Rational thought because her testimony consists of her alleged private conversations between her and Bamber alone must look for evidence to back up her claims. There are none. Rather there is a very strong likehood that her terstimony was a tissue of lies. Why do I say that although I have stressed it many times before? Because there is a very strong case that her testimony was born out of powerful evidence that she was a woman scorned.
In a "he said, she said' you have to look at everything involved to assess who is the one who is lying including looking at who has a reason to lie and who doesn't.
What evidence favors Julie telling the truth? For starters:
1) Evidence proving Sheila didn't kill herself or anyone else
2) Jeremy calling Julie before police
3) The fact Nevill's alleged call doesn't make sense and worse doesn't fit into the way the crime went down, the initial event was the parents being shot in the bedroom
4) Police observing Jeremy going in through windows thus confirming she had told he about doing so
5) Evidence that Jeremy staged bullets after the murders in support of his story
6) That if she wanted to just make up a story framing him she would not have made up the claim of a hitman and certainly would not have identified a person who would be able to prove her claims untrue thus would ruin the entire lie she was trying to tell
7) For Jeremy's phone call claims to be true someone had to cleverly decided to hang up the phone, leave it hung up long enough for Jeremy to hang up then to take it off the hook so no one else could call. Not to drop the phone and just leave it there forcing Jeremy to hang up and wait several minutes for the line to clear but rather to hang up the phone, give Jeremy time to hang up the phone so the call ended then take it back off the hook. Who would do that? A crazy Sheila would just make Nevill drop the phone. Why would a crazy Sheila be worried about someone calling the house?
These are not the only things just the most significant. there were various things she told that had some corroboration like she said he planned to use a bike and took June's bike right before the murders to his house. But there is no need to discuss all these little details.
What supports Jeremy's claim that Sheila was lying? All he could come up with as a motive for her lying is that she was scorned and wanted ill will done to him. But she didn't go running to police the police went to her after she told a friend the story. Worse if she were going to make up a story to hurt him she would simply have said he confessed he committed the murders himself not make up the hitman story.
We already know he failed to dent the evidence establishing Sheila didn't do anything and had no raitonal explanation for why he called Julie before police etc so nothing to rebut the main evidence that supports Julie's assertions that he did it.
You choose to ignore the evidence and just believe he is innocent and was framed and she lied but you have nothing at all to establish she lied or that he was framed. I'm still waiting for a defender to come up with a good explanation for the phone being taken off the hook and how the phone being taken off the hook and the alleged call by Nevill fit into the known sequence of events which is the killer sneaking into the master bedroom where June was killed and Nevill injured, then the confrontation in the kitchen then after that the kids and Sheila were killed. It is pretty obvious the call would have to have predated the shooting int he bedroom but if that is the case how did both parents end up in the bedroom with June still in bed and hung up the phone then shortly thereafter took it off the hook and why? Why call Jeremy instead of handling the matter himself? These questions are important ones to answer in order for Jeremy's claims to be possible.
