Point 16:
Judges summing up. His main points
Did the jury believe Julie or Jeremy ?
Did Jeremy mention Matthew Mcdonald as a cover up ?
Both Jeremy & Julie had committed recent crimes. That does not mean either lied in court in this trial. Julie had paid back the money she stole.
Jeremy trusted Julie to help him commit a crime at the caravan site. Did he trust her enough to confide in the murders ?
The jury should ignore the media.
Every witness in the trial is equal.
Did the mysterious phone call from Neville happen ?
Could Mugford have lied under oath for nearly two days ?
Did Mugford's testimony have a ring of truth ?
The prosecution claim to have an overwhelming case even without the silencer evidence. The judge told the jury to disregard this comment & review all evidence.
Red paint on silencer shows it was on during kitchen fight. Jeremy said the gun was left that night without a silencer on. Why would Sheila put a silencer on the gun & did she know how to do this ?
Why would Sheila take the silencer off the gun & put it away, rather than throw it on the floor ?
There was overwhelming evidence it was Sheila's blood on the silencer.
Police mistakes not relevant. Part of the reason for the mistakes early on was because they had been lead in that direction.
Jeremy had a financial motive to commit the crime.
Jeremy said he had used the found hacksaw to gain access to WHF after the murders to get documentation. Was this correct or had he gained entry on the murder night ?
The bicycle had dried mud on the wheels according to Robert Boutflour. Jeremy said his relationship with Julie was coming to a close in August. Why was the bike brought to the cottage just before the murders ?
Both the defence & prosecution agree the silencer was fitted for most of the time the crime was taking place.
Mugford was questioned at lenght & in detail. She stuck to her story under cross examination. The defence complained about her crying. But that could be a sign of weakness the defence could have exploited. Were the defence really complaining because she did not change her story ?
If Mugford was called at 3:12 by Jeremy & the police st 3:26 it badly undermines Jeremys version of events.
If Neville called at 3.26, he had no face wounds. The police arrived at WHF at 3.48 & never heard any shots. Sheila must have fought Neville, perhaps shot other people, washed, unscrewed & put the silencer away & then shot herself. In 22 minutes.
Colin Caffell testified that Jeremy said Neville sounded wounded on the phone. However in court Jeremy said he thought it might have just sounded terrified. The judge said Jeremy should remember.
Dr Ferguson had testified that Sheila had never shown physical violence to other people. Others testified she was attached to her father & loving towards her sons.
Dr Bradley testified that people with no history of violence can become violent.
The judge mentioned the supper when fostering was mentioned. Jeremy said Sheila was non responsive. Therefore this cannot be used as a reason why Sheila could have committed the crimes.
The judge said it was 'very very' unlikely Sheila could overcome Neville in a fight & not have any marks. Jeremy was not examined for a long time & would have had time to clean up on the night.
The judge asked could Sheila load a gun ?
The judge said there is no doubt the silencer was on the rifle in the kitchen fight. It is not credible that Sheila would then put it back in the gun cupboard.
The judge said the blood found in the silencer was specific to Sheila. There was a remote possibility of it being a mixture of Neville & Junes.
The crime was committed by Sheila or Jeremy. There was no possible third party.
