Author Topic: Jeremy's court testimony:  (Read 25039 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #345 on: October 11, 2014, 02:03:PM »
They told him no such thing. West told him police were already en route get moving so they can meet you. Beating him there would result in police standing around with thei rthumbsup their butt which is what happened.





The police DID tell him not to get there before them !!

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #346 on: October 11, 2014, 02:06:PM »


Lookout, why do YOU think EP told Jeremy "Don't get there before we do"?




Because they may well have thought that someone would take a shot at him if they saw his car,as opposed to seeing their cars.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #347 on: October 11, 2014, 06:29:PM »
The police DID tell him not to get there before them !!

Post proof because to date evertyhing you have claimed ends up being wrong.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #348 on: October 11, 2014, 06:47:PM »

I entirely see your point, Jansus. The whole exercise lacked cohesion and discipline which, of itself doesn't make Jeremy innocent or guilty. It just highlights, IMO, that they cocked up.

I agree with that - but if you cant rely on police timings and statements and everyone excuses their mistakes ( why should they be excused they are professionals? Not like the police force had just been formed) then we are left with a mess to disentangle.

Join that up with the forensic handing of the case and it makes it even worse.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #349 on: October 11, 2014, 07:17:PM »
You've invented the words "get moving". You frequently distort what the police said like that.

Let's go to the video tape and see who is distorting. 

West:"Yes, I told him a unit from Witham was attending and asked him to wait there [for police]."




How did I distort?  You complain about paraphrasing that doesn't change the meaning of things.  You dishonestly suggest I am distorting wha tpolice told him when it is you who keep distorting from start to finish.

You are the one constantly attributing different meaning to statements and even run away from your own claims when they are show to be wrong.  You try to revise the meaning of your claims.

A perfect example is as plain as day you said you find Saxby more credible than Myall and Bews and said Saxby didn't put in his statement that Jeremy told them Sheila had used all the guns in the house and as a result of him not including such you believe Bews and Myall lied.

Here are your own words:

"That's in statements by Ps Bews and Pc Myall, but Pc Saxby overheard enough to give a different version of what Jeremy said at the scene (which didn't say Sheila had fired all the weapons)."

Saxby said he could not hear the entire conversation Jeremy had with them but in repsonse to whether she could use the guns in the house he said yes and said she had gone target shooting with them.
 


Your characterization that Saxby contradicted their claims is another lie from you.  You are the one intentionally misrepresenting.  He clearly stated Jeremy said she could use the guns and taregt shot with them.

Instead of being honest when confronted with evidence you double down and you continue to distort what that evidence says:

"I commented on Pc Saxby's post - it doesn't say that Jeremy told Ps Bews or Pc Myall that Sheila used all of the guns. Nor does the briefing by Ps Adams that you posted."

Saxby said Jeremy told the that she could use the guns and had used the to target shoot. Trying to pretend that doesn't amount to Jeremy saying she used the guns and was proficient with them is a big fat lie. 

Adams and Mercer also say they were told such.  Manners described a briefing given by Adams in preparation of the raid.  Adams told them, "It was understood that Sheila Caffell was capable of using these weapons and that Jeremy taught Sheila how to use the .22 rifle."  How would Adams find out Sheial could use all the weapons and Jerey taught her how to use the murder weapon unless Jeremy told such to police?  Clearly Adams was asserting to the raid team that Jeremy told them such.

This is evidence that police did not make up the claim he said such later it was said prior to the raid.

Your games just demonstrate you are a liar nothing more.

That estimate was made later, but based on erroneous arithmetic. The estimates made either when Jeremy was overtaken or shortly afterwards didn't mention 20 mph at all. In any case, the estimates tell us nothing about Jeremy's average speed prior to being overtaken.

Prove it was bad math.  The math is perfectly laid out in the statement I posted.  Prove it is wrong.

You are just ignoring it because it renders your claims impossible.  So the same way you ignore Jeremy's real claims and distort them to pretend he said he called didn't claim he called police before getting dressed and calling Julie you are doing so with this issue.

Your dishonesty is not helping you, it undermines you.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 07:32:PM by scipio_usmc »
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #350 on: October 11, 2014, 07:18:PM »
I agree with that - but if you cant rely on police timings and statements and everyone excuses their mistakes ( why should they be excused they are professionals? Not like the police force had just been formed) then we are left with a mess to disentangle.

Join that up with the forensic handing of the case and it makes it even worse.

You have presented no evidence that the police statements can't be relied on.  You just don't want to rely on them because they are so damaging to Jeremy.

The issue of some police being up to 5 minutes off form one another's timings doesn't amount to a hill of beans.  it has no significance at all. You have nothing at all to support Jeremy so are making the ABSURD argument tha tbecause police worte down times up to 5 minutes apart that is evidence that they are lying and their entire accounts must be dismissed.  Your claims are pathetic.

The only timing off significantly is off by less than 15 minutes.  That is a civilian recording the time West claled him as being 3:26 and yet West recording the time of the call he was reporting to West as having been received at 3:36. 

West admitted he likely made a mistake in recording the time eithe rby recording the time at the end of the call or simply misreading the clock.  That doesn't undermine the various police statements?

There is nothing to underine the forensic evidence either.

You jsut don't want to accept the evidence so you say you don't find it reliable but you have no evidence to underine the evidence and no rational basis to find it unreliable.  You just don't accept it because it proves Jeremy is guilty and you wish he were innocent.

You live in denial merely. 
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 07:26:PM by scipio_usmc »
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #351 on: October 11, 2014, 07:31:PM »
April this is a question I have asked as well. To me , and I don't know why, it seems to extend to the timings and errors in timings of the call, as you say Jeremys drive to the scene , the specific attempt to change the original times of Jeremys call to Julie and getting her flat mates involved and even making note of a clock there not telling the correct time either?

I also (IMO) still get the impression that there were words attributed to Jeremy that do not appear in the original logs or statements ( not that we have seen all of them) in order to " justify" their actions.

As we know from the Dickinson report there were certainly meetings that were not minuted  which gave them plenty of opportunity to form a plan.

This post just proves again your bias and ignorance.

The statements I posted where police assert Jeremy told them Sheial coudl fire all the weapons in the house and taught her how to fire the murder weapon are the orignial statements.  They are statements fromt he first couple of days of the investigation.

Your claim they made up these claims in September after they decided he was guilty are sheer nonsense. 

You either are too biased to bother to learn the truth or you know the truth but intentionally ignore it and liek reader misrepresent to avoid it.
are the early statements
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #352 on: October 11, 2014, 07:39:PM »
Scipio - Do you agree that Saxby and the other officers involved with Jeremy would have also made statements straight after the murders in August?
 Why cant we see those? or their pocket books? ,
 because I am sure you will agree that IF and note I am saying IF the police decided to ensure Jeremy was found guilty ( and the Dickinson report said they had nothing to go on except JM and the moderator), then they had plenty of time to agree on their statements and strategy . In other words the noble cause. Jeremy as a liar? After all he had no other witness with him to confirm his version does he?

I think there is one pocket book on here from one of the officers with Jeremy ( not sure which one)  that he would have written as his notes in case of any court appearance , and it does not mention any of the above.

And TRY and post without calling posters liars or dishonest - even if you think it, cant you just post your argument without doing it? I have very strong opinions about you - but I don't add it to very post. Its called control.
 





Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #353 on: October 11, 2014, 07:44:PM »
Adams and Mercer didn't clarify when the police were informed that Jeremy would also go to WHF.

The only people who would know that are Myall, Saxby and Bews since they are the ones who were told Jeremy would meet them.

HOWEVER, Adams WOULD be told what transpired and why it transpired when he was sent there.  He and his men were told that Jeremy called police and as a result police were dispatched.  He was not told anything about a call from nevill commencing the incident nor was anyone else nor are there any recrods to reflect a call from nevill to police starting the incident.  Your claims are totally mad eup from thin air.

You calim you trust Saxby more than Bews and Myall.  Saxby clearly wrote in his stateent that they were told to go to WHF because a phone call was received from Jeremy.  All your games trying to pretend it was because a call from Nevill are for naught you are just establishing you are a liar who lacks integrity.   



There is no way to pretend that this leaves the door open to having been sent as a result of Nevill's call and later being informed Jeremy would meet them.


quote author=Reader link=topic=5943.msg265420#msg265420 date=1413005316]
I commented on Pc Saxby's post - it doesn't say that Jeremy told Ps Bews or Pc Myall that Sheila used all of the guns. Nor does the briefing by Ps Adams that you posted.
Jeremy didn't say that. His use of the word "immediately" was a mistake, not a lie.
What's a "could"? If you mean "cloud", the GSR should have been found somewhere on Sheila's nightie as she received two shots from close range.
[/quote]


Saxby said he could not hear the entire conversation Jeremy had with them but in response to whether she could use the guns in the house Jeremy said yes and said she had gone target shooting with them.
 


Your characterization that Saxby didn't say Jeremy told them she could use all guns in the house and contradicted their claims is another lie from you.  You are the one intentionally misrepresenting.  He clearly stated Jeremy said she could use the guns and target shot with them which means she used them.  How do you target shoot with a gun but not fire it?

Instead of being honest when confronted with evidence you double down and you continue to distort what that evidence says.

Adams and Mercer also say they were told such.  Manners described a briefing given by Adams in preparation of the raid.  Adams told them, "It was understood that Sheila Caffell was capable of using these weapons and that Jeremy taught Sheila how to use the .22 rifle."  How would Adams find out Sheial could use all the weapons and Jerey taught her how to use the murder weapon unless Jeremy told such to police?  Clearly Adams was asserting to the raid team that Jeremy told them such.

This is evidence that police did not make up the claim he said such later it was said prior to the raid.

Your games just demonstrate you are a liar nothing more
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #354 on: October 11, 2014, 07:50:PM »
Scipio - Do you agree that Saxby and the other officers involved with Jeremy would have also made statements straight after the murders in August?
 Why cant we see those? or their pocket books? ,
 because I am sure you will agree that IF and note I am saying IF the police decided to ensure Jeremy was found guilty ( and the Dickinson report said they had nothing to go on except JM and the moderator), then they had plenty of time to agree on their statements and strategy . In other words the noble cause. Jeremy as a liar? After all he had no other witness with him to confirm his version does he?

I think there is one pocket book on here from one of the officers with Jeremy ( not sure which one)  that he would have written as his notes in case of any court appearance , and it does not mention any of the above.

And TRY and post without calling posters liars or dishonest - even if you think it, cant you just post your argument without doing it? I have very strong opinions about you - but I don't add it to very post. Its called control.

We have seen their pocketbooks and statements they made in August.  I am quoting from such statements. 

Just because the defense has not chosen to post copies of all documents in their possession on here doesn't mean the defense doesn't have oher documents. 

You have no evidence at all to suggest police wrongdoing in this case or that Jeremy is innocent.  You just make unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing to justify refusing to believe he is guilty and to reject the evidence.

All that does is explain your basis for refusing to face his guilt it doesn't establish his innocence which is what is required to convince rational objective people and mor eimportantly is required to secure his freedom. 

 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #355 on: October 11, 2014, 08:50:PM »
We have seen their pocketbooks and statements they made in August.  I am quoting from such statements. 

Just because the defense has not chosen to post copies of all documents in their possession on here doesn't mean the defense doesn't have oher documents. 

You have no evidence at all to suggest police wrongdoing in this case or that Jeremy is innocent.  You just make unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing to justify refusing to believe he is guilty and to reject the evidence.

All that does is explain your basis for refusing to face his guilt it doesn't establish his innocence which is what is required to convince rational objective people and mor eimportantly is required to secure his freedom.

I hate to tell you that is my prerogative  as it is yours to be biased to his guilt and therefore ignore all other possibilities .

 I was asking you a polite question and you could not help being personal in your reply ( as per usual)
You are just incapable of being polite.
 

Offline Jan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10318
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #356 on: October 11, 2014, 09:25:PM »
just read bews note book . nothing about Sheila doing target practice for a start . or calling her a nutter or handling all the guns.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #357 on: October 11, 2014, 09:27:PM »
I hate to tell you that is my prerogative  as it is yours to be biased to his guilt and therefore ignore all other possibilities .

 I was asking you a polite question and you could not help being personal in your reply ( as per usual)
You are just incapable of being polite.

I am not biased to his guilt.  I rationally follow th eevidence hwer eit leads I have no bias.

You in contrast refuse to follow the evidence and instead reject all evidence estbalishing his guilt for the simply reason you don't want to believe he is guilty not because there is anything to refute it.  You also spin the evidence for the same purpose.



Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #358 on: October 11, 2014, 09:31:PM »
Jeeze--------listen to Pinocchio." I have no bias ! Not much you don't,it's your middle name.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: Jeremy's court testimony:
« Reply #359 on: October 11, 2014, 09:40:PM »
just read bews note book . nothing about Sheila doing target practice for a start . or calling her a nutter or handling all the guns.

His notebook is not to record the minor details in.  They write down the basics just.  In contrast the statment he wrote out was to record the main details.  You change the bar always.  You said sia dit was not in his first statement but it was so you now want to only fogo by whatever is in the notebook.

Your pretense as looking a tth ematte rraitonally is no more credible than reader's claim.

You just don't want to accept the evidence do irraitonally refuse to accept it.  You have no rational basis to refute the evidence or undermine it. 

Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry