The reason the police framed Jeremy ?

[scipio_usmc]

All speculation on your part as there is no evidence either way to prove or disprove a telephone call was made or not made. You can offer this up as speculation, but not as proven evidence.

Evidence of whether a call actually occurred is:

1) whether Nevill had motive to call Jeremy
2) whether Nevill had the opportunity to call Jeremy
3) whether Jeremy's actions were consistent with someone receiving such a call
4) any other evidence that speaks to the issue such as Julie's testimony Jeremy told her in advance as part of his plan he was making such a call up to support his claims

Did Nevill have motive to call Jeremy?  No.  The evidence proves Sheila can't have shot anyone but rather someone else shot her and everyone else so that means he had no reason to call Jeremy and claim she had a gun. 

Even if Sheila did have a gun there would be no reason for Nevill to call Jeremy.  Jeremy could not have calmed her down and had no ability to physically disarm her from far away.  Nevill had the ability to disarm her in contrast and need plus was stronger than her or Jeremy. He also had access to guns, kinvies and other wepaons he coudl have used to confront her.  If too scared to confront her he would have dialed 999 not calle dhis son's answering machine.  That is another problem Jeremy would not have been able to reach the phone even if he had woken up, the answering machien woudl have picked up.

Nevill not only had no motive to call Jeremy and tell him that Sheila had a gun he also had no opportunity.  The killer walked into the bedroom and shot both Nevill and June before they could do anything. There was no phone so no way Nevill could have called Jeremy before any shooting started.

Jeremy's actions are totally inconsistent with someone receiving such a clal and he evne had to lie and say he claled police before Julie to try to pretend his actions were somewhat consistent with how someone in his place would act.

Everything supports Julie's claim that he told her in advance he planned to pretend he received a call from WHF.

While you say this is not evidence rational people who actually understand what evidence is disagree.

[Mr. Gee]

Evidence of whether a call actually occurred is:

1) whether Nevill had motive to call Jeremy
2) whether Nevill had the opportunity to call Jeremy
3) whether Jeremy's actions were consistent with someone receiving such a call
4) any other evidence that speaks to the issue such as Julie's testimony Jeremy told her in advance as part of his plan he was making such a call up to support his claims

Did Nevill have motive to call Jeremy?  No.  The evidence proves Sheila can't have shot anyone but rather someone else shot her and everyone else so that means he had no reason to call Jeremy and claim she had a gun. 

Even if Sheila did have a gun there would be no reason for Nevill to call Jeremy.  Jeremy could not have calmed her down and had no ability to physically disarm her from far away.  Nevill had the ability to disarm her in contrast and need plus was stronger than her or Jeremy. He also had access to guns, kinvies and other wepaons he coudl have used to confront her.  If too scared to confront her he would have dialed 999 not calle dhis son's answering machine.  That is another problem Jeremy would not have been able to reach the phone even if he had woken up, the answering machien woudl have picked up.

Nevill not only had no motive to call Jeremy and tell him that Sheila had a gun he also had no opportunity.  The killer walked into the bedroom and shot both Nevill and June before they could do anything. There was no phone so no way Nevill could have called Jeremy before any shooting started.

Jeremy's actions are totally inconsistent with someone receiving such a clal and he evne had to lie and say he claled police before Julie to try to pretend his actions were somewhat consistent with how someone in his place would act.

Everything supports Julie's claim that he told her in advance he planned to pretend he received a call from WHF.

While you say this is not evidence rational people who actually understand what evidence is disagree.

Unfortunately as usual you are jst expanding on your own speculative BS scipio. No matter how you dress it up it is still only speculation. Reasons made up by yourself and nothing more. Questions based entirely upon what you yourself think to be reasonable or unreasonable. Not upon the truth, just upon what you yourself perceive to be true?

[lookout]

How have I distorted ngb's claim? You have just confirmed what I said word for word. On the contrary you have tried to put words into my mouth by saying I have claimed there are 40 boxed of evidence. I have never said any such thing. I have just told you in the most honest words possible (I know that you are unfamiliar with the word honesty) what I though ngb said and indeed you yourself have just confirmed those words.

Mr G,he's taking the p*ss out of everyone. Nobody can be that stupid---------------can they ??

[Mr. Gee]

Mr G,he's taking the p*ss out of everyone. Nobody can be that stupid---------------can they ??

No not stupid, just a wise guy who has convinced himself that he is the only one who has the truth. Unfortunately it is only happening in his own vain mind.

[lookout]

No not stupid, just a wise guy who has convinced himself that he is the only one who has the truth. Unfortunately it is only happening in his own vain mind.

Mr Pedantic.

[scipio_usmc]

How have I distorted ngb's claim? You have just confirmed what I said word for word. On the contrary you have tried to put words into my mouth by saying I have claimed there are 40 boxed of evidence. I have never said any such thing. I have just told you in the most honest words possible (I know that you are unfamiliar with the word honesty) what I though ngb said and indeed you yourself have just confirmed those words.

He didn't say anything about the CCRC requesting documents but being denied access.  He said the CCRC didn't request documents it could have demanded.

When documents are withheld because a privilege is claimed there is a log made that details generally what is being withheld.  Vague descriptions of what is withheld.  PII requires a court order int he first place to deal something under pII.

You and others carrying on about it don't even seem to understand what PII is:

   
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/police/public-interest-immunity.htm

If there is a PII court order the defense shoudl be able to publish the decision and reference it.

I haven't seen any such order.  Just alot of unsubstantiated claims about 200 boxes being withheld from the defense under PII.

You are the one who said I should ask for proof and evidence so where is your proof and evidenc eabout PII or is it just another situaiton where you just run with allegations form Mike et all and don't actually require any of it to be factual based?

[scipio_usmc]

Mr G,he's taking the p*ss out of everyone. Nobody can be that stupid---------------can they ??

If I am so stupid then post evidence of precisely what is being withheld und er Pii court order and produce a copy of the order.

That should be easy enough to do if your claims on such were actually true but 99% of claims made in support of Jeremy don't hold up to scrutiny and end up being false.

[lookout]

If I am so stupid then post evidence of precisely what is being withheld und er Pii court order and produce a copy of the order.

That should be easy enough to do if your claims on such were actually true but 99% of claims made in support of Jeremy don't hold up to scrutiny and end up being false.

I'm telling you nothing,pal !

[scipio_usmc]

Unfortunately as usual you are jst expanding on your own speculative BS scipio. No matter how you dress it up it is still only speculation. Reasons made up by yourself and nothing more. Questions based entirely upon what you yourself think to be reasonable or unreasonable. Not upon the truth, just upon what you yourself perceive to be true?

That is the evidence and how it is looked at by raitonal people.  You always view things the complete opposite of reality so naturally you look at it the complete opposite of how rational people and the law does.  WHat matters is how the law and raitonal people look at it though.

Your BS changes nothign it just makes you a fool

[scipio_usmc]

I'm telling you nothing,pal !

That's because ther eis nothign to tell.  You don't know any facts at all just the bogus allegations made by Jeremy supporters which you always run with.

You have not bothered to actually look at the evidence and anytime the evidence is discussed you run from it.

[lookout]

That's because ther eis nothign to tell.  You don't know any facts at all just the bogus allegations made by Jeremy supporters which you always run with.

You have not bothered to actually look at the evidence and anytime the evidence is discussed you run from it.

That's where you're wrong again.There's plenty to tell.

[Jan]

That is the evidence and how it is looked at by raitonal people.  You always view things the complete opposite of reality so naturally you look at it the complete opposite of how rational people and the law does.  WHat matters is how the law and raitonal people look at it though.

Your BS changes nothign it just makes you a fool

personal posts again.

what are you so scared of?

[scipio_usmc]

personal posts again.

what are you so scared of?

What could I have to be scared of?

I merely state fact, lookign at the evidence raitonally there is only one conclusion- Jeremy is guilty as sin.

You and others are scared of the truth for some reaosn and keep ignoring the evidence and making up wild tales of misconduct to try to say that the evidence should be ignored because of some other alleged misconduct that has nothing to do with the evidence that matters.

[lookout]

I'm NEVER scared of the truth at any time and am always up-front with everyone no matter who it is because I've absolutely NOTHING to hide whatsoever.

On the contrary,it's YOU who appears to be the " nervous poster " among us,and for that,my suspicion about YOU,grows !!

[Jan]

What could I have to be scared of?

I merely state fact, lookign at the evidence raitonally there is only one conclusion- Jeremy is guilty as sin.

You and others are scared of the truth for some reaosn and keep ignoring the evidence and making up wild tales of misconduct to try to say that the evidence should be ignored because of some other alleged misconduct that has nothing to do with the evidence that matters.

Then go and take your ego and use your "skills" on someone who needs it.

stop wasting your time with us.