Another Freudian Slip?

[Jane]

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 ?

So having "naturally assumed that Sheila was on the rampage inside the farmhouse" and not rushing over because he was "afraid that it was a trick to lure him over and Sheila would shoot him, too, he proceeds NOT to immediately call 999, but to diddle around searching for numbers to the more obscure police stations and then phoning his girlfriend. Not only does this NOT make sense, it raises the question of what little thought he gave for his father's safety if he can admit to being afraid for his own.

[Adam]

Jeremy was quite happy to arrive after the police. Insinuate Sheila. Help create a siege situation. Take a stroll around WHF, sit in a police car, draw diagrams for the police and talk about expensive cars (but only kit cars, mind).

Why ? because Neville had said 'please come over'.

[lookout]

So having "naturally assumed that Sheila was on the rampage inside the farmhouse" and not rushing over because he was "afraid that it was a trick to lure him over and Sheila would shoot him, too, he proceeds NOT to immediately call 999, but to diddle around searching for numbers to the more obscure police stations and then phoning his girlfriend. Not only does this NOT make sense, it raises the question of what little thought he gave for his father's safety if he can admit to being afraid for his own.

It really does depend on the way you look at this sort of a situation. The raid team,who were equipped to enter such situations,took their time storming in,so why does it make Jeremy any different ?

[Patti]

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.

In answer to your first point number 1.

He was not worried about his safety the police were.  At this point he was not aware of anyone being shot and neither were the police.   It was the police who arranged to meet Jeremy. Jeremy  had asked if the police would pick him up on route but they said no.

He then phoned Julie to tell her something was wrong at the farm....She told him to go back to bed.  Why would calling Julie make him a killer?

2. Where does it say that on the 6th August that he had wanted to teach Sheila how to use a gun. Its not in Jeremy's statement and there was no need to have her prints on the rifle for if he had thought this then he would have ensured that all her prints were over the rifle when he was supposed to have organised it a suicide.

No one needs demonstrations on how to use guns its not rocket science and she was an adult who had be raised on a farm, a farm which in its daily life used guns. Are you telling me she never saw her father use a gun or she never saw any other person use a gun even though Sheila and Colin had been beaters up on a shot in Scotland?

Jeremy has never used the fact that he could have lured to WHF this would mean that his father was forced at gunpoint....and that is not what Jeremy had said and no one has ever said it....

We are talking 1985 there was no reason for dailing 999 when all he had to do was call his local nick. Even if he had called 999 whose headquarters were next door to the nick it would have made no difference to the time any officers arrived at the scene....none at all. 

[Adam]

In answer to your first point number 1.

He was not worried about his safety the police were.  At this point he was not aware of anyone being shot and neither were the police.   It was the police who arranged to meet Jeremy. Jeremy  had asked if the police would pick him up on route but they said no.

He then phoned Julie to tell her something was wrong at the farm....She told him to go back to bed.  Why would calling Julie make him a killer?

2. Where does it say that on the 6th August that he had wanted to teach Sheila how to use a gun. Its not in Jeremy's statement and there was no need to have her prints on the rifle for if he had thought this then he would have ensured that all her prints were over the rifle when he was supposed to have organised it a suicide.

No one needs demonstrations on how to use guns its not rocket science and she was an adult who had be raised on a farm, a farm which in its daily life used guns. Are you telling me she never saw her father use a gun or she never saw any other person use a gun even though Sheila and Colin had been beaters up on a shot in Scotland?

Jeremy has never used the fact that he could have lured to WHF this would mean that his father was forced at gunpoint....and that is not what Jeremy had said and no one has ever said it....

We are talking 1985 there was no reason for dailing 999 when all he had to do was call his local nick. Even if he had called 999 whose headquarters were next door to the nick it would have made no difference to the time any officers arrived at the scene....none at all.

How do you think Sheila committed the massacre ?

Obviously all but two shots need to be from inches away. There needs to be two re loads, a brutal fight and one/two phone calls.

[Jane]

It really does depend on the way you look at this sort of a situation. The raid team,who were equipped to enter such situations,took their time storming in,so why does it make Jeremy any different ?

They MAY have taken there time going in from an outsiders viewpoint, but they were there. It took Jeremy nearly an hour from Nevill's alleged call.

[lookout]

They MAY have taken there time going in from an outsiders viewpoint, but they were there.




It took Jeremy nearly an hour from Nevill's alleged call.

??

[Jan]

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 ?

If you read the evidence from the police statements he did not appear frantic or panicked when he first called - but when they took their time he did become increasingly agitated and cross that they were taking so long.

So if he was guilty - why would that be - there was no rush for them to get there as they could of ( as far as he knew ) established a time of death if they had gone straight in ? They were all dead , he had "set the scene" so no rush really .

But if he was innocent , when he got the call half asleep and confused , probably not sure if his father did want him to call the police or not - what should he do ? Then realisation may have slowly sunk in and then perhaps he got agitated thinking it could be worse than he had first thought , perhaps his father had sounded panicked , why could he not get back through to him ?

You are right in the call he never said a shot had been fired ( not exactly setting a siege situation then)  But perhaps in retrospect he thought more about what might be happening.

[Caroline]

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

In what context? the context is clear, she asked why he didn't over to WHF as requested. Not sure what the confusion is? The statement in question isn't written as though it were 'after the fact'? . If he had said 'good thing I didn't go over, it could have been a trick to lure me there ........' but that's not how AE repeated it.

A comment like that was missed? You missed it, others missed it - basically, it was missed. You're right, it is being used out of context because you're trying to alter the context even though you're suggesting the context is confusing? Good luck with the plate spinning - don't drop the ball! 

[Caroline]

In answer to your first point number 1.

He was not worried about his safety the police were.  At this point he was not aware of anyone being shot and neither were the police.   It was the police who arranged to meet Jeremy. Jeremy  had asked if the police would pick him up on route but they said no.

He then phoned Julie to tell her something was wrong at the farm....She told him to go back to bed.  Why would calling Julie make him a killer?

2. Where does it say that on the 6th August that he had wanted to teach Sheila how to use a gun. Its not in Jeremy's statement and there was no need to have her prints on the rifle for if he had thought this then he would have ensured that all her prints were over the rifle when he was supposed to have organised it a suicide.

No one needs demonstrations on how to use guns its not rocket science and she was an adult who had be raised on a farm, a farm which in its daily life used guns. Are you telling me she never saw her father use a gun or she never saw any other person use a gun even though Sheila and Colin had been beaters up on a shot in Scotland?

Jeremy has never used the fact that he could have lured to WHF this would mean that his father was forced at gunpoint....and that is not what Jeremy had said and no one has ever said it....

We are talking 1985 there was no reason for dailing 999 when all he had to do was call his local nick. Even if he had called 999 whose headquarters were next door to the nick it would have made no difference to the time any officers arrived at the scene....none at all.

And yet, he said he was!

[Reader]

AE's comments are fabrication, and that's probably why they weren't used at the trial. For example, "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by looking at his watch." That's clearly nonsense, and is incompatible with Pc West's evidence. It's possible that this story was invented by the police. Obviously, most of AE's information must have come from the police, as some remarks attributed to Jeremy wouldn't have made sense if spoken directly to AE. In any case, Jeremy obviously didn't use his watch to time the police.

[Caroline]

If you read the evidence from the police statements he did not appear frantic or panicked when he first called - but when they took their time he did become increasingly agitated and cross that they were taking so long.

So if he was guilty - why would that be - there was no rush for them to get there as they could of ( as far as he knew ) established a time of death if they had gone straight in ? They were all dead , he had "set the scene" so no rush really .

But if he was innocent , when he got the call half asleep and confused , probably not sure if his father did want him to call the police or not - what should he do ? Then realisation may have slowly sunk in and then perhaps he got agitated thinking it could be worse than he had first thought , perhaps his father had sounded panicked , why could he not get back through to him ?

You are right in the call he never said a shot had been fired ( not exactly setting a siege situation then)  But perhaps in retrospect he thought more about what might be happening.

Well, his father asked him to come over so maybe he should have done that? What he shouldn't have done (if you believe the timings he NOW gives) is sit there for 26 mins doing SFA.

[Caroline]

AE's comments are fabrication, and that's probably why they weren't used at the trial. For example, "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by looking at his watch." That's clearly nonsense, and is incompatible with Pc West's evidence. It's possible that this story was invented by the police. Obviously, most of AE's information must have come from the police, as some remarks attributed to Jeremy wouldn't have made sense if spoken directly to AE. In any case, Jeremy obviously didn't use his watch to time the police.

Really? And you know this because? This has never been disputed by Jeremy! Of course, the police invented it, just like they made plans to frame Jeremy by not telling him of Neville's call - just on the off-chance they needed a patsy! 

[Adam]

AE's comments are fabrication, and that's probably why they weren't used at the trial. For example, "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by looking at his watch." That's clearly nonsense, and is incompatible with Pc West's evidence. It's possible that this story was invented by the police. Obviously, most of AE's information must have come from the police, as some remarks attributed to Jeremy wouldn't have made sense if spoken directly to AE. In any case, Jeremy obviously didn't use his watch to time the police.

Jeremy testified his phone call to the police was five minutes.

I always thought that was optimistic. Eleven minutes is more plausible. But that means he would not leave his cottage until at the earliest 3.47am.

[Jane]

AE's comments are fabrication, and that's probably why they weren't used at the trial. For example, "Jeremy told the police that he had timed the police action to his call as 11 minutes by looking at his watch." That's clearly nonsense, and is incompatible with Pc West's evidence. It's possible that this story was invented by the police. Obviously, most of AE's information must have come from the police, as some remarks attributed to Jeremy wouldn't have made sense if spoken directly to AE. In any case, Jeremy obviously didn't use his watch to time the police.

Does that mean that you're in a position to know categorically, not only that AE lied, but all police personnel attached to the case, which resulted in forensics having to lie. This is what I construe as nonsense and it started where a decision was allegedly made to withhold the information about Nevill's alleged call to Jeremy just in case they wanted to frame him at a later date.Just LOOK at what was achieved by that one itsy bitsy lie and tell me it makes ANY kind of sense.