A Call To Essex Police From Neville? - The poll

[guest154]

What I believe is that is possible that a body of a female was seen in the kitchen before the raid team entered and even possibly after they entered.  I am not saying that is likely, I have accepted that the explanation may be that there was a mistake.  It is nevertheless a possibility and it is one of several aspects of the case which concern me. 

 

A female body in the kitchen? I'm somewhat shocked you still give this part of the case any support NGB. 

[scipio_usmc]

Hi Caroline. Here is Ann Eaton's testimony where she describes being told that both Sheila and June were on the bed with the bible on her chest and the rifle between them.

It says rifle to the side not between them.  So potentially the rifle could have been on Sheila's right side which means not adjacent to June.

In the meantime as Caroline pointed out we have no idea whether police actually told Ann they were on the bed or whether she just misconstrued their words as meaning on the bed. Indeed many people on this site have gotten mised up by the words far side of the bed and near side erroneously thinking that meant on the bed though it actually was referring to on the floor on each side of the bed.

It is possible the cop who told Ann misunderstood what other cops meant and erroenously thought she was on the bed but more likely is that Ann messed it up and misconstrued what they told her.

Since the error featured both women on the bed this demonstrates even more clearly that it was an honest misunderstanding.  There is no way June's body was moved out of th ebed well after her death by police.  Her blood was on the rug and other objects like the back of the door.  She was shot in bed and then again while on the floor.  Moreover she had been bleeding while standing upright- the blod staining on her dress proves it.  Then there is the blood pool on the floor from Sheila proving she was not moved hours later by police.

     

[scipio_usmc]

Well unfortunately all we have is her statement if words mean anything that is what she said. She of course may have been mistaken, or the person who told her was mistaken. But then again as I have constantly stressed since the beginning there are many anomalies in this case and some of them may never be solved?

All an investigator can do in such an instance is try to find out WHO she spoke to on the day in question who potentially could have told her such and then to interview said peopelto see if they actually did tell her such and if so why.

She said she thought it was Clark but since she only spoke to 2 police officers that day it means it could only have been Clark or Stan Jones.  Whether Clark was ever in the house is in question- he might not have even been in the bedroom to see thebodies.  Jones did see the bodies in contrast.

Assuming Clark also saw the bodies before speaking to Ann, does anyone realistically think they are going to say they saw bodies in bed but lied in their notebookes and statements when they claiemd they saw the bodies on the floor?

I sure don't but tha tis at most what an investigator cna hope for.  If you interview them and confront them and they say Ann made a mistake that's the end of the matter. You have hit a brick wall.  If they say they lied because they wanted he truth kept a secret to see if Jeremy was the killer because he knew details not released that would again be a brick wall.  Only their admission they saw bodies in the bed and were told to lie in their notebooks and statements would mean something ad then it would require further investigating to see whether they were lying now or lying in the past.     

Jeremy supporters want to use Ann's hearsay as proof the bodies were in bed and thus were moved by police.  They have no credible evidence so want to jsut use that though at best it is merely useful for investigative purposes.

[Mr. Gee]

It says rifle to the side not between them.  So potentially the rifle could have been on Sheila's right side which means not adjacent to June.

In the meantime as Caroline pointed out we have no idea whether police actually told Ann they were on the bed or whether she just misconstrued their words as meaning on the bed. Indeed many people on this site have gotten mised up by the words far side of the bed and near side erroneously thinking that meant on the bed though it actually was referring to on the floor on each side of the bed.

It is possible the cop who told Ann misunderstood what other cops meant and erroenously thought she was on the bed but more likely is that Ann messed it up and misconstrued what they told her.

Since the error featured both women on the bed this demonstrates even more clearly that it was an honest misunderstanding.  There is no way June's body was moved out of th ebed well after her death by police.  Her blood was on the rug and other objects like the back of the door.  She was shot in bed and then again while on the floor.  Moreover she had been bleeding while standing upright- the blod staining on her dress proves it.  Then there is the blood pool on the floor from Sheila proving she was not moved hours later by police.

     

Well all we have to go on is Ann Eaton's statement whatever twist we may like to put on it to suit our own theory. Caroline was referring to a different officer, not the one who told her that Sheila was found on the bed with June. It also mentions that the Bible was on her chest and the rifle "by the sideof her" and not on top of her body. There are differences. In any case I don't think that officer spoke to Ann Eaton?

[scipio_usmc]

Well all we have to go on is Ann Eaton's statement whatever twist we may like to put on it to suit our own theory. Caroline was referring to a different officer, not the one who told her that Sheila was found on the bed with June. It also mentions that the Bible was on her chest and the rifle "by the sideof her" and not on top of her body. There are differences. In any case I don't think that officer spoke to Ann Eaton?

From an evidentiary persepctive hearsay is not admissible.  That is why it at best it can be used as a lead for further information.

The way it is a lead is you go to the person or persons who supposedly said something to someone else and follow the trail to a witness to see what the witnesses say. The testimony of a first hand witness is obviously admissible.

In this instance it leads to police to say they saw the bodies on the floor.  The hope they will say they lied in their statements and actually saw the women on the bed is a pipe dream. They will say Ann was mistaken and in fact Ann makes clear that she was subsequently informed her impression they were on the bed was wrong and she thus acknowledged she was either misinformed or misunderstood initially.

The physcial evidence proves they were not in the bed and that the claim was false as well.  So at the end of the day the trail leads no where.

But you have to follow all trials just in case.  The problem is that someone are pretending we don't know the trail was a dead end and want to pretend that it is afact they were in bed though the evidence shows otherwise. 

[Caroline]

I have just read that apparently myself, April and Susan changed our view about Jeremy from innocent to guilty because of Scipio - with respect to Scipio, (and speaking for myself) it had nothing to do with him.

[Jane]

I have just read that apparently myself, April and Susan changed our view about Jeremy from innocent to guilty because of Scipio - with respect to Scipio, (and speaking for myself) it had nothing to do with him.

Ironically -perhaps, perversely- for me, it was a gradual realization which started NOT with those who believed him guilty, but with those who believed him innocent.

[Caroline]

Ironically -perhaps, perversely- for me, it was a gradual realization which started NOT with those who believed him guilty, but with those who believed him innocent.

I agree April, I think too many myths are accepted and held onto for grim death even when it's blatant that they are myths but for me it was Jeremy himself that convinced me.

[Jane]

I agree April, I think too many myths are accepted and held onto for grim death even when it's blatant that they are myths but for me it was Jeremy himself that convinced me.

At least you can claim to have it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Trouble is, as long as people want to believe he's innocent, the myths are a very convenient crutch

[Alias]

At least you can claim to have it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Trouble is, as long as people want to believe he's innocent, the myths are a very convenient crutch

There are also myths from the opposite camp.

[Caroline]

There are also myths from the opposite camp.

I'm sure there are and I'd say the silencer is the biggest (IMO) - but even that doesn't make Jeremy innocent.

[Jane]

I'm sure there are and I'd say the silencer is the biggest - but even that doesn't make Jeremy innocent.

That's right, Caroline. Nothing I'd previously clung to was proof of his innocence. Having said that, nothing will shake my belief that Sheila was VERY badly let down OR that the wider family had anything remotely like warm feelings towards either Sheila or Jeremy.

[Alias]

I'm sure there are and I'd say the silencer is the biggest (IMO) - but even that doesn't make Jeremy innocent.

I wasn´t saying that, Caroline.

[Caroline]

I wasn´t saying that, Caroline.

I know.

[susan]

Hello girls

I changed my stance on Jeremy to one of guilty over a period of time I was influenced by harters and Caroline's posts but the doubt was already in my head and  I have spoken with others and they have more than convinced me think I was on the guilty stance before Scipio arrived but he does make some compelling points as does Adam he works very hard to provide information for which I am grateful.