Jeremy's court testimony:

[scipio_usmc]

there is a new programme on here called 24 hours in custody. Some interviewees say nothing but - No comment.

I don't think we can assume too much from the interviews .

It could be taken that he was cocky and arrogant because he was guilty and thought he had got away with it  - or in a similar vein because he was innocent he though the police were totally stupid even thinking it was him and thought they had nothing to go on. If I thought the police were trying to entrap me by confusion on some aspects that I could not entirely remember I too would use the no comment angle - after all it is your right to do so.

But Jeremy didn't simply say no comment and refuse to discuss things.  In contrast he went on record and made claims that were established to be false.  He contradicted himself a number of times thus in the process setting up the question "were you lying then or are you lying now".  They never asked that directly they just implied it and anytime he was caught in a lie or contradiciton he would clam up and say no comment.  The context of the no comment is critical.

He went on record saying he coudl not recall the last time he used the gun it had been at least a week to fortnight prior.  Hours later he forgot he said that and made up using it repeatedly to prevent Anthony from being the last known user of the gun and making up the nonsense that Nevill and him both used it daily with Nevill taking the moderator and scope off frequently.

You are biased in favor of Jeremy so pretend he didn't lie or contradict himself but to an objective party his contradictions and lies were obvious and quite harmful.   

[lookout]

 Just imagine it. You've worked a full day in the fields,go home,put dozens of jumpers on,pedal like mad to WHF via the sea-wall/fields,break into the farmhouse,grab the rifle,struggle with your father,pump him and everyone else with bullets,coax Sheila to lie down and be shot,job done,go out via the window,pedal like Hell back,phone the police ( who thankfully at that stage tell Jeremy not to get to WHF before them,drive slowly behind them while you're getting your breath back ),no signs of exhaustion,nerves,tiredness at this stage because he's Superman,then face hours of questioning without falling asleep.

I bet he drinks Carling Black Label !!

Too good to be true ? Because that's exactly what it is !

BTW,was the bicycle seat highered after June or Julie had used it ? Was it checked for that too as well as mud and blood ?

[scipio_usmc]

So why do you think he changed his story to one where he said that he had never seen Sheila use a gun?

As I said before because either (or a combination) of the following:

1) he forgot the lie he told previously which was directed at the police at the scene to make them scared of Sheila and to believe she did it when they found the bodies and thus told the truth

2) he knew what the family said and decided to tell the truth to comport with their claims so police would not get suspicious and relaize he was lying to them

Why did he say he called Julie first during his interrogation?  He forgot the lie he told previously.  Once police seized upon it and he though about it he relaized it was harmful to his posiiton to admit he called Sheila first so he could not remember well and made a mistake and said he was deferring to whatever he wrote in his original statement because he could not remmber the order.

That is the problem when you lie.  You usually can't remember the lies you told unless you carefully plot out your lies and decide to memorize such as your position.

I will give an example take 2 fake miliary vets.

On one hand you have peopel who make up claims as they go and they keep contradicting themselves in the porcess.  A guy on the history channel told stories about being part of an elite Navy helicoper unit tha tperformed search and rescue missions.  He previously said he did medevac and other operations. Such operations were not performed by the elite unit he claimed ot be part of.

He also made up stories about being shot down 4 times.  The unit didn't lose 4 helicopters though to hostile fire. He also gave breakdowns of when and where he supposedly trained and served.  He would forget the lies he told previously and make up contradictory claims.  So he simultaneously was laid up in a hospital, hunted subs in the Pacific, was performing medevac and performing S&R missions.  '

Contrast that with someone who instead crafted a tale which was consistent.  He made up a story and stuck by it and he used the same story.  The same story, the same dates.  It took extremely specialized military knowledge of where units were stationed and operating in Iraq to prove some of his claims to be inaccurate.

Usually you catch people in lies both as a result of establishing their claims are false as well as because they tell so many stories they contradict themselves.   It is rare to come across a liar who takes the time to truly make up a story they stick to even after much scrutiny because it takes really good planning to make up a story that doesn't need to change and discipline to stay in character always with everyone.

 
 

[guest154]

^ I'd go with number two. He realised that the family were of course going to tell the truth and his story wouldn't fit in with that so he changed to fit in with them.

[Mr. Gee]

Just imagine it. You've worked a full day in the fields,go home,put dozens of jumpers on,pedal like mad to WHF via the sea-wall/fields,break into the farmhouse,grab the rifle,struggle with your father,pump him and everyone else with bullets,coax Sheila to lie down and be shot,job done,go out via the window,pedal like Hell back,phone the police ( who thankfully at that stage tell Jeremy not to get to WHF before them,drive slowly behind them while you're getting your breath back ),no signs of exhaustion,nerves,tiredness at this stage because he's Superman,then face hours of questioning without falling asleep.

I bet he drinks Carling Black Label !!

Too good to be true ? Because that's exactly what it is !

BTW,was the bicycle seat highered after June or Julie had used it ? Was it checked for that too as well as mud and blood ?

Hi lookout we must remember that with all of the statements presented to the court we are dealing with people's "memories". Some interpret these "inconsistences" as lies. But in the absence of full knowledge of the facts, which do appear the be few and far between in regard to everybody's statements (this is common sense as I doubt very much that any of us could remember every single thing that we did yesterday, let alone several weeks back) we cannot really put together a clearcut story. That and the fact that none of us were there that night, so the knowledge that we do have is I should think largely assumption? Added to that the fact that people do actually lie under oath and we have no way of knowing who has lied? We must very largely rely upon a gut feeling, even those who whilst they are adamant that they rely "only" upon the facts also do I suspect?

[nugnug]

well nobodys story completly adds up but then nobodys would.

[scipio_usmc]

Hi lookout we must remember that with all of the statements presented to the court we are dealing with people's "memories". Some interpret these "inconsistences" as lies. But in the absence of full knowledge of the facts, which do appear the be few and far between in regard to everybody's statements (this is common sense as I doubt very much that any of us could remember every single thing that we did yesterday, let alone several weeks back) we cannot really put together a clearcut story. That and the fact that none of us were there that night, so the knowledge that we do have is I should think largely assumption? Added to that the fact that people do actually lie under oath and we have no way of knowing who has lied? We must very largely rely upon a gut feeling, even those who whilst they are adamant that they rely "only" upon the facts also do I suspect?

I rely on facts.

Fact Jeremy claimed He called Julie after claling police.

Fact Jerey slipped during his interrogation and admitted he called Julie first but then said he made a mistake and could not rememebr the order in which things happened or times and deferred to the times in his original statement.

Fact there is evidence that proves Jeremy called Julie first and thus lied to police in the day of the murders.  Things shoudl have been fresh to him the same day they happened.

The fact he called Julie first and in fact as all is evne more damaging than the fact he later lied about the order.  He had no valid reason for calling her at all let alone first.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence against Jeremy some peopel biase din his favor jsut don't want to face it but can't refute it so simply pretend it doesn't exist or deny it proves anything though they can't actually establish it doesn't prove anything.

[Jan]

But Jeremy didn't simply say no comment and refuse to discuss things.  In contrast he went on record and made claims that were established to be false.  He contradicted himself a number of times thus in the process setting up the question "were you lying then or are you lying now".  They never asked that directly they just implied it and anytime he was caught in a lie or contradiciton he would clam up and say no comment.  The context of the no comment is critical.

He went on record saying he coudl not recall the last time he used the gun it had been at least a week to fortnight prior.  Hours later he forgot he said that and made up using it repeatedly to prevent Anthony from being the last known user of the gun and making up the nonsense that Nevill and him both used it daily with Nevill taking the moderator and scope off frequently.

You are biased in favor of Jeremy so pretend he didn't lie or contradict himself but to an objective party his contradictions and lies were obvious and quite harmful.   

Ok I am biased -get over it.

You are biased to his guilt and wont even accept the possibility that policemen tell lies sometimes.

it happens!

[nugnug]

Hi lookout we must remember that with all of the statements presented to the court we are dealing with people's "memories". Some interpret these "inconsistences" as lies. But in the absence of full knowledge of the facts, which do appear the be few and far between in regard to everybody's statements (this is common sense as I doubt very much that any of us could remember every single thing that we did yesterday, let alone several weeks back) we cannot really put together a clearcut story. That and the fact that none of us were there that night, so the knowledge that we do have is I should think largely assumption? Added to that the fact that people do actually lie under oath and we have no way of knowing who has lied? We must very largely rely upon a gut feeling, even those who whilst they are adamant that they rely "only" upon the facts also do I suspect?

a lot of people dont take memory into acount nobody has perfect memory.

[Reader]

I rely on facts.

No, you usually rely on your opinions. Often based on statements considered out of context, misquoted statements, etc.

Fact Jeremy claimed he called Julie after calling police.

In his initial statement, he said called Julie at about 3:25, which meant before calling the police, not after.

Fact Jeremy slipped during his interrogation and admitted he called Julie first

No, he said he called Julie first, but then admitted he wasn't sure, but that his initial statement would have been correct. In that statement, he said he called her at 3:25, which meant before calling the police.

Fact there is evidence that proves Jeremy called Julie first and thus lied to police in the day of the murders.

He called Julie first and didn't contradict that on the day of the murders.

he later lied about the order

No, he didn't.

He had no valid reason for calling her at all let alone first.

So he couldn't have been trying to establish an alibi, as that would have been a valid reason. Another valid reason was to obtain advice as to what to do.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence against Jeremy/quote]
You seem to think it couldn't have been Sheila due to lack of GSR (amongst other things). How come no GSR was left on her or her nightie related to the contact or near-contact shots that killed her?

[scipio_usmc]

Ok I am biased -get over it.

You are biased to his guilt and wont even accept the possibility that policemen tell lies sometimes.

it happens!

I am not biased to his guilt.  I followed the evidence where it leads.

You in contrast decided you want to believe him no matter how ridiculous his claims might be and to reject all evidence proving his guilt not because you can refute such evidence but rather for the simple reason you want to believe he is innocent.

As for police lying they occasionally do but in documented cases of that happening we have evidence to estbalish it.  It is not enough to say we should not believe the police because they potentially could lie and ludicrous to suggest they all lied and not only lied but doctored evidence.

Doctoring evidence requires proof as well but there is not a shred of evidence to establish doctoring occurred.

You reject the evidence not because there is any valid reason to reject it.  You just don't want to face it because you don't want to believe Jerey is guilty.  That is denial. 

[Adam]

Jeremy's supporters do just seem to be fire fighting all the time.

Making excuses for him and trying to show everything which shows certain guilt is wrong, or lies. Or that Jeremy was confused, mis quoted or the police deliberately wrote down wrong information.

Nothing new has come up from the Jeremy camp for months. Showing how Sheila actually committed this massacre. But if it wasn't Sheila....

[Adam]

Even this thread Jansus and Patti immediately set about justifying what Jeremy testified in court on page 1.

What he says doesn't do him any favours. But does not make him a murderer.  Everyone just has to accept he said it, so it is true. 

[Adam]

He said he was experienced with guns. And had no difficulty using the murder weapon.

Sheila had limited experience with guns. 

There were fostering conversations on the night. Sheila was silent and not paying attention.

He denied cycling to WHF to commit the massacre.

He had been unfair in using Julie for emotional support and bringing her to WHF on the massacre morning.

His relationship with June was poor. They would antagonise each other. There was a lack of understanding.

When his phone was answered 'it was dad'. Jeremy started crying.

He said the call to Chelmsford police station lasted 5 minutes.

He said he rang Julie at 3am for 'a friendly ear'.

He drove so slowly to WHF as he did not want to arrive  before the police.

He said he knew how to get in and out of the bathroom window at WHF.

He said he saw Sheila punch the twins. Once.

He robbed the caravan site to show security problems. But admitted he should not have spent the money. He did so out of greed.

He agreed with Mary Mugfords testimony about his poor relationship with June.

He said James Richards and everyone lied about him. Because of the way the media had portrayed him.

He liked the good things in life. And had read the wills which tied him to the farm to inherit.

He should not have left the gun lying around and it would have taken seconds to put away. He had been 'lackadaisical' saying 'I didn't know what was going to happen, did I ?'.

Accused of lying he said 'that is what you have to establish'.

As more pressure was put on, his answers became shorter - don't know, can't pin myself, I can't answer.

It did not enter his head to dial 999.

The relationship with Julie had been in decline since Xmas 84. He had been unfaithful before, which Julie knew about. He ended the relationship in a restaraunt.

He had spent freely after the massacre and drank champagne on the funeral evening.

[Adam]

Oh dear. Where shall I start ?