine, chamber a round, release the magazine, load another round in the magazine then reinsert the magazine.  This would leave 1 in the chamber and 10 in the magazine which is the maximum complement.  Sheila would not have the know how to do this nor have a reason to do it if she were in a crazy rage. 

The killer entered the master bedroom and opened fire on June and Nevill firing 11 rounds, 7 of which hit June and 4 of which hit Nevill.  When the gun was empty either Nevill ran down to the kitchen with the killer in pursuit or the killer ran down to the kitchen with Nevill in pursuit.  They struggled over control of the weapon with the suppressor attached breaking the ceiling light shade in the process, scratching the underneath of the aga and knocking things over. Eventually the killer gained sole control of the weapon, bludgeoned Nevill with it knocking him unconscious then reloaded and fired 4 rounds into his head killing him.  There was no opportunity for Nevill to use the phone.

No one has put forth a credible explanation of why Nevill would have been in the kitchen
making this call to Jeremy and that Sheila would push down on the phone button to hang up the call and march Nevill up to the bedroom to shoot him there with June instead of shooting him in the kitchen while he was on the phone.
 C) No one has put forth any rational reason why Nevill would call Jeremy either.  This is a biggie, without any rational reason why he would do so the claim he phoned is not credible, particularly in light of everything else. 

i) Nevill was bigger and stronger than Jeremy so why would he call Jeremy to come disarm her instead of trying himself?  It would take Jeremy 15-20 minutes to arrive and then have to try to find a way in the locked house.  Why would Nevill wait that long hoping that she doesn’t shoot anyone before Jeremy could arrive?  Nevill had a better ability to disarm her than Jeremy did because he was stronger already there so had the opportunity and even necessity.

ii) Nevill had another advantage, he had a calming effect on Sheila and was the most likely person to be able to talk her down.  Jeremy had the opposite effect and would likely cause her to shoot.  So why would he call someone who would make the situation more explosive?  He didn’t even trust Jeremy, he would expect Jeremy to purposely try to get her to shoot Nevill.

iii) If Nevill had enough time to wait for Jeremy to answer the phone then he had plenty of time to arm himself.  If Nevill were too scared to try to disarm her with his bare hands then he would definitely use the time to arm himself.  The kitchen had guns, knifes and other less lethal potential weapons.  Why would Nevill not grab any  but instead use the phone knowing that he would be an easy target if she caught him and that it could very well anger her more and make her start shooting, which she had not yet done.  If she had opened fire already he would have announced that she had done so if he truly made a call and request an ambulance be sent. 

iv) Jeremy had an answering machine hooked up usually.  It only rang a few times before the answering machine would pick up.  The phone was kept on the bottom floor, Jeremy had no bedroom phone.  So Nevill had no way to know if Jeremy would hear the phone, would wake up before the answering machine picked up and wound go down to listen to the answering machine.  It would take him a couple of minutes to walk to the phone so at best he could hope to leave a message and hope Jeremy would listen to it immediately instead of when he got up in the morning which would be too late.  If he truly were scared he would call someone who he would be sure would answer not Jeremy. 

v) If Sheila were with him then he would not try to make a call in front of her and she would have no reason to let him.  Why would she do nothing as he dialed, do nothing the entire time he waited from Jeremy to answer (which would have been a couple of minutes), not do anything as he spoke but rather wait until he got his message through to then hang up?  Moreover, as she put her hand on the phone to hand up she would have had only one hand on the gun and been extremely close to Nevill so in perfect position for him to disarm her.  Why would she let him make the call instead of shooting him, arch him upstairs and shoot him in the bedroom?

There is simply no rational reason why Nevill would make the call that Jeremy alleges he received and there is no objective evidence that things occurred the way Jeremy claims.  The testimony was that he ended the call and could not have immediately redialed as claimed. Why would Sheila leave the phone off the hook anyway, what would she care if it rang no one could answer it anyway.

2) This is hardly the only thing Jeremy made up to support his frame job.  He committed a series of lies all of which were aimed at convincing police his sister did it.

“The appellant told the police that Sheila Caffell could use a gun. He said they had gone target shooting together and she had used all the guns in the house before. In the light of what they were told the uniformed officers requested armed assistance before any attempt to search the house was made. The appellant dictated a list of the firearms kept at the house. He told the police that he had loaded the .22 automatic rifle the previous night because he thought he had heard rabbits outside. He said he had left the gun on the kitchen table with a full magazine and a box of ammunition nearby. Those who saw the appellant at the scene at that time described him as remarkably calm. At some stage during their conversations that morning PC Myall and the appellant spoke about motor cars. The appellant said that the Osea Road Caravan Site company, "would be able to stand him a Porsche" car at some point during the year.”

He knew they were all dead before police even entered the house and found the bodies, he intended to use the money to buy a Porsche.  Why did he lie and claim he took her shooting and that she had fired all guns in the house?  He did it so police would believe she killed them when they found her with the gun and everyone dead.  He also invented the rabbit fairytale to convince police that she did it.  She would never go for the gun herself so he made the story about the gun and bullets being within easy grasp and suggesting that she went crazy and grabbed the gun because it was right in front of her as she flipped out.  If she had taken the gun from the closet herself it would have had the scope and suppressor attached.  So he made up this tale the gun did not fit in the closet with the accessories attached and that they were not attached to pretend they would not have been attached when she picked it up.  This was to conceal that he had removed the scope specifically to carry out the murders and that he had removed the suppressor after the murders.  These lies were carefully calculated.  His story about the rabbits makes no sense for a wide variety of reasons not the least of which is that so many witnesses say he had no interest in guns, didn’t like to shoot vermin and they had not seen him do so ever with the murder weapon.  There was also testimony about how Nevill would not removed the scope because he didn’t like to take the time to re-zero it.  Jeremy originally stated he had not used the gun the week prior to the murders.  But when it turned out that he last known person to use it said that the suppressor and scope had been attached when he found it in the closet and that he returned it the same way Jeremy changed his story.  Jeremy changed his story and lied specifically to challenge these damning claims made by others.  He claimed that he used it multiple times and that sometimes it had been put away with the accessories attached but other times it was put away without them.  He claimed he used it however he found it he didn’t add or remove accessories.  He claimed Nevill had been the one removing and attaching the so indicated Nevill used it many times during the week.  He also claimed that it was his gun but that he stored it at WHF.  He had no interest in guns while Nevill shot competitively, his claim is not credible tha tit was his.  Nor is the claim it was used many times a week credible since it looked brand new right before the murders.  It obviously was not used much.  It is obvious not only that Jeremy lied but that he kept changing his claims and tailored his lies for a specific purpose. 

Further evidence that he was lying and staging things was the box of ammunition he staged in the kitchen.  He insisted this box had not been moved and that it had much more ammo in it so was the source of ammunition use din the murders.  He claimed it had been full or near full so 48-50 rounds.  25 rounds were fired so 23-25 should have remained.  Instead 30 remained.  Why would Sheila use 20 rounds from the box and then go to the closet to get 5 more rounds instead of taking them from the box as well?  It makes no sense and is not credible.  This establishes the ammo box was staged.             

Why would he need to lie and frame her unless he were the real killer and how would he have known about the murders before anyone else unless he were the real killer?

3) His actions don’t make sense for someone allegedly receiving the call he claims he received.  That is more evidence he made up the call.

Someone receiving such a call would either go over immediately to check out what is going on even if that entails just spying through the windows which could safely be done, or to call police and then go over for a look

He called Julie instead.  Why would a rational person in his place wake up Julie?  She didn’t care for his family so it is not as if she would want to know so she could go to WHF and sit with him out of concern.  He didn’t know if anything happened or not supposedly.  A rational person would wait to find out if anything happened and at that point if he needs a shoulder to cry on then to call his girlfriend for comfort.  Why did he call her?  He called her as a follow-up to his previous message that tonight was the night he would kill them.  He announced he had not slept and everything was going according to plan and there was trouble at WHF.  At 6AM he called again telling her not to go to work because she would need to speak to police and be a witness for him.  He wanted her to tell police he told her there was trouble at WHF so that there would be a third party witness so he could pretend that he had received a call from Nevill.  The whole thing was clearly contrived and makes no sense other than that it was contrived for the purpose Julie stated in her testimony. 

After speaking to her what did he do?  We don’t know for sure, we just know a good amount of time passed between his call to her and finally calling police.  Presumably he used the opportunity to finish washing up and change his clothes.  He finally calls police and then what/  He asks police to pick him up because he wants them to see he is at his home and was not near the scene.  The tell him to drive and meet them there.  Does he go over and spy around for a while?  No he parks on the side of the road, waits for them to go by and then pulls up later so that they can see him pull up because he wanted them to be able to say he got there after them.  Why would he act this way unless he did it?  Why wa she desperate for them to see he arrived after them and why was this his priority instead of trying to find out how his family was?     

Then instead of prompting police to go inside and find out how his family was, he suggested they be careful because there were so many guns and detailed them to police and claimed Sheila fired them all.  Instead of being upset he was calm and talked about cars and guy stuff.  None of his actions fit someone receiving the call he claimed all his actions were contrived.

The bottom line is that there is no credible evidence to suggest he received a phone call from Nevill as he claims.  This is a huge problem for anyone suggesting he is innocent because unless he did receive such call he is guilty.

4) A whole lot of other evidence suggests Sheila did not do it including evidence she can’t have shot herself. 

A) No credible motive was ever set forth as to why she would do it.  No credible evidence set forth that she would be at risk of delusions at 3A on the night in question because her medication was in fact taken and by all account was working and there is no medical reason why it would have suddenly stopped working- she was not on any narcotic at the time.  The claim that 100MG was too low a dose is not supported by today’s medical evidence.

B) There is no physical evidence to suggest she shot anyone.  No gunshot residue was found on her body or clothing, no abrasions or cuts to her feet or hands as would be expected had she been the one Nevill struggled against, no blood spatter from the victims as would be expected had she fired the shots or bludgeoned Nevill.

C) The suppressor proves that she could not have shot herself

D) The blood stains on her body indicates she died sitting up but then her body was pulled down to the floor by the killer and the gun then planted in her hand and on her.
 
5) Sheila insists that Jeremy had been planning the murders a long time and gave a very detailed account about it.  She also indicated he called her right before the murders to say tonight is the night and called after to let her know it was done.  He told her more details later.  Her account is credible because of the details, how it fits the evidence and also because if she were making it up she would not make up a hitman story and finger a hitman.  She would have said he told her he did it directly if she were going to make up a story. It did not take long for the named hitman to prove he had an alibi.  If she made up a hitman story she would say he did not name the supposed killer.     

Far from there being no evidence to convict Jeremy this is more than enough to convict Jeremy and many people have been convicted with less.

What is the response of people like yourself to this evidence?  You largely ignore it.  People say there is no evidence and when I write a long post detailing the evidence people say it is too long to read and they don’t want to be bothered.  That doesn’t make the evidence go away it just demonstrates you have no ability to rebut it.

We are told that the police, Julie and family all lied and joined together to frame Jeremy.  Why would they do this?  No rational explanation had even been set forth.  We are told the police shot Sheila and framed Jeremy for it as well as the other murders though it makes no sense and all and worse there is no evidence to support such.  We just are supposed to assume that the police concealed gunshot residue and other evidence found on Sheila though there is no proof this happened.  We are to assume that police fabricated the suppressor evidence though there is no evidence to prove it.  We are to assume Julie lied as did everyone else though there is no proof.

Why should we assume it?  Because police in the past have been caught doing bad things so we should assume they did it here, if that is what we assume though no one can be convicted because all evidence must be discounted.  No police lab work is ever trustworthy they can plant blood and evidence.  No need for defendants to prove it they can allege it and go scot free.

No matter what crap you come up with it won’t make the claim that he received a call from Nevill credible and that alone is enough to suggest he killed everyone but in combination with his other lies and the other evidence this is especially the case. 

The start of trying to prove he is innocent is proving the phone call occurred which means establishing a rational reason that Nevill would call Jeremy and establish Jeremy’s reaction made sense and fits what someone receiving such a call would do.  You have no ability to do that because the call makes no sense nor does his alleged reaction. 

After that one then needs to take on the physical evidence by producing proof it was doctored and that everyone lied the bare bones claim they could have done so doesn’t create reasonable doubt.  Reasonable doubt requires proof there is a reasonably likelihood it happened.
 
Saying you don’t want to believe the evidence doesn’t make it go away.
 

You obviously have not read my post where I explained all this to you? Or of course you have chosen to ignore my reasoned explanation?

[scipio_usmc]

You obviously have not read my post where I explained all this to you? Or of course you have chosen to ignore my reasoned explanation?

If you mean your claim that the telephone company was wrong I don't buy it I will take the expert's opinion on it. 

If you mean a rational explantion for why he would call Jeremy I didn't see that. If you don't want to copy it tell me what thread and roughly what page it is on.

I have not seen anything address most of my points and he only thing to address the fact she could not have killed herself is the barebones claim that police doctored the evidence without any proof to establish such occurred.  Eveyrthing I laid out lays bare that he was aware of the murders before police ever found the bodies and this combined with all the other evidence including testimonial evidence from Julie is far stronger than evidence against many other defendants who were convicted of murder.

You can say you choose not to believe the evidence all you want.  That doesn't negate is existence.  A juror can't simply pretend evidence doesn't exist it must be weighed impartially and doin so resulted in conviction.

You should be more concerned with why the 10 convicted him to try to see what evidence you have to try to find a way to challenge.

You might find an answer that is not favorable from the 2.  The OJ Simpson jury spekaing out certianly hurt OJ more than the prosecution because it revealed their own stupidity lead to the acquittal.  It looked bad for the proseuction lawyers for not explaining the sicentific evidence better but did not hit at the case it hit at the defense more by showing they got lucky.  I don't know if you would like risking the same result.  You could get a juror that says he believes all crazy people kill and need to be put down or that all women are crazy.  It is not wise to open pandora's box when there is no need.   

[grahameb]

If you mean your claim that the telephone company was wrong I don't buy it I will take the expert's opinion on it.

If you mean a rational explantion for why he would call Jeremy I didn't see that. If you don't want to copy it tell me what thread and roughly what page it is on.

I have not seen anything address most of my points and he only thing to address the fact she could not have killed herself is the barebones claim that police doctored the evidence without any proof to establish such occurred.  Eveyrthing I laid out lays bare that he was aware of the murders before police ever found the bodies and this combined with all the other evidence including testimonial evidence from Julie is far stronger than evidence against many other defendants who were convicted of murder.

You can say you choose not to believe the evidence all you want.  That doesn't negate is existence.  A juror can't simply pretend evidence doesn't exist it must be weighed impartially and doin so resulted in conviction.

You should be more concerned with why the 10 convicted him to try to see what evidence you have to try to find a way to challenge.

You might find an answer that is not favorable from the 2.  The OJ Simpson jury spekaing out certianly hurt OJ more than the prosecution because it revealed their own stupidity lead to the acquittal.  It looked bad for the proseuction lawyers for not explaining the sicentific evidence better but did not hit at the case it hit at the defense more by showing they got lucky.  I don't know if you would like risking the same result.  You could get a juror that says he believes all crazy people kill and need to be put down or that all women are crazy.  It is not wise to open pandora's box when there is no need.

I am an expert on it. I can tell you exactly how the analogue phones worked and what happened when both parties hang up. I can demonstrate that if you put your finger on the button that would have the effect of making the line go dead at the other end. The receiver is then left off the hook. The other end would then hang up his phone thus clearing the line enabling the caller to make another call. But if he phones that same number the phone is off the hook thus gfiving the impression that the other party is engaged. Simples. I thought I had explained all this to you? Additionally the telephone engineer would get the impression that Jeremy would have hung up first, because stictly speaking he was in fact the one that did hang up as Ralph or someone at WHF only depressed the button momentarily. The fact that the phone was left off the hook would not mean that he hung up the phone. Because it would still have been Jeremy who did actually end the call. But in practice that was not what actually happened.
I know it's hard for you to accept and that the easy way out is to just say, "I'd rather believe the experts", whatever they are. But I can confirm as one who has experienced that actual phenomenon that what I have explained to you is in fact true. But go ahead, if you want to continue in your ignorance what is it to me? It's a free country. Although Jeremy may not agree with me at this moment?

[scipio_usmc]

I am an expert on it. I can tell you exactly how the analogue phones worked and what happened when both parties hang up. I can demonstrate that if you put your finger on the button that would have the effect of making the line go dead at the other end. The receiver is then left off the hook. The other end would then hang up his phone thus clearing the line enabling the caller to make another call. But if he phones that same number the phone is off the hook thus gfiving the impression that the other party is engaged. Simples. I thought I had explained all this to you? Additionally the telephone engineer would get the impression that Jeremy would have hung up first, because stictly speaking he was in fact the one that did hang up as Ralph or someone at WHF only depressed the button momentarily. The fact that the phone was left off the hook would not mean that he hung up the phone. Because it would still have been Jeremy who did actually end the call. But in practice that was not what actually happened.
I know it's hard for you to accept and that the easy way out is to just say, "I'd rather believe the experts", whatever they are. But I can confirm as one who has experienced that actual phenomenon that what I have explained to you is in fact true. But go ahead, if you want to continue in your ignorance what is it to me? It's a free country. Although Jeremy may not agree with me at this moment?

My argument though says even if true that such were possible that doesn't establish it definitely happened as opposed to Jeremy calling himself.

That is why a rational explanation of why Nevill would call is so important and trying to deal with the other evidence that Jeremy was actively trying to put the blame on Sheila.

There is a saying in law, if it doesn't make sense it didn't happen.

Some plausible explanation has to be given for why Nevill would call Jeremy to get peopel to believe it actually happened in spite of the telephone company testimony.

His knowledge of the murders sinks him because his explaantion of how he learned makes no sense.  Plus other things done to frame her, other things he claimed about leaving the gun out etc do not make sense and too many bullet left in the box proving such was staged.

Even the 11 bullet sin the gun if something Sheila would not know or bother to do.

There are a lot of details that you think are not significant but peopel on the jury and the public at large looking at the case do and unless those are addressed there is no hope of convincing anyone your position has merit.  To refute a position you must first understand it and I laid it out as simply as can be made with all the major points touched upon.