submit questions for the Essex Police Challenge

[guest154]

Mat, I clung to that one for YONKS, even looking at it differently when I visited!!! There is NOTHING there to support such wild AND FALSE allegations. I think a HUGE disservice has been done them.

I can imagine, I bet it gave it an eerie feeling.
I'll tell you what almost got me last year. I can't 100% remember what the argument was, but it had to do with exhibit numbers - and I believe it was to do with the silencer. The argument presented here had been well written, thought out - and the correct documents produced to make the silencer LOOK very dodgy, and it stick in my mind and made me doubt my beliefs for  a long time.
And then Scip saw it this year and exposed it COMPLETELY. I was annoyed at myself for being taken in.

I didn't fall for that one! Only because there was never any reference to it in any docs.

That was my downfall, it was mentioned SO many times that I assumed it was from a document and I never checked up on it, never asked.

[Jane]

As a matter of interest,I take it that you're all 100% sure of Jeremy's guilt ? Yes ?

Well, whilst I'm not as close to believing him guilty as I believe you are to believing him innocent, I'm convinced enough.

[guest154]

As a matter of interest,I take it that you're all 100% sure of Jeremy's guilt ? Yes ?

For him to be innocent, the conspiracy would have to be too big. It would have nedded to start outside the farmhouse on the night - when there was no reason for it too. It would need to involve too many people.

[Jane]

For him to be innocent, the conspiracy would have to be too big. It would have nedded to start outside the farmhouse on the night - when there was no reason for it too. It would need to involve too many people.

Mat, part of my turning point MAY have been that I was starting to experience a conspiracy too far. IE, in order for Jeremy to be innocent TOO many individuals had to be bought into the equation and doing such seemed to make less and less sense.

[lookout]

I thought yu said Jeremy had new evidence? 

He has indeed,as well as the prospect of another avenue of evidence,which at this stage I can't mention.

[Caroline]

He has indeed,as well as the prospect of another avenue of evidence,which at this stage I can't mention.

I don't really want to know Lookout - I've heard it all before!!   

[guest154]

He has indeed,as well as the prospect of another avenue of evidence,which at this stage I can't mention.

Well shame on whoever told you.

[lookout]

 Where's this " conspiracy " coming from ?

[guest2181]

I can imagine, I bet it gave it an eerie feeling.
I'll tell you what almost got me last year. I can't 100% remember what the argument was, but it had to do with exhibit numbers - and I believe it was to do with the silencer. The argument presented here had been well written, thought out - and the correct documents produced to make the silencer LOOK very dodgy, and it stick in my mind and made me doubt my beliefs for  a long time.
And then Scip saw it this year and exposed it COMPLETELY. I was annoyed at myself for being taken in.

Hmph!!!!! Has Scip been regurgitating my old posts again? 

exhibit references include the initials of the person who discovered the exhibit. It was mistakenly identified as SBJ/1 in reference to 'Stanley Brian Jones'. This error was then corrected as Jones did not discover the exhibit, David Boutflour did, so the reference DB/1 was applied. It was later discovered that there would be a clash of references as the police officer David Bird had already used 'DB' to signify exhibits discovered or produced by him. So it was eventually decided that they would use 'DRB' for David Boutflours exhibits with the 'R' representing his middle name Robert.

That is the reasoning behind the changes in exhibit reference given by the police, it is documented very well in witness statements taken around 1991 as part of the COLP investigation.

[guest154]

Hmph!!!!! Has Scip been regurgitating my old posts again? 

Yes, that's what I was talking about actually. 

[lookout]

I don't really want to know Lookout - I've heard it all before!!   

Caroline,this is something you ain't heard.Sorry to burst your bubble.

[guest2181]

Caroline,this is something you ain't heard.Sorry to burst your bubble.

POP!

[Jane]

Caroline,this is something you ain't heard.Sorry to burst your bubble.

Lookout, if THIS one goes pear shaped. I think that YOU may feel more despondent than Jeremy about it

[lookout]

POP!

Skit as much as you like,it won't bother me.

[scipio_usmc]

How is anyone supposed to produce any evidence at all when they're innocent ? It's impossible !

If someone is innocent then the evidence used against them can be taken apart like has been done in the Knox case.  If he were innocent then the evidence would support the things he claimed such as the numer of bullets in the kitchen would not be too many for his story to be true.  Sheila would have had GSR and spatter on her indicating she shot the victims.  The moderator would not have been put away to conceal that it had been used.  Julie would not have testified that he had been planning the murders for a long time and admitted to being responsible.  He would not have called Julie at all let alone before police had Nevill actually called as he claimed. The first shots fired parents would not have featured both parents shot together in the master bedroom had Nevill actually called Jeremy as claimed, Sheila would have shot him while he was on the phone.

If he were innocent there would be evidence that Sheila did it instead of evidence that he framed Sheila for it.