A shooting incident at White House farm

[Bill Robertson]

You seem to be suggesting that it was known by most (if not all) of the early responders that shots had been fired. This being the case, it would have been well known among all concerned that Jeremy was innocent - so why was this not communicated to the relatives? Why did no one mention anything about KNOWING Sheila was responsible during the whole time she was 'suspected' and the relatives were suspicious about Jeremy's involvement?

I think the early responders did know that shots had been fired; maybe they didn't know who had fired them. I also believe that when they arrived they must have had some reason to believe that there was a clearly present danger and threat to them otherwise they were duty-bound to enter the Farmhouse.

In relation to imparting information about Sheila's guilt my impression is that Taff Jones tried very hard to communicate that fact to the relatives and let us not forget that he was adamant that Jeremy was innocent. In a case of this nature with massive media interest it is inevitable that at some point politics takes over. In my view, once you get officers at the level of Assistant Chief Constable involved in meetings with relatives the entire focus and nature of enquiry changes.

The politics in this case were very 'heavy' with reputations at stake all the way up the chain of command. Once an Assistant Chief Constable desires a particular outcome certain pressures exist to create that outcome.

[lebaleb]

That would make a little more sense if Jones thought that Jeremy could possibly be guilty.  However, you seem to be suggesting that Jones would have known that Jeremy was not the killer.

However much Jones disliked Jeremy, would he really frame him for 5 murders? That would be most extraordinary.

If one would kill 5 for a motive of money then it is even easier for another to frame someone for that money. Jones was very friendly with the relatives. Jeremy was a known drug dealer.

[susan]

Morning april

think that applies to me my right hand does not know what the left one is doing

[Roch]

I think the early responders did know that shots had been fired; maybe they didn't know who had fired them. I also believe that when they arrived they must have had some reason to believe that there was a clearly present danger and threat to them otherwise they were duty-bound to enter the Farmhouse.

In relation to imparting information about Sheila's guilt my impression is that Taff Jones tried very hard to communicate that fact to the relatives and let us not forget that he was adamant that Jeremy was innocent. In a case of this nature with massive media interest it is inevitable that at some point politics takes over. In my view, once you get officers at the level of Assistant Chief Constable involved in meetings with relatives the entire focus and nature of enquiry changes.

The politics in this case were very 'heavy' with reputations at stake all the way up the chain of command. Once an Assistant Chief Constable desires a particular outcome certain pressures exist to create that outcome.

Bill I'm still reading through your first post which I have to say is well written and refreshing.  Do you know anything about the reaction of ACC Simpson, at the point when 'Jim' Kenneally's review concludes that the evidence indicates Sheila was culpable (as per line taken by Taff Jones)?

[Caroline]

  What is extraordinary is the belief that the police wouldn't knowingly frame an innocent man.
     Many so called Miscarriages of Justice are nothing of the sort and the term is often used as a euphemism for perversions of justice.Stefan Kiszko and the Cardiff Three are two prime examples where it is clear that police framed people they knew to be innocent and withheld the evidence which proved their innocence. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the police have framed people they know to be innocent on so many occasions that it is incredible that anyone believes that the police wouldn't do so.
     The police have been proven to have been involved in cover ups and conspiracies and all manner of lies and deceptions yet you regard the knowing framing of an innocent man to be unbelievable. Why?
       

Yes they have, but NOT when they have known who the real culprit was. I have asked Martin for an example where the police have framed an innocent person in the full knowledge that he/she is innocent but where they also knew who the real offender was, he was unable to supply an example.

[Caroline]

I think the early responders did know that shots had been fired; maybe they didn't know who had fired them. I also believe that when they arrived they must have had some reason to believe that there was a clearly present danger and threat to them otherwise they were duty-bound to enter the Farmhouse.

In relation to imparting information about Sheila's guilt my impression is that Taff Jones tried very hard to communicate that fact to the relatives and let us not forget that he was adamant that Jeremy was innocent. In a case of this nature with massive media interest it is inevitable that at some point politics takes over. In my view, once you get officers at the level of Assistant Chief Constable involved in meetings with relatives the entire focus and nature of enquiry changes.

The politics in this case were very 'heavy' with reputations at stake all the way up the chain of command. Once an Assistant Chief Constable desires a particular outcome certain pressures exist to create that outcome.

If they didn't know exactly who fired the shots, they would certainly know it wasn't Jeremy! As for 'just' Taff Jones trying to convince the relatives - there would be more than him who knew Jeremy was innocent, Stan Jones would also have known and anyone who was involved. However, Taff seems to be the only officer who hand any real faith in his innocence which goes against everything you said in your initial post.

[Caroline]

Does anybody have the feeling that we may be lead up the garden path here? Isn't it a bit odd that as soon as Hartley and scipio are banned that not long after an "expert" from the innocent side turns up and starts posting? Although I can see that he joined in January.

Well, it crossed my mind too.

[Caroline]

Morning Neil/Maggie

Perhaps the police did frame Jeremy because they knew he was guilty but had no hard evidence and therefore had to build a case against him what would be the point in framing him when they had a suspect they would never frame him because one officer did not like him that is not feasible at all.

I completely agree Susan! But not only did they have a suspect, according to Bill they had solid evidence to prove it 'wasn't' Jeremy.

[lookout]

 I don't believe that he was framed.

[Caroline]

I don't believe that he was framed.

If it was known that shots had been fired - presumably because they had proof of a call from Neville at the time, then why was this call not used to back up the notion that Sheila had indeed been responsible? If they had this evidence, there would be no need to frame Jeremy for anything, they would have proof that Sheila was guilty and that Jeremy was telling the truth about the phone call. To not mention a call from Neville would be odd to say the least and as such - I don't buy that he was framed in the way Bill claims.

On a separate issue, if you don't think he was framed and you don't believe it was Jeremy - who put the silencer back in the cupboard?

[lookout]

 Either the silencer was already there and the police didn't look far enough into the cupboard,,or DB had " put " it there,,to get it out of the way if it had been found that it was in possession of someone else. The fact that DB took it home instead of phoning the police straight away to come and collect it,,doesn't sit right with me. Your own common sense tells you NOT to touch anything before it's forensically tested,and above all taken from a crime scene.

[Caroline]

Either the silencer was already there and the police didn't look far enough into the cupboard,,or DB had " put " it there,,to get it out of the way if it had been found that it was in possession of someone else. The fact that DB took it home instead of phoning the police straight away to come and collect it,,doesn't sit right with me. Your own common sense tells you NOT to touch anything before it's forensically tested,and above all taken from a crime scene.

That's not what I mean - if Sheila was responsible and you don't believe Jeremy was framed, you must believe the silencer was used. So, if Sheila used it, how did it get back in the cupboard?

[gringo]

Yes they have,  but NOT when they have known who the real culprit was. I have asked Martin for an example where the police have framed an innocent person in the full knowledge that he/she is innocent but where they also knew who the real offender was, he was unable to supply an example.

The police knew who the real culprits were at Hillsborough but conspired to place the blame elsewhere.
   Eddie Gilfoyle was framed despite police having the information which proved he was innocent and that his wife had committed suicide.
   It is a strange distinction to make anyway in my opinion . If you are happy to acknowledge that the police have knowingly framed innocent people then why is it a stretch to believe that they wouldn't do so if they knew the real perpetrator.
   

[lookout]

That's not what I mean - if Sheila was responsible and you don't believe Jeremy was framed, you must believe the silencer was used. So, if Sheila used it, how did it get back in the cupboard?

Sheila would have initially tried the silencer but found it too cumbersome ( this would have been in the kitchen ) then she'd have put it back. Because Sheila knew how to use a gun/rifle,,she wouldn't have been conversant with either sights or silencer attachments.
I don't believe that the silencer was used ( as in shooting anyone ) but contamination of it had already happened with the physical handling of it.

[lookout]

I don't believe that he was framed.

What I do believe is the doubt among the officers that a slightly-built frightened girl could carry out a massacre. This is why I say that Jeremy wasn't framed.
It's human nature and a lack of education with the force,that put Jeremy where he is.

MOST people wouldn't/didn't believe that a young female would have been capable.