Gun Residue

[JackiePreece]

April yesterday you said you believed Jeremy to be guilty but if you take one aspect of the case for instance

Jeremy got a call from his father
He than rang his girfriend and said there is something wrong at the farm

That fits perfectly with what Jeremy said

Followed by Julie telling him to go back to bed


Julies version of that call just does not fit anyway you look at it but she admits Jeremy said there was something wrong at the farm

What Julie said in her statement does not make sense
That is a fact

You are accepting what JM says although you know it does not make sense

[Jane]

Jackie, Jeremy didn't need to have had a call from Neville to alert Julie, albeit, cryptically, that a deed in which I believe she had a great part, was done.

NOTHING that Julie relates about that conversation makes any sense to me. I thin k she has deliberately left out that/any part which incriminates her. Well, she would, wouldn't she?

I guess I don't need to say that I don't accept what Julie says.

[JackiePreece]

I obviously know that but what Jeremy says makes sense i.e. somethings wrong at the farm

It obviously does not make sense what Julie says

Why did she accept part of what Jeremy said

Somethings wrong at the farm

then she adds on everything is going well???  its wrong whichever way you look at it

If Jeremy said somethings wrong at the farm its a very important point

[Jane]

I obviously know that but what Jeremy says makes sense i.e. somethings wrong at the farm

It obviously does not make sense what Julie says

Why did she accept part of what Jeremy said

Somethings wrong at the farm

then she adds on everything is going well???  its wrong whichever way you look at it

If Jeremy said somethings wrong at the farm its a very important point

I find it very hard to accept that he wakes her up at that hour of the morning and SHE doesn't say "What the hell are you playing at? What do you want" and he, according to her says no more than "Something's wrong at the farm." He, again, according to her, gives no further details and makes no mention of his father's call do him, NOR does he wonder what he should do but again, according to her, he DOES tell her that "Everything is going well."  I'm afraid it suggests to me that she KNEW what had happened but which ever way we choose to see it, I think she's lying by omission.

[lookout]

The thing is though,we don't know if she said/he said these things as Julie spun some whoppers.

I doubt very much that Jeremy was looking forward to the harvesting as he'd have had to have pulled his tripe out,so if that was how this odd conversation went,it would have been about the dread of having to have worked extra hard that day.
You'll only find connotations if you're looking for them,as did the prosecution all along. Their aim was to add a twist to every spoken word and movement of Jeremy from the word go,which I find pretty pathetic really.
And Jones,the drinker----------well,I wouldn't have believed anything that came out of his mouth. Imagine a cop nowadays found to have a flask of whisky on his person !!

[Jane]

The thing is though,we don't know if she said/he said these things as Julie spun some whoppers.

I doubt very much that Jeremy was looking forward to the harvesting as he'd have had to have pulled his tripe out,so if that was how this odd conversation went,it would have been about the dread of having to have worked extra hard that day.
You'll only find connotations if you're looking for them,as did the prosecution all along. Their aim was to add a twist to every spoken word and movement of Jeremy from the word go,which I find pretty pathetic really.
And Jones,the drinker----------well,I wouldn't have believed anything that came out of his mouth. Imagine a cop nowadays found to have a flask of whisky on his person !!

At 3am (ish) Lookout? He'd already called her around 10pm, why couldn't he have told her then. I agree that Julie probably lied, but in the time she had from the second phone call until the police picked her up, I doubt she had the time -or brain- to construct a whole conversation from which she could extract most of the callers "lines" in order to make him look guilty and exonerate herself. It leads me to think that it MAY have been a call she'd, at the very least, anticipated.

[tyler]

It must be remembered though that in her first ever statement,JM said that Jeremy sounded worried when he had phoned her to tell her there was 'something wrong at the farm'. She had told him 'not to worry and to go back to bed' The 'everything's going well and bye honey' in a sing song voice crap came after her many hours of coaching with Stan Jones. Whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent,JM is a proven liar and that's a FACT!

[susan]

Hello tyler I agree with you on this although I think he is guilty I think she is a stranger to the truth.

[JackiePreece]

From the archives


Scott Lomax states that it had recently (at the time of writing Lomax's book) come to light that the police failed to disclose information to the defence, judge and jury that Jeremy was subject to a sniffer dog test for firearms residue as he waited outside WHF.

PC Mercer, dog handler of a specialist Alsatian which was trained to sniff for explosives, firearms and firearms residue - even minute residual traces of firearms residue - used his dog to test Jeremy.

The dog did not detect any residue whatsoever on Jeremy's hands or body.

'Ah, but..!', the antis will say, 'Jeremy had washed it all off, right...?'

Wrong. Lomax states that, had Jeremy fired a number of shots hours previously,  the sniffer dog would have detected the firearms residue from this even if Jeremy had washed or bathed several times.

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
Report to moderator     Logged
Grahame
Guest

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2011, 01:07:PM »
Quote
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Scott Lomax states that it had recently (at the time of writing Lomax's book) come to light that the police failed to disclose information to the defence, judge and jury that Jeremy was subject to a sniffer dog test for firearms residue as he waited outside WHF.

PC Mercer, dog handler of a specialist Alsatian which was trained to sniff for explosives, firearms and firearms residue - even minute residual traces of firearms residue - used his dog to test Jeremy.

The dog did not detect any residue whatsoever on Jeremy's hands or body.

'Ah, but..!', the antis will say, 'Jeremy had washed it all off, right...?'

Wrong. Lomax states that, had Jeremy fired a number of shots hours previously,  the sniffer dog would have detected the firearms residue from this even if Jeremy had washed or bathed several times.

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
But surely if Jeremy had fired several shots earlier the dog would have detected the residue from those shots?
Report to moderator     Logged
chochokeira
Guest

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2011, 01:20:PM »
Quote
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 01:07:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Scott Lomax states that it had recently (at the time of writing Lomax's book) come to light that the police failed to disclose information to the defence, judge and jury that Jeremy was subject to a sniffer dog test for firearms residue as he waited outside WHF.

PC Mercer, dog handler of a specialist Alsatian which was trained to sniff for explosives, firearms and firearms residue - even minute residual traces of firearms residue - used his dog to test Jeremy.

The dog did not detect any residue whatsoever on Jeremy's hands or body.

'Ah, but..!', the antis will say, 'Jeremy had washed it all off, right...?'

Wrong. Lomax states that, had Jeremy fired a number of shots hours previously,  the sniffer dog would have detected the firearms residue from this even if Jeremy had washed or bathed several times.

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?

But surely if Jeremy had fired several shots earlier the dog would have detected the residue from those shots?


Yes. As I understand it, Jeremy didn't fire any shots at rabbits earlier because the rabbits had gone by the time he went out to shoot them. So the dog test indicated that Jeremy had not discharged a firearm during the relevent period.
Report to moderator     Logged
andrea
Guest

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2011, 03:36:PM »
Quote
he didnt have to load the gun to shoot the rabbits either did he, did he say the gun was already loaded?
Report to moderator     Logged
chochokeira
Guest

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2011, 03:42:PM »
Quote
Quote from: andrea on October 08, 2011, 03:36:PM
he didnt have to load the gun to shoot the rabbits either did he, did he say the gun was already loaded?


That's a good point, I can't remember.
Report to moderator     Logged
Grahame
Guest

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM »
Quote
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 04:05:PM by Grahame »
Report to moderator     Logged
  ngb1066
Administrator
Veteran Member

 
Posts: 3714
   

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM »
Quote
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?

This was a serious breach of the duty of the procution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence.  This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury.  Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence. 


Report to moderator     Logged
  smiffy
Senior Member

Posts: 2000
 

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2011, 01:13:AM »
Quote
Quote from: ngb1066 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?

This was a serious breach of the duty of the procution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence.  This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury.  Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.


Fully agree.
Report to moderator     Logged
chochokeira
Guest

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2011, 02:00:AM »
Quote
Quote from: ngb1066 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?

This was a serious breach of the duty of the prosecution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence.  This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury.  Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.


What might the combined effect of knowledge of the sniffer dog's failure to find any firearms residue on Jeremy and photographs of Sheila's hand stained by firearms residue, have been? A 'not guilty' verdict is my guess.
Report to moderator     Logged
  ngb1066
Administrator
Veteran Member

 
Posts: 3714
   

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2011, 09:00:AM »
Quote
Quote from: chochokeira on October 09, 2011, 02:00:AM
Quote from: ngb1066 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?

This was a serious breach of the duty of the prosecution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence.  This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury.  Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.


What might the combined effect of knowledge of the sniffer dog's failure to find any firearms residue on Jeremy and photographs of Sheila's hand stained by firearms residue, have been? A 'not guilty' verdict is my guess.

I think that is very likely, particularly as the verdict was by the minimum permitted majority, 10:2.

Report to moderator     Logged

[Caroline]

From the archives


Scott Lomax states that it had recently (at the time of writing Lomax's book) come to light that the police failed to disclose information to the defence, judge and jury that Jeremy was subject to a sniffer dog test for firearms residue as he waited outside WHF.

PC Mercer, dog handler of a specialist Alsatian which was trained to sniff for explosives, firearms and firearms residue - even minute residual traces of firearms residue - used his dog to test Jeremy.

The dog did not detect any residue whatsoever on Jeremy's hands or body.

'Ah, but..!', the antis will say, 'Jeremy had washed it all off, right...?'

Wrong. Lomax states that, had Jeremy fired a number of shots hours previously,  the sniffer dog would have detected the firearms residue from this even if Jeremy had washed or bathed several times.

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
Report to moderator     Logged
Grahame
Guest

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #1 on: October 08, 2011, 01:07:PM »
Quote
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Scott Lomax states that it had recently (at the time of writing Lomax's book) come to light that the police failed to disclose information to the defence, judge and jury that Jeremy was subject to a sniffer dog test for firearms residue as he waited outside WHF.

PC Mercer, dog handler of a specialist Alsatian which was trained to sniff for explosives, firearms and firearms residue - even minute residual traces of firearms residue - used his dog to test Jeremy.

The dog did not detect any residue whatsoever on Jeremy's hands or body.

'Ah, but..!', the antis will say, 'Jeremy had washed it all off, right...?'

Wrong. Lomax states that, had Jeremy fired a number of shots hours previously,  the sniffer dog would have detected the firearms residue from this even if Jeremy had washed or bathed several times.

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
But surely if Jeremy had fired several shots earlier the dog would have detected the residue from those shots?
Report to moderator     Logged
chochokeira
Guest

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #2 on: October 08, 2011, 01:20:PM »
Quote
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 01:07:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM
Scott Lomax states that it had recently (at the time of writing Lomax's book) come to light that the police failed to disclose information to the defence, judge and jury that Jeremy was subject to a sniffer dog test for firearms residue as he waited outside WHF.

PC Mercer, dog handler of a specialist Alsatian which was trained to sniff for explosives, firearms and firearms residue - even minute residual traces of firearms residue - used his dog to test Jeremy.

The dog did not detect any residue whatsoever on Jeremy's hands or body.

'Ah, but..!', the antis will say, 'Jeremy had washed it all off, right...?'

Wrong. Lomax states that, had Jeremy fired a number of shots hours previously,  the sniffer dog would have detected the firearms residue from this even if Jeremy had washed or bathed several times.

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?

But surely if Jeremy had fired several shots earlier the dog would have detected the residue from those shots?


Yes. As I understand it, Jeremy didn't fire any shots at rabbits earlier because the rabbits had gone by the time he went out to shoot them. So the dog test indicated that Jeremy had not discharged a firearm during the relevent period.
Report to moderator     Logged
andrea
Guest

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #3 on: October 08, 2011, 03:36:PM »
Quote
he didnt have to load the gun to shoot the rabbits either did he, did he say the gun was already loaded?
Report to moderator     Logged
chochokeira
Guest

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #4 on: October 08, 2011, 03:42:PM »
Quote
Quote from: andrea on October 08, 2011, 03:36:PM
he didnt have to load the gun to shoot the rabbits either did he, did he say the gun was already loaded?


That's a good point, I can't remember.
Report to moderator     Logged
Grahame
Guest

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #5 on: October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM »
Quote
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 04:05:PM by Grahame »
Report to moderator     Logged
  ngb1066
Administrator
Veteran Member

 
Posts: 3714
   

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #6 on: October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM »
Quote
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?

This was a serious breach of the duty of the procution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence.  This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury.  Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence. 


Report to moderator     Logged
  smiffy
Senior Member

Posts: 2000
 

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #7 on: October 09, 2011, 01:13:AM »
Quote
Quote from: ngb1066 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?

This was a serious breach of the duty of the procution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence.  This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury.  Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.


Fully agree.
Report to moderator     Logged
chochokeira
Guest

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #8 on: October 09, 2011, 02:00:AM »
Quote
Quote from: ngb1066 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?

This was a serious breach of the duty of the prosecution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence.  This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury.  Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.


What might the combined effect of knowledge of the sniffer dog's failure to find any firearms residue on Jeremy and photographs of Sheila's hand stained by firearms residue, have been? A 'not guilty' verdict is my guess.
Report to moderator     Logged
  ngb1066
Administrator
Veteran Member

 
Posts: 3714
   

Re: Crucial undisclosed evidence of PC Mercer's sniffer dog
« Reply #9 on: October 09, 2011, 09:00:AM »
Quote
Quote from: chochokeira on October 09, 2011, 02:00:AM
Quote from: ngb1066 on October 08, 2011, 04:22:PM
Quote from: Grahame on October 08, 2011, 04:04:PM
Quote from: chochokeira on October 08, 2011, 12:58:PM

Why was this vital evidence withheld from the trial and defence?

Did EP take a report from PC Mercer?
One more proof that ALL evidence that was available was not presented to the jury. This must surely constitute a criminal offence in and of itself because it is in effect perverting the course of justice by the witholding of vital evidence?

This was a serious breach of the duty of the prosecution to make full disclosure to the defence of all material evidence, particularly where that evidence assists the defence.  This is evidence which clearly assisted the defence and if it had been disclosed it would have been presented to the jury.  Unfortunately this is not the only example of Essex Police withholding material evidence.


What might the combined effect of knowledge of the sniffer dog's failure to find any firearms residue on Jeremy and photographs of Sheila's hand stained by firearms residue, have been? A 'not guilty' verdict is my guess.

I think that is very likely, particularly as the verdict was by the minimum permitted majority, 10:2.

Report to moderator     Logged

Why would he be?

[susan]

Hello Caroline

exactly why would he be subjected to a sniffer dog

[scipio_usmc]

I find it very hard to accept that he wakes her up at that hour of the morning and SHE doesn't say "What the hell are you playing at? What do you want" and he, according to her says no more than "Something's wrong at the farm." He, again, according to her, gives no further details and makes no mention of his father's call do him, NOR does he wonder what he should do but again, according to her, he DOES tell her that "Everything is going well."  I'm afraid it suggests to me that she KNEW what had happened but which ever way we choose to see it, I think she's lying by omission.

Let's get a few things out of the way.  Obviously she was not intimating the full acocunt verbatim in any of her statements of testimony.  I have a great memory and can recount in detail the substance of conversations I had yesterday over the phone with people but not the conversations verbatim.

She also admitted she was still half asleep so could have missed things he said.  So right off the bat we are stuck with only the content that she could recall at later dates.

There is no question though that her initial account makes no sense and that she left out things.  She makes clear later that she remembered some things pretty damning that she left out in order to protect Jeremy.  She left out the fact he said he had not yet gone to sleep and that his plan (that around 10PM that he was putting into effect that night) was going well. 

This call to her was meant to help substantiate his alibi.  Instead it ended up harming him because the simple fact he called her makes no sense. 

A good example of why is looking at what happened with my maternal grandmother.  My grandmother was in the emergency room for like 16 hours.  I was there the entire time as was my mother.  It was after 2AM when they made it seem like she could die.  So I notified my uncle because he was far away and I figured he should know in case he wanted to try to visit before she died.  I didn't wait until later in the morning because time was of the essence.  They thought she might not last more than a day.  He would need to make plans if he did want to come and would need to act rapidly.  He ended up flying up here the earliest flight he could get.  It turned out she survived and battled through surgery, chemo and radiation for over a year. But we did not know this would be the case at the time.  I didn't wake the remainder of the family to notify them until the morning because they lived close enough to visit during the day at their leisure.  I notified them after we got her situated in a hospital room that she could be visited in.  They would not have been able to see her in the ER anyway. I had not notified them she wa sin the ER because we didn't know what was wrong and there was no point in telling them anything until we found out what was the problem.     

I received a call at 3:37AM from Hospice that my grandmother passed away.  I didn't wake the rest of the family up at that time because why would you disturb people just to deliver bad news?   Waiting until they are awake already to let them know is superior. 

The principle I am explaining is pretty simple. You call people to notify them of trouble for a reason.  You call them to notify them of someone being hurt or sick so they can visit if they want.  You notify them when you know what is wrong not that there might be a problem but you are not certain.  What is the use of worrying them for nothing?  Naturally you notify those who would be concerned about such not just anybody.  You only wake people up if time is of the essence otherwise you wait to tell them at a normal hour.

Jeremy had no valid reason for calling Julie at that hour which makes it contrived.  He wasn't sure if anything was actually wrong (something he made clear in his trial testimony as he was explaining why he didn't call 999) and worse Julie would not particularly care about his family.  He didn't call her to tell her she should go there because something could be wrong. Indeed his parents siblings would be the ones to call about such to ask if they wanted to go.  The call was supposed to bolster his alibi by saying Nevill really called me because look I expressed such to my girlfriend.  he would have been better served calling the extended family with news there could be trouble it is more plausible they would be concerned and might even have met him there.  I actually think that he picked Julie because he didn't want them around and he was excited about having killed them and wanted someone to gloat to.  He wasn't thinking about the best thing to do to make his call seem genuine.

The only plausible reason any Jeremy defenders have suggested for the call is because he was upset after talking to police and wanted to complain about it to her.  Some say he intimated such as his motivation but I have not seen his full testimony.  I will say that his testimony at trial that he intiially didn't think it was an emergency situation and wasn't sure anything was actually wrong is harmful because he clearly made the call to Julie before he phoned police.

He realized it would look bad to say he called her before police so he stated he looked up the police numbers and called police then Julie. He slipped up during his questioning though and admitted the truth that he called her first but upon police seizing on it he claimed he could not remember who he called first then went back to claiming he called police first and simply mispoke.   

Even if he phoned police at 3:24 this is later than the roomates say the call to Julie was made.  He was on the phone with police for 9 minutes or more. So the call to police ended after 3:30.  Jeremy supporters keep suggesting his call was at 3:36 and ended even later which would put the call to police ending even later making the call to Julie be even later if it were after phoning police.

The 2 roomates who said they looked at their clocks insist the call came at 3AM.  The other roomate said 3:15 though said it could have been as late as 3:30.  There is no way Jeremy got off the phone with police until after 3:30 making a call at 3:30 impossible.  The more you look at it the more it is clear the call had to have been made before he phoned police thus destorying the claim he was upset after speaking to police so called her for comfort.

Worse yet, he testified to the jury that he did not appreciate at first that there was any emergency or urgency in Nevill's words.  So why would he call Julie if he was not even worried to call police at that point in time?

So the call is a mess for various reasons.  It wound up being a huge liability instead of supporting his alibi as the call was intended to accomplish.

Further evidence that this call was aimed at supporting his alibi is that around 6AM he phoned Julie to tell her not to go to work because she would need to come tell police about how he had called her earlier to say there was trouble at the farm because Nevill phoned. He didn't wait till the bodies were found to call her and tell her that they would need her testimony he called her before because he wanted to make sure she didn't go to work.  This makes clear how significant he viewed her testimony to confirm his alibi.

As a lawyer it is hard to find a way to make this call or the second look natural and innocent.  It is one of those things that you wish your client did not reveal.           

[scipio_usmc]

Jackie, Jeremy didn't need to have had a call from Neville to alert Julie, albeit, cryptically, that a deed in which I believe she had a great part, was done.

NOTHING that Julie relates about that conversation makes any sense to me. I thin k she has deliberately left out that/any part which incriminates her. Well, she would, wouldn't she?

I guess I don't need to say that I don't accept what Julie says.

I think the call was in part to gloat about his misdeeds.  He told her he was going to do it and then called to say it was done.  But he also wanted to use the call to support his alibi so it had multiple purposes.

Both calls very well could mean that Julie was more involved in things than she indicated.  She even could have been supportive of the murders because she thought it would result in marriage.  People always minimize their own involvement when spilling about misdeeds.  Only Jeremy could expose her if there were more.  But that would require him to admit his own guilt and we would have to wonder how much of his story were true.   

If she truly told him not to talk to her about killing them anymore then it makes little sense to keep telling her about it.  There are people who you tell to shut up who don't and keep tlaking about something you don't want to hear but the normal thing to do anytime they do such is to remind them you don't want to hear about it. So in that sense one has to strongly wonder if she truly was as strong as she claimed about telling him she didn't want to hear about it.  I am a cynic and naturally think that she was more supportive of his suggestions than she let on because she would have every reaosn not to admit she was supportive of it.

Sure she came clean about the robbery, the drugs and the bank fraud but that is different than admitting she was supportive of his murder plans which at best would make her look horrible to the World and at worst could result in her being charged with conspiracy to commit murder.   There is a much stronger motvation to hide this than her petty crimes.

[Jane]

Let's get a few things out of the way.  Obviously she was not intimating the full acocunt verbatim in any of her statements of testimony.  I have a great memory and can recount in detail the substance of conversations I had yesterday over the phone with people but not the conversations verbatim.

She also admitted she was still half asleep so could have missed things he said.  So right off the bat we are stuck with only the content that she could recall at later dates.

There is no question though that her initial account makes no sense and that she left out things.  She makes clear later that she remembered some things pretty damning that she left out in order to protect Jeremy.  She left out the fact he said he had not yet gone to sleep and that his plan (that around 10PM that he was putting into effect that night) was going well. 

This call to her was meant to help substantiate his alibi.  Instead it ended up harming him because the simple fact he called her makes no sense. 

A good example of why is looking at what happened with my maternal grandmother.  My grandmother was in the emergency room for like 16 hours.  I was there the entire time as was my mother.  It was after 2AM when they made it seem like she could die.  So I notified my uncle because he was far away and I figured he should know in case he wanted to try to visit before she died.  I didn't wait until later in the morning because time was of the essence.  They thought she might not last more than a day.  He would need to make plans if he did want to come and would need to act rapidly.  He ended up flying up here the earliest flight he could get.  It turned out she survived and battled through surgery, chemo and radiation for over a year. But we did not know this would be the case at the time.  I didn't wake the remainder of the family to notify them until the morning because they lived close enough to visit during the day at their leisure.  I notified them after we got her situated in a hospital room that she could be visited in.  They would not have been able to see her in the ER anyway. I had not notified them she wa sin the ER because we didn't know what was wrong and there was no point in telling them anything until we found out what was the problem.     

I received a call at 3:37AM from Hospice that my grandmother passed away.  I didn't wake the rest of the family up at that time because why would you disturb people just to deliver bad news?   Waiting until they are awake already to let them know is superior. 

The principle I am explaining is pretty simple. You call people to notify them of trouble for a reason.  You call them to notify them of someone being hurt or sick so they can visit if they want.  You notify them when you know what is wrong not that there might be a problem but you are not certain.  What is the use of worrying them for nothing?  Naturally you notify those who would be concerned about such not just anybody.  You only wake people up if time is of the essence otherwise you wait to tell them at a normal hour.

Jeremy had no valid reason for calling Julie at that hour which makes it contrived.  He wasn't sure if anything was actually wrong (something he made clear in his trial testimony as he was explaining why he didn't call 999) and worse Julie would not particularly care about his family.  He didn't call her to tell her she should go there because something could be wrong. Indeed his parents siblings would be the ones to call about such to ask if they wanted to go.  The call was supposed to bolster his alibi by saying Nevill really called me because look I expressed such to my girlfriend.  he would have been better served calling the extended family with news there could be trouble it is more plausible they would be concerned and might even have met him there.  I actually think that he picked Julie because he didn't want them around and he was excited about having killed them and wanted someone to gloat to.  He wasn't thinking about the best thing to do to make his call seem genuine.

The only plausible reason any Jeremy defenders have suggested for the call is because he was upset after talking to police and wanted to complain about it to her.  Some say he intimated such as his motivation but I have not seen his full testimony.  I will say that his testimony at trial that he intiially didn't think it was an emergency situation and wasn't sure anything was actually wrong is harmful because he clearly made the call to Julie before he phoned police.

He realized it would look bad to say he called her before police so he stated he looked up the police numbers and called police then Julie. He slipped up during his questioning though and admitted the truth that he called her first but upon police seizing on it he claimed he could not remember who he called first then went back to claiming he called police first and simply mispoke.   

Even if he phoned police at 3:24 this is later than the roomates say the call to Julie was made.  He was on the phone with police for 9 minutes or more. So the call to police ended after 3:30.  Jeremy supporters keep suggesting his call was at 3:36 and ended even later which would put the call to police ending even later making the call to Julie be even later if it were after phoning police.

The 2 roomates who said they looked at their clocks insist the call came at 3AM.  The other roomate said 3:15 though said it could have been as late as 3:30.  There is no way Jeremy got off the phone with police until after 3:30 making a call at 3:30 impossible.  The more you look at it the more it is clear the call had to have been made before he phoned police thus destorying the claim he was upset after speaking to police so called her for comfort.

Worse yet, he testified to the jury that he did not appreciate at first that there was any emergency or urgency in Nevill's words.  So why would he call Julie if he was not even worried to call police at that point in time?

So the call is a mess for various reasons.  It wound up being a huge liability instead of supporting his alibi as the call was intended to accomplish.

Further evidence that this call was aimed at supporting his alibi is that around 6AM he phoned Julie to tell her not to go to work because she would need to come tell police about how he had called her earlier to say there was trouble at the farm because Nevill phoned. He didn't wait till the bodies were found to call her and tell her that they would need her testimony he called her before because he wanted to make sure she didn't go to work.  This makes clear how significant he viewed her testimony to confirm his alibi.

As a lawyer it is hard to find a way to make this call or the second look natural and innocent.  It is one of those things that you wish your client did not reveal.         

Scipio, distasteful as I find what you say, "it has a ring of truth about it".

[JackiePreece]

I think the call was in part to gloat about his misdeeds.  He told her he was going to do it and then called to say it was done.  But he also wanted to use the call to support his alibi so it had multiple purposes.

Both calls very well could mean that Julie was more involved in things than she indicated.  She even could have been supportive of the murders because she thought it would result in marriage.  People always minimize their own involvement when spilling about misdeeds.  Only Jeremy could expose her if there were more.  But that would require him to admit his own guilt and we would have to wonder how much of his story were true.   

If she truly told him not to talk to her about killing them anymore then it makes little sense to keep telling her about it.  There are people who you tell to shut up who don't and keep tlaking about something you don't want to hear but the normal thing to do anytime they do such is to remind them you don't want to hear about it. So in that sense one has to strongly wonder if she truly was as strong as she claimed about telling him she didn't want to hear about it.  I am a cynic and naturally think that she was more supportive of his suggestions than she let on because she would have every reaosn not to admit she was supportive of it.

Sure she came clean about the robbery, the drugs and the bank fraud but that is different than admitting she was supportive of his murder plans which at best would make her look horrible to the World and at worst could result in her being charged with conspiracy to commit murder.   There is a much stronger motvation to hide this than her petty crimes.

The fact is if Jeremy was guilty everything was going very well

The family was all dead

What exactly does 'something wrong at the farm' mean if the plan was successful

In your wildest dreams could you believe that Julie would have gone back to sleep when she 'knew' what Jeremy plan

It's ridiculous

It's as ridiculous as offering to go and see 2 children with bullet holes in them when you knew it was your boyfriends work

It's even more ridiculous that JM knew all of this but no one was suspicious of her behaviour

It's even more ridiculous to think she would have dinner with Colin if she knew her boyfriend was responsible for killing his two babies