Another Freudian Slip?

[Adam]

It matters Adam because the point is being made as a distraction. Neither Gringo, Reader or Jon, have given any consideration to the original question which was why would Jeremy imagine that Sheila might be trying to lure him to WHF to 'shoot him too' if at the point of the alleged call, he didn't know that anyone had been shot?

Why would Jeremy think Sheila was trying to lure him to WHF ?

It was Neville who made the call. With the call suddenly going dead.

If Sheila wanted to lure Jeremy, she would either ring him herself, or instruct Neville to ring him, without mentioning the words 'crazy' and 'gun'.

[gringo]

It matters Adam because the point is being made as a distraction. Neither Gringo, Reader or Jon, have given any consideration to the original question which was why would Jeremy imagine that Sheila might be trying to lure him to WHF to 'shoot him too' if at the point of the alleged call, he didn't know that anyone had been shot?

  The original question is based on a bit of gossip off Ann Eaton so your first question should really be asking whether or not the allegation has any credibility. Jon alluded to this but you dismissed his question as irrelevant.
    If you yourself believe that Ann Eaton is capable of telling untruths then how is Jon's question irrelevant.
    Before discussing why Jeremy thought that "he would be shot too", shouldn't we first establish that he actually said those words.

[Jan]

I think that the quote came from AE - so the question about whether we believe all her statements is relevant - because we are attributing the apparent slip to what she is relaying was said. So if she is capable of telling lies how much credence can we attach to this apparent slip up?

Secondly I think it is interesting about the pictures because the level of the top of the sock with the bottom oh her nightdress and the `bottom of the rug is clearly different.

this would tie up with the two officers who said her head was in a different position when they saw her. Because if she had been pulled downwards  to take some of the shots her head may have been moved.

Now if that is true , those two officers also said the gun and bible were in a different position so perhaps their statement does have (to quote those immortal words ) a ring of truth about it.

[Adam]

  The original question is based on a bit of gossip off Ann Eaton so your first question should really be asking whether or not the allegation has any credibility. Jon alluded to this but you dismissed his question as irrelevant.
    If you yourself believe that Ann Eaton is capable of telling untruths then how is Jon's question irrelevant.
    Before discussing why Jeremy thought that "he would be shot too", shouldn't we first establish that he actually said those words.

Is it in AE's WS ? If it is we have to assume he said it. Unless Jeremy is on record saying it is wrong. People are allowed to say AE is lying. Of which there is no proof.

The only way to know 100% is if there is a tape recording of the conversation. There isn't.

It's a fact Jeremy made no attempt to enter WHF after receiving Neville's call. Supporting AE's claim.

[Caroline]

I think that the quote came from AE - so the question about whether we believe all her statements is relevant - because we are attributing the apparent slip to what she is relaying was said. So if she is capable of telling lies how much credence can we attach to this apparent slip up?

Secondly I think it is interesting about the pictures because the level of the top of the sock with the bottom oh her nightdress and the `bottom of the rug is clearly different.

this would tie up with the two officers who said her head was in a different position when they saw her. Because if she had been pulled downwards  to take some of the shots her head may have been moved.

Now if that is true , those two officers also said the gun and bible were in a different position so perhaps their statement does have (to quote those immortal words ) a ring of truth about it.

If you tell a lie, there has to be a 'point' to the lie and as she simply stated it without making any emphasis, she really didn't see the significance in what was being said.

The pictures are just taken from a different angle. However, perhaps someone could explain why the police would move her body from it's original position by a fraction and then take another pic. Someone will be suggesting they were making an animated movie next!

[Caroline]

The original question is based on a bit of gossip off Ann Eaton so your first question should really be asking whether or not the allegation has any credibility. Jon alluded to this but you dismissed his question as irrelevant.
    If you yourself believe that Ann Eaton is capable of telling untruths then how is Jon's question irrelevant.
    Before discussing why Jeremy thought that "he would be shot too", shouldn't we first establish that he actually said those words.

No it wasn't, it was a recollection from Jeremy's original statement the day after the murders. Other people were present and it has never been disputed.

[Adam]

AE is supporting Jeremy. Giving a reason why he refused to go within 50 feet of WHF, after getting Neville's call.

Although the reason Jeremy gave AE is a weak one.

[Patti]

I think its how you read it....I'm not convinced that its a slip, simply because AE plus the police would have made a bigger point about it and in all fairness AE was a smart lady.

It could mean that when Jeremy was asked why he did not go over. His reply was gawd, it frightens me to think that I could have been lured there to be shot. It depends in what context it was said....She had remembered what he had said a month earlier, but did not go on to say that this comment had been written down on one of notes.  The comment could be interpreted incorrectly or interpreted correctly...I am not sure either way, because to me its deemed as hearsay....

[scipio_usmc]

I think that the quote came from AE - so the question about whether we believe all her statements is relevant - because we are attributing the apparent slip to what she is relaying was said. So if she is capable of telling lies how much credence can we attach to this apparent slip up?

Secondly I think it is interesting about the pictures because the level of the top of the sock with the bottom oh her nightdress and the `bottom of the rug is clearly different.

this would tie up with the two officers who said her head was in a different position when they saw her. Because if she had been pulled downwards  to take some of the shots her head may have been moved.

Now if that is true , those two officers also said the gun and bible were in a different position so perhaps their statement does have (to quote those immortal words ) a ring of truth about it.

You spend all your time spinning instead of seeking the truth objectively.

Some Police officers said that when they first looked at the photos they thought maybe things were different than they recalled but after discussing for a while they decided the photos were accurate.  You leave that part out to pretend they said things were different.

The photos show the bible sitting in a pool of blood and that pool of blood stained the part of the bible which was sitting in it which means it was like that while the blood was still wet which was well before police ever entered.  So this supports the ultimate assessment of the police that the photos were accurate.

in the meantime you also take a very biased approach with Eaton.  When she says something you like such as about the blood stained panties you say she is honest but when there is something damaging to your agenda you suggest she lies.  You decide whether she is truthful or lying solely based on whether her claims support or hurt your agenda not on any objective basis.

[Caroline]

I think its how you read it....I'm not convinced that its a slip, simply because AE plus the police would have made a bigger point about it and in all fairness AE was a smart lady.

It could mean that when Jeremy was asked why he did not go over. His reply was gawd, it frightens me to think that I could have been lured there to be shot. It depends in what context it was said....She had remembered what he had said a month earlier, but did not go on to say that this comment had been written down on one of notes.  The comment could be interpreted incorrectly or interpreted correctly...I am not sure either way, because to me its deemed as hearsay....

That's not what was said. I purposely didn't mention could have's and would have's because that's putting spin on it. But I knew someone would. What if he did say JUST that?

[lookout]

Because he'd rather have been a live coward than a dead hero-------------makes sense to me.

[Caroline]

Because he'd rather have been a live coward than a dead hero-------------makes sense to me.

At the time of the call Lookout, he wasn't supposed to know that anyone had been 'shot' but his words  indicated that he didn't want to be shot by Sheila 'too'.

[scipio_usmc]

I think its how you read it....I'm not convinced that its a slip, simply because AE plus the police would have made a bigger point about it and in all fairness AE was a smart lady.

It could mean that when Jeremy was asked why he did not go over. His reply was gawd, it frightens me to think that I could have been lured there to be shot. It depends in what context it was said....She had remembered what he had said a month earlier, but did not go on to say that this comment had been written down on one of notes.  The comment could be interpreted incorrectly or interpreted correctly...I am not sure either way, because to me its deemed as hearsay....

It amounts to what I said in my first response- he gave AE a different excuse for not rushing over than he gave to police and gave in his trial testimony.  Supporters make way too many excuses for his lack of consistency.  At trial he gave a much different account of his slow reaction.

This is a damning excuse hat he provided to AE so that is why he dropped it and didn't try to ake it at trial.  It is damning for 2 reasons beyond simply him making inconsistent claims:

1) If he was so damn worried about his own safety that he was scared to go check it out then he should have known right away that there was trouble at WHF and should have called 999 instantly not have wasted so much time calling Julie and fumbling with phone books.

2) He wanted to teach Sheila how to use the gun but she didn't want to learn. (he really just wanted to get her prints on it, he wasn't actually interested in her learning)  So she didn't know how to use the gun, never had interest in guns and was not known to ever fire any.  So claiming he was so worried about her shooting him and being too scared to go over already has problems but this goes BEYOND that and he actually deviously thought up the notion she was forcing Nevill to call in order to sucker him over. That's pretty damn clever and logical for a person supposedly having delusions and acting crazy.  That doesn't fit in with the going crazy claim. Why would he think up such a devious hing for her to be plotting?  Just from hearing she was going crazy and had a gun?  The only reason to think up such a thing is if it was something he would do.  It shows his own devious thought process.

It doesn't demonstrate he knew about the shootings prior to the bodies being discovered in the sense it would if he made the statement before the bodies were found but does illustrate a thought process that doesn't fit with what he supposedly knew and was told at the time.  Being told she was going cray and grabbed a gun doesn't help support the notion Nevill made the call to set Jeremy up that wouldn't logically cross his mind at the time.  fearing he could get hurt is one thing fearing he was being set up goes beyond the pale and would not logically be considered.  That is why he didn't repeat the claim to the authorities and at trial.  It is damning and it is even more damning because if that was his fear he should have instantly called 999.

[lookout]

At the time of the call Lookout, he wasn't supposed to know that anyone had been 'shot' but his words  indicated that he didn't want to be shot by Sheila 'too'.

Because it was a working farm,and because most,if not all farmers keep guns,it doesn't take a Philadelphia Lawyer to work out ( that a child of three can fire a gun) let alone a mentally disturbed person,so Jeremy would have naturally assumed that " Sheila " was on the rampage inside the farmhouse.
Nothing wrong in putting your thoughts before your actions ?

[Patti]

That's not what was said. I purposely didn't mention could have's and would have's because that's putting spin on it. But I knew someone would. What if he did say JUST that?

I know how it is written but I am not sure in what context it was said.  You said it yourself what if he did say just that....Well, it he had then why was this a bone of contention and why did the CPS not use this in court....He could have merely said how frightened he was that he could have been lured over there to be shot himself....He had said this after the fact.

All these statements had been read over and over prior to the trial are you really suggesting that a comment like that had been missed and 30 years on only you yourself have noticed it?  If the later is right then well done, but I doubt it had been overlooked and is now being used out of context...Its my opinion and by the way I love to spin those plates hahahahahah