Jeremy's Debts

[No-Bits]

Hehe, I wasn't sure I'd get away with that. 

Personally I couldn't care less, I'm pretty resilient, but I wonder if you realise how rude it actually is to dismiss another person's view and say that they are 'biased'. Your basically saying that a person is being dishonest or you are belittling their views and saying they are influenced and worthless. If you get abuse for that, then it doesn't surprise me.

Of course your own views are honest and true, without influence from others.

You're either on a wind up, attempting to send people over the edge (which I think is actually the case) or you're just a bit thick and you make yourself look daft. 

[grahameb]

Grahame I asked some perfectly simply case related questions earlier and you accused me of being biased. It came out of the blue because prior to that we were discussing the case. I have asked Scipio to stop being personal have have defended just about everyone on this forum in the past. I'm not going to defend my position - it's what I believe and it's got nothing to do with being biased.

No Caroline you weren't. You were arguing about Jeremys feelings and actions directly after the deaths of his family when it is quite obvious how mixed up people can get after such a terrible tragedy. You seemed to attach suspicion on something that could have been quite innocent. That is why I mentioned the bias.

[grahameb]

Hehe, I wasn't sure I'd get away with that. 

Personally I couldn't care less, I'm pretty resilient, but I wonder if you realise how rude it actually is to dismiss another person's view and say that they are 'biased'. Your basically saying that a person is being dishonest or you are belittling their views and saying they are influenced and worthless. If you get abuse for that, then it doesn't surprise me.

Of course your own views are honest and true, without influence from others.

You're either on a wind up, attempting to send people over the edge (which I think is actually the case) or you're just a bit thick and you make yourself look daft. 

I was using the word bias because scipio is always using the word to descibe others. I obviously don't think that everyone who thinks Jeremy is guilty is biased. It just shows you how we are all influenced by what others say about us. I found Mat's comments about me to be hurtful because I though we were getting on so well and what he said about me is quite simply not true. Neither did I call him a liar either. So in my opinion it was unwarrented.

[No-Bits]

I was using the word bias because scipio is always using the word to descibe others. I obviously don't think that everyone who thinks Jeremy is guilty is biased. It just shows you how we are all influenced by what others say about us. I found Mat's comments about me to be hurtful because I though we were getting on so well and what he said about me is quite simply not true.

I think if you go around telling people they are biased, then you are likely to get an unsavoury reaction.

I'm still astonished that you describe yourself as neutral. 

[grahameb]

I think if you go around telling people they are biased, then you are likely to get an unsavoury reaction.

I'm still astonished that you describe yourself as neutral. 

Yet scipio seems to get away with it? I wonder why that is?

[No-Bits]

Yet scipio seems to get away with it? I wonder why that is?

And Mike gets away with much worse, you don't 'pipe up' though, being neutral and all. 

[Caroline]

No Caroline you weren't. You were arguing about Jeremys feelings and actions directly after the deaths of his family when it is quite obvious how mixed up people can get after such a terrible tragedy. You seemed to attach suspicion on something that could have been quite innocent. That is why I mentioned the bias.

Because that's my opinion - I think he was suspicious and I make absolutely no apologies for that.

[Caroline]

Yet scipio seems to get away with it? I wonder why that is?

Is the insinuation that I'm biased in favour of Scipio? Seriously?

[scipio_usmc]

Are many people in contact with him? Do you know?

I've always thought it a bit ........... I don't know, uncomfortable I suppose. I wouldn't want a multiple murderer to have my address or phone number. 

The amazing thing is that there are murderers who women actually marry not just write to.  Teh Amityville Horror murderer is on his 4th wife (all 4 married him in prison) and look at Joran Van Der Sloot.   If you are going to write I suggest people use a PO Box or the like not a home address.  Some prisoners stalk pen pals and write a million letters.

[Caroline]

The amazing thing is that there are murderers who women actually marry not just write to.  Teh Amityville Horror murderer is on his 4th wife (all 4 married him in prison) and look at Joran Van Der Sloot.   If you are going to write I suggest people use a PO Box or the like not a home address.  Some prisoners stalk pen pals and write a million letters.

OY! Don't sling me in with that lot!! But I have to say, Jeremy has never stalked me.

[scipio_usmc]

Yet scipio seems to get away with it? I wonder why that is?

I base my assessments on facts and evidence not having friends who know Jeremy and insist he would not do such a thing and thus say things liek you do about believing no matter what a crazy person had to carry out the murders and you will not believe otherwise.

I lay out the evidence that establishes Jeremy is guilty and if such evidence were ever able to be refuted I would accordingly change my assessment of his guilt because I follow the evidence I don't have an agenda driving me.

THe opposite cannot be said for Team Jeremy.  Evidence is not cited as tht ereaosn for believing he is innocent.  There is blind faith in him and that as a result the evidence must be all faked though there is nothing to refute the evidence.

Claims like well Sheila must have either:

1) committed themurders nude or
2) she changed her clothes and showered and no one ever found the clothing she wore when she committed the murders or
3) she changed her clothes and showered and someone found the clothing she wore but destroyed them intentionally so that Jeremy could take the fall

Are all totally unrealistic not just lacking in evidence yet one of these would have to be true for Jeremy to be innocent.  But that;s hardly the only absurd thing required.  There are a whole lot of more crazy things that much be true for Jeremy to be innocent.

When someone believes crazy things because of blind faith in someone they didn't know at all or did not know very well there is no way to describe it other than bias.

To prove people are not operating on the basis of bias all they need do is post a basis for their position that relies on sound evidence as opposed to bias.

Most on Team Jeremy can't do tha tbecause they are being driven by gun feelings and you have multiple times mentioned such be it your claim that your friend doesn't think Jeremy would do it and you trust his judgment or your claim that you are unwilling to believe anyone other than a crazy person could kill their family and that it thus hasd to be Sheila the evidence be damned.  It is a fact that not all peopel who kill are crazy. 

I have called out positions of anybody that doesn't have a rational basis including Caroline's position that there is no way Jeremy would ever have requested a DNA test unless he did not use the moderator even though there are many examples of guilty people requesting DNA tests- including rapists- who hope that foreign DNA will somehow be found or that time will have caused their DNA profile to be unavailable and thus to then claim their profile was not found.  There is nothing to lose if they are stuck in jail for life anyway.

If you say a change of facts can't make you change your mind that is a sure sign you have an agenda and are not operating on the basis of facts.

[Caroline]

I base my assessments on facts and evidence not having friends who know Jeremy and insist he would not do such a thing and thus say things liek you do about believing no matter what a crazy person had to carry out the murders and you will not believe otherwise.

I lay out the evidence that establishes Jeremy is guilty and if such evidence were ever able to be refuted I would accordingly change my assessment of his guilt because I follow the evidence I don't have an agenda driving me.

THe opposite cannot be said for Team Jeremy.  Evidence is not cited as tht ereaosn for believing he is innocent.  There is blind faith in him and that as a result the evidence must be all faked though there is nothing to refute the evidence.

Claims like well Sheila must have either:

1) committed themurders nude or
2) she changed her clothes and showered and no one ever found the clothing she wore when she committed the murders or
3) she changed her clothes and showered and someone found the clothing she wore but destroyed them intentionally so that Jeremy could take the fall

Are all totally unrealistic not just lacking in evidence yet one of these would have to be true for Jeremy to be innocent.  But that;s hardly the only absurd thing required.  There are a whole lot of more crazy things that much be true for Jeremy to be innocent.

When someone believes crazy things because of blind faith in someone they didn't know at all or did not know very well there is no way to describe it other than bias.

To prove people are not operating on the basis of bias all they need do is post a basis for their position that relies on sound evidence as opposed to bias.

Most on Team Jeremy can't do tha tbecause they are being driven by gun feelings and you have multiple times mentioned such be it your claim that your friend doesn't think Jeremy would do it and you trust his judgment or your claim that you are unwilling to believe anyone other than a crazy person could kill their family and that it thus hasd to be Sheila the evidence be damned.  It is a fact that not all peopel who kill are crazy. 

I have called out positions of anybody that doesn't have a rational basis including Caroline's position that there is no way Jeremy would ever have requested a DNA test unless he did not use the moderator even though there are many examples of guilty people requesting DNA tests- including rapists- who hope that foreign DNA will somehow be found or that time will have caused their DNA profile to be unavailable and thus to then claim their profile was not found.  There is nothing to lose if they are stuck in jail for life anyway.

If you say a change of facts can't make you change your mind that is a sure sign you have an agenda and are not operating on the basis of facts.

I think Grahame is referring  to the frequency to which you use the word 'liar' to critique someone else's post. This is something that I (and the rest of the moderation team) believe to be unnecessary. Just because someone believes something you don't agree with, doesn't make them a liar - by the same token, just because they have no solid evidence, doesn't make them a liar either. The only way they would be a liar, is if they claimed something they didn't actually believe - which is unlikely. So I ask you quite politely - to curb the liar accusations. I thank you in advance for your cooperation.

[Caroline]

Going back to the original question of why Jeremy didn't call 999 - I can quite categorically say, that had my dad called me to tell me my brother had a gun (he was also schizophrenic), I'd have called 999. He also had never been violent but I would have been equally concerned that he may have hurt himself as well as wondering about the safety of my parents. However, there was no urgency - why?

[scipio_usmc]

Going back to the original question of why Jeremy didn't call 999 - I can quite categorically say, that had my dad called me to tell me my brother had a gun (he was also schizophrenic), I'd have called 999. He also had never been violent but I would have been equally concerned that he may have hurt himself as well as wondering about the safety of my parents. However, there was no urgency - why?

How many fathers would call to place their son in harms way if there were a truly dangerous situation that not even the father felt he could control?  That alone is suspicious let alone to call a son who likely would to answer because the phone wa sno where near his bedroom and and had an answering machine.

Then there is the question of how Nevill even would have had the opportunity to make such a call without being shot, why he would not instead arm himself if he was left alone and why Sheila would not shoot him upon encounteirng him but instead to  hang up the phone, and take it back off the hook then march him upstairs to shoot him with June.

Not only do we have to believe all these odd things happened but a whole lot more including as you mention Jeremy not calling 999 but instead calling Julie and then casually calling police.  I don't understand how someone in jail for so long having nothing but time to make up a competent lie could come up with something so stupid as claiming he didn't think it was urgent.  That's why lawyers usually tell their clients not to testify they often screw themselves.

[Adam]

AE said Neville would have picked up a chair and defended himself while disarming Sheila.

A thread was created on what Sheila was doing when Neville phoned Jeremy. No one could give an answer.

Another thread was created on how long Neville would have to wait. Jeremy was upstairs, 'sleeping like a log'. Perhaps with his bedroom door shut. His answering machine would have stopped the phone ringing after 3-7 rings. So impossible for Jeremy to wake.