The police's 'late late' framing decision. Why was it taken ?

[Alias]

To put it in just a few words, If Jeremy was to inherit everything, which was likely, they would end up with nothing and not only their livelyhoods were in danger, but also the very places they lived. I'm not saying they did, but they had a real reason to put Jeremy in the frame for murder. The strange thing is that they tried from the very beginning to accuse Jeremy. That in itself is a very strange thing for a family to do? But then again since he was the "Cuckoo" in the nest?

The crazy wallpaper incident comes to mind. More than unusual behaviour! 
I said yesterday that Ann Eaton seems truthful in her witness statement, but during her cross examination at trial she gives three different reasons for, in a fit of rage, tearing down all wallpaper in their bathroom. You don´t have a fit of rage for three reasons - I know which one set her off: the land deal Jeremy talked about to her before the tragedy.

[grahameb]

The crazy wallpaper incident comes to mind. More than unusual behaviour! 
I said yesterday that Ann Eaton seems truthful in her witness statement, but during her cross examination at trial she gives three different reasons for, in a fit of rage, tearing down all wallpaper in their bathroom. You don´t have a fit of rage for three reasons - I know which one set her off: the land deal Jeremy talked about to her before the tragedy.

They clearly had the inheritance in mind.

[Jan]

Wilkes's book has the silencer being found on August 11th. And handed in before the 14th August.

Sounds right to me. The police would have finished with WHF. It was murder/suicide after all. September is too long a wait.

And the relatives did not ask for the key. Or need Jeremy's permission. Stan Jones gave them the keys and asked them to do some cleaning and tidying up. They then attended with the family lawyer & BW.

Yes they did look for evidence. They did not believe Sheila was capable of the massacre.

that did not answer my question-you are quoting from a book . I showed you a link to two actual documents. And if you found a silencer with apparently blood and a hair on it - would you not just call the police back in straight away - rather than take it home and put it in a wardrobe ?

[grahameb]

that did not answer my question-you are quoting from a book . I showed you a link to two actual documents. And if you found a silencer with apparently blood and a hair on it - would you not just call the police back in straight away - rather than take it home and put it in a wardrobe ?

Well I thought the silencer was allegedly found on the 10th of August? But in any case if I found such evidence I would have called the police. But I suppose it is rather like the other similar question, why did not Jeremy dial 999 but called the police station instead. Oh well. None so queer as folk as they say.

[Jan]

Well I thought the silencer was allegedly found on the 10th of August? But in any case if I found such evidence I would have called the police. But I suppose it is rather like the other similar question, why did not Jeremy dial 999 but called the police station instead. Oh well. None so queer as folk as they say.

who knows? there is a record of David B phoning on 10th Sept - and Anne does not mention it in here statement - when she was asked about that in 1991 - she just said she did not think the silencer was important ? even though they allegedly saw blood on it.

It seems to me that EP and the witnesses are allowed to say what they want and change what they want without any retribution.