Author Topic: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?  (Read 14939 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44434
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #150 on: June 26, 2014, 12:35:AM »
And by the way why did you post the link anyway. We were talking about you accusing Jeremy of changing his statement about his father's alleged phone call to the police and why he thought he had phoned the police and what I posted was the real reason he used that in order to try and get an appeal. That it was not Jeremy "changing his mind". But rather the ambiguous words used in that second telephone log. Which to my mind as well was very misleading.

Why did I post the link ? See you're post 124.

« Last Edit: June 26, 2014, 12:35:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44434
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #151 on: June 26, 2014, 12:38:AM »
Jeremy can't win in your eyes. If his head had been bowed during his INTERROGATION,you'd have said he was definitely guilty. But because he was cocky about answering questions,it showed a bad attitude towards guilt.
At the funeral was the same. Because he wasn't blubbering over everyones' shoulder,you said he was guilty,if he had have been,he'd have still been guilty.
The press were in his face every step of the way.The case was media-driven,,what chance did he have ?

Did you see the two Princes crying openly at their mothers' funeral ? NO,neither did I.  It's the way a person is brought up,not to make a show of themselves in public.Or didn't you know that ?

Usually,tears are for the guilty ones like the odious Philpotts and their crocodile tears !

He was cocky and 'not' answering questions. As highlighted by threads.

I never said Jeremy was innocent or guilty based on his funeral performance.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #152 on: June 26, 2014, 12:38:AM »
Why did I post the link ? See you're post 124.
I think you are just going round in circles Adam? Your link proves nothing. On the contrary it is just someone elses opinion of what was said. But Jeremy's actual statement is proof of what he said.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44434
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #153 on: June 26, 2014, 12:43:AM »

Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 -don't knows' & 'can't say'.

Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so'  & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'

The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer. He initially said he phoned Mugford before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Mugford was phoned after the police phone call. He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila !

These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Jeremy seemed to be recovering well & enjoying himself, having just returned from a second post massacre holiday. So could not use grief/shock as a reason for his poor performance.

All this is fact. In the interview transcripts.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2014, 12:44:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44434
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #154 on: June 26, 2014, 12:53:AM »
No that is wrong. He found a second telephone log as he then thought. It was that second log that apparently contradicted the log that was presented in court. So he didn't actually contradict himself. He thought that he had found a new piece of evidence that apparently showed that Ralph phoned the police. His lawyers advised him not to use it in an appeal, but he didn't listen to them because he was convinced that this was a new piece of evidence. It was not him suddenly changed his mind. So in effect he was not at fault and did not lie. If you had properly read about it you would not come up with such damaging remarks, you should be interested in whole truths and not half truths. That is being dishonest.

Yes I know Jeremy saw a piece of paper decades later, and then claimed Neville phoned the police. Something no police have ever said. Most importantly on the massacre night and the month afterwards.

Why would Neville call the police and Jeremy ?

What I did not know was that his lawyers did not think it was worthy of using. But Jeremy used it anyway.

Do you have a source please ?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2014, 01:07:AM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #155 on: June 26, 2014, 01:05:AM »
You're NOT listening!  COLP asked for the original log of the phone call (or at least an EXACT copy of it) to see if it had been altered. However, what they got looked the same until you look at it carefully then you can see that Tolleshunt is spelled incorrectly in the copy which means it was NOT the original log or an EXACT copy. Now why didn't they send the original?

I'm listening fine.  Years later how are paper pushers are supposed to figure out which is the original verse a copy and they sent the wrong thing.  For all we know the original was left in a copy machine and disposed of that happened to me at a kinkos once during a document production. Leaping to the suggestion tha tthis means Nevill made  acall is already ridiculous but to say that means it proves he called Bonnet at 3:36 is crazy since there is no way Bonnet would have fielded a call.

Clerical errors happen all the time at all states- (drafting/editing/mailing/filing etc) trying to read too much into that doesn't work.  You can try digging because of it to see if you find something but it virtually never leads to anything.

When I was in high school word processors took over typwriters which by college had been largely replaced by computers though the internet really helped finish off typewriters and word processors completely. Most of the documents I revewed early in my career were from the 1960' to late 70s so all typewritten or handwritten and there would be numerous versions of the same documents because of editing.  They kept the drafts and all changes.  Sometimes they said draft but usually not so trying to figure out which document was the final version was near impossible in many instances. Documents that needed to be filled out in duplicate or triplicate will have various differences because of typos what is the original if you need to file in triplicate and the 3 copies are different?  What if they make a mistake, redo it and keep both the error and the revision even though the revision is what they filed?  SOmetimes errors are trashed othertimes they are retained though never provided to anyone and simply left in a file.

Electronically maintained files are nice because you can figure out when any changes are made and what they are. Moreover, scanned documents can be sorted and made searchable on a CD or card drive.  Technology is a blessing but in that era they still relied on typewriters and that must be allowed for.  Not that typos don't exist today they certainly still do. Dates particularly are still screwed up regularly, month, day and year.  Sometime it is because a template is used and people forget to plug in all relevant information from the matter at hand. Other times just a typing error. If changes and revisions are to something critical then it is worth a good look. If the log actually claimed Nevill had phoned 999 and 999 passed the message to Bonnet and it was crossed out on another copy then that would be pretty significant as far as investigation.  There isn't anything close to that though.

 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline maggie

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13651
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #156 on: June 26, 2014, 08:18:AM »
I'm listening fine.  Years later how are paper pushers are supposed to figure out which is the original verse a copy and they sent the wrong thing.  For all we know the original was left in a copy machine and disposed of that happened to me at a kinkos once during a document production. Leaping to the suggestion tha tthis means Nevill made  acall is already ridiculous but to say that means it proves he called Bonnet at 3:36 is crazy since there is no way Bonnet would have fielded a call.

Clerical errors happen all the time at all states- (drafting/editing/mailing/filing etc) trying to read too much into that doesn't work.  You can try digging because of it to see if you find something but it virtually never leads to anything.

When I was in high school word processors took over typwriters which by college had been largely replaced by computers though the internet really helped finish off typewriters and word processors completely. Most of the documents I revewed early in my career were from the 1960' to late 70s so all typewritten or handwritten and there would be numerous versions of the same documents because of editing.  They kept the drafts and all changes.  Sometimes they said draft but usually not so trying to figure out which document was the final version was near impossible in many instances. Documents that needed to be filled out in duplicate or triplicate will have various differences because of typos what is the original if you need to file in triplicate and the 3 copies are different?  What if they make a mistake, redo it and keep both the error and the revision even though the revision is what they filed?  SOmetimes errors are trashed othertimes they are retained though never provided to anyone and simply left in a file.

Electronically maintained files are nice because you can figure out when any changes are made and what they are. Moreover, scanned documents can be sorted and made searchable on a CD or card drive.  Technology is a blessing but in that era they still relied on typewriters and that must be allowed for.  Not that typos don't exist today they certainly still do. Dates particularly are still screwed up regularly, month, day and year.  Sometime it is because a template is used and people forget to plug in all relevant information from the matter at hand. Other times just a typing error. If changes and revisions are to something critical then it is worth a good look. If the log actually claimed Nevill had phoned 999 and 999 passed the message to Bonnet and it was crossed out on another copy then that would be pretty significant as far as investigation.  There isn't anything close to that though.

 
It is so interesting the way you quote the relatives and particularly Ann Eaton as oracles of truth.  Everything they have ever said is taken on face value as truth even though they barely knew Jeremy and Sheila.  At the same time anything which doesn't fit in with your reasoning is dismissed, excuses are found backed up by insults, any possibility will do to dismiss any theory which doesn't fit your personal scenario.  You try to hide your bias behind claims of being a lawyer but to me it is an oh so familiar pattern which is repeated over and over again on this forum.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #157 on: June 26, 2014, 09:38:AM »
Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 -don't knows' & 'can't say'.

Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so'  & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'

The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer. He initially said he phoned Mugford before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Mugford was phoned after the police phone call. He even suggested the dog fired the second shot at Sheila !

These interviews were several weeks after the deaths. Jeremy seemed to be recovering well & enjoying himself, having just returned from a second post massacre holiday. So could not use grief/shock as a reason for his poor performance.

All this is fact. In the interview transcripts.







When someone is being questioned by the police,they DON'T have to answer,whether there's a lawyer present or not. It's a NORMAL procedure to answer NO COMMENT to every question asked !
The more a detainee talks,,the deeper the hole he's digging for himself as police ARE known for twisting and contradicting evidence. The LEAST said the BETTER !

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #158 on: June 26, 2014, 12:04:PM »
Yes I know Jeremy saw a piece of paper decades later, and then claimed Neville phoned the police. Something no police have ever said. Most importantly on the massacre night and the month afterwards.

Why would Neville call the police and Jeremy ?

What I did not know was that his lawyers did not think it was worthy of using. But Jeremy used it anyway.

Do you have a source please ?
I just gave you the source. Jeremy's witness statement. The alleged second phone log is well known and easy to find.
Personally I agree with his legal team at the time that Jeremy acted rashly and claimed that the document proved that his father phoned the police. I don't believe he did.

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #159 on: June 26, 2014, 12:10:PM »
It is so interesting the way you quote the relatives and particularly Ann Eaton as oracles of truth.  Everything they have ever said is taken on face value as truth even though they barely knew Jeremy and Sheila.  At the same time anything which doesn't fit in with your reasoning is dismissed, excuses are found backed up by insults, any possibility will do to dismiss any theory which doesn't fit your personal scenario.  You try to hide your bias behind claims of being a lawyer but to me it is an oh so familiar pattern which is repeated over and over again on this forum.
I would never believe anything the relatives said or say now without vrification from other reliable sources. Neither do I believe in Mugford's witness as what she said on many things cannot be proved because there was no one else there when what she claimed happened or was said. Also the witnesses she did produce concerning the phone call she received from Jeremy all confirmed different times and her original time itself was 3.30am. That was until old Jonesy worked on her in 32 interviews.

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #160 on: June 26, 2014, 12:15:PM »






When someone is being questioned by the police,they DON'T have to answer,whether there's a lawyer present or not. It's a NORMAL procedure to answer NO COMMENT to every question asked !
The more a detainee talks,,the deeper the hole he's digging for himself as police ARE known for twisting and contradicting evidence. The LEAST said the BETTER !
If that was me being interviewed (verbally abused) by the cops I would react in a much worse way than he did. What they would record of course would be somewthing like, "Suspect unco-operative". People would obviously believe them instead of me because they would intentionally leave out all the threats against me and the constant abuse they threw at me.
How do I know that? Because I've seen it that's why. Of course nowerdays every interview must be recorded by a dual tape recorder and the police hold one tape and the second tape is given to the accused's solicitor.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44434
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #161 on: June 26, 2014, 12:37:PM »
I just gave you the source. Jeremy's witness statement. The alleged second phone log is well known and easy to find.
Personally I agree with his legal team at the time that Jeremy acted rashly and claimed that the document proved that his father phoned the police. I don't believe he did.

No. The source that says his lawyers felt it was not worth bringing up. But Jeremy went against his lawyers advice and brought it up.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #162 on: June 26, 2014, 01:54:PM »
I would never believe anything the relatives said or say now without vrification from other reliable sources. Neither do I believe in Mugford's witness as what she said on many things cannot be proved because there was no one else there when what she claimed happened or was said. Also the witnesses she did produce concerning the phone call she received from Jeremy all confirmed different times and her original time itself was 3.30am. That was until old Jonesy worked on her in 32 interviews.






It really beggars belief that the main prosecution witness,by rights,had a criminal record:

Taking drugs.
Selling drugs.
Smuggling drugs from Canada to the UK.
Accessory to burglary.
Cheque book fraud.

With a possible accessory to murder ( questionable )

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #163 on: June 26, 2014, 01:59:PM »
I often wonder if it was any of us having landed ourselves as a prosecution witness,would we be given the same treatment with a background pedigree of criminal activities ??

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Was there still enough evidence without the silencer ?
« Reply #164 on: June 26, 2014, 04:46:PM »
If you read my threads. The last line nearly always asks everyone a question.

Yes. The police said his answers were said in a singing tone. Yeeeees, noooo etc. While he chewed on a thread from his jumper.

The police said they would have got a confession if everything was slowed down by writing. This I do not believe. Jeremy was much too determined.  Threads already created.

So he would have confessed then - but has  spent all this time protesting his innocence?. I think who ever made that comment was deluded.

And I never said you don't ask questions - my observation was you think you already know the answer so actually ignore the answers as you have already come to your own conclusion before you post.

Closed mind.